Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021: Fix infobox
 | This edit request to Lord Voldemort has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The infobox appears to be ill-formatted. I believe it should be changed from:
Infoboxes for edit request
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
}} 2601:647:6000:3D0:28B8:4C9:B7F8:9837 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Partly done: I just removed two extra curly brackets that were breaking the format, which preserves the image (which was not in this request edit whoops, looks like a bot just removed it haha 12:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)). Thanks for noticing! ASUKITE 12:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Are Delphini and Cursed Child canon?
User:B.Davis2003 continues to remove Delphini from the infobox under Voldemort's children, stating that it is not Canon. However, J. K. Rowling herself confirmed on Twitter that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is canon, see https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/is-harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-canon/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20controversial%20status%20among,was%20canon%2C%20despite%20its%20authorship. Can we get some consensus on this? I believe we should consider it Canon. Nerguy (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- All the official sources consider it canon (Pottermore/Wizarding World and Rowling herself), so I don't see any reason why @B.Davis2003: would claim it isn't, apart from "WP:IDONTLIKE". SSSB (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is not based within the core story that was and ONLY is the 7 books written by JK herself. Yes she gave permission for the pay, but that play does nothing but contradicts the very foundations of the core material. Twitter is also not considered a reliable source. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @B.Davis2003: Twitter is a perfectly acceptable source in this case, see WP:TWITTER. So that reduces your argument to "It doesn't make sense to me." which is not a valid arguemnt. SSSB (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Look Davis, I get you. I understand not liking it being canon and all the contradictions it has, but if it is canon according to the author of the books, and she wrote or participated in its writing, then it seems it's canon. You can ultimately ignore it in your life, and personally consider it not canon, as can I or any other fans who don't like it. But, I will also say, being a different medium, we could still go the route we go with the films, which is having them separately. We can just include the books' information in the infobox, just include the books' events in the fictional biography section, and then, just as we currently do, have Appearances in other material for the play, although, being the only "other material" mentioned there, it could have a more precise name. —El Millo (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is not based within the core story that was and ONLY is the 7 books written by JK herself. Yes she gave permission for the pay, but that play does nothing but contradicts the very foundations of the core material. Twitter is also not considered a reliable source. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)