Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is part of the Harry Potter novels series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Points to Consider[edit]

Does the point of comparing CoS to Redwall really need to be included? Each part of their respective stories that are about snakes like are obviously influenced by the Perseus/Medusa story, right? -- Hollerama 08 July 2006

About the Ancestor instead of descendant part, I've seen the word Ancestor used for a person that was a descendant on several occasions. I don't know the exact definition of the word (And I'm too lazy to look it up,) and I know the majority of people seem to use it only for those that came before, but it might be that it also means descendants. Meaning, basicly, it means people of the same family. I don't know though, so I won't change anything. Gopherbassist 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline[edit]

There is no storyline or anything here. Someone really ought to add on. All the other Harry Potter books' articles have more.

Feel free to add it. It would be better to add material to existing Harry Potter articles than to create tiny articles about every place name and spell in the books. Please see your talk page. -- Someone else 06:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It takes a lot of work to write these pages. I was merly suggesting that purhaps I shouldn't do all the work. -- User:12.203.10.240
While your enthusiasm is certainly astonishing, creating so many short articles has already caused people to start combining them, and not always in the best possible way. Your efforts would be better directed to making longer, more inclusive, articles rather than articles on every object, spell or place mentioned in Harry Potter. This has been mentioned numerous times on your talk page. -- Someone else 07:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I deleted the rest of this article, because it was a describtion of the Chamber of Secrets.

The Plot[edit]

As I have noted on Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Harry Potter Madness, the spoiler is far too long. But it doesn't seem to be very accurate either (I am currently fixing errors). Brianjd


Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I swapped the text here with the much shorter overview of the plot in Harry Potter (plot). Is this better? - Alex Nisnevich (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for a plot summary so long it can't go in this page. The one at Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Full Plot Summary needs to be condensed and joined with this one. For discussion on the issue with book 6, see Book 6's VfD and discussions at: MoS, Village Pump, What Wikipedia Is Not, and Wikipedia Fiction Guidlines.

I'd like the full plot summary page deleted as well as any other books' full plot summaries. I have started a plan here to drop all wordy pages and relink to the new HP Wikibook that another user created. Any problems? -Matt 23:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Full plot sumamry moved to the Wikibook and is voting for deletino now. -Matt 18:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be spoilers in the page that need to be removed from inappropriate sections. -Matt 18:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i think there might be problems. I just re-edited the plot summary here so it is more readable and makes a bit more sense in the story it is telling. But looking back at the earlier summaries which are many times its length, i have to think that some important details have been left out. There also seem a few contradictions between versions which have crept in. It is no good just referring people to a truly mammoth summary on wikibooks when what they want is something in-between. Sandpiper 00:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a newer Plot Overview edit. Yes, there are still important details that might be missing, but I hope we're closer to having the most direct summary, and having the flow of events clearer without adding in every single scene. Further edits would be appreciated. Cybertooth85 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the plot summary and have already noticed several mistakes - has the person who wrote it read the book thoroughly?? - Stacey 28/08/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.148.160 (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting a house-elf free[edit]

See Talk:House-elf#Setting a house-elf free (it has a reference to this article). Brian Jason Drake 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The Brazilian and French covers do not belong on the English page. They should be on the French and Portuguese Wikipedia equivalents. It might be good for someone to add the British adult cover, however. --Phi*n!x 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why don't they belong? I always find it interesting to see foreign translations of book and album covers. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points to Consider[edit]

I removed a line from "Points to Consider" that was specifically stating a little detail in the movie, which hardly belongs here. If anyone objects, please reply, but I see no reason that it should be left in. If you're curious, the line was "When Harry and Ron exit the Slytherin common room (as Crabbe and Goyle), Ron's bangs aren't red, as they were when Harry and Ron transforming back into themselves, while talking to Draco." -Nyx 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points to Consider: Voldemort's Line[edit]

I've traced back the "point" that some versions of the book have reversed the ancestry/descendent mistake to 5 Jan 2004 by an unregistered user whose IP hasn't been seen on Wikipedia for over three years. A quick look shows that the original addition contains misspellings. I'm wondering, does anyone have one of these "reversed" editions, or are there any sources to back up this statement? If not, I doubt it's verifiable and should be removed. (Since Mugglenet says nothing of the like, I am assuming there are no sources to back this up. Therefore, I have indeed removed it). --Crushti 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

avada kedavra?[edit]

when i watch CoS on DVD, lucius' spell is captioned as "vera...." this could be parseltongue, but i don't think it was AVADA KEDAVRA. AK is meant to be performed fast; plus, i think, for the same reasons as snape mentions in HBP, that voldy would get pissed off if harry was killed too soon (plus not being by his hand). 64.91.201.195 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he probobly would be angry. But then agian, everyone knew about Norbert in PS/SS movie, and the Ministry of Magic didn't do anything to Hagrid (but then agian, since when have they EVER done anything right?). And what was with Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Hagrid just randomly taking a stroll through the (dangerous) forest that's supposed to be off-limits in GoF? In short, the movies don't apply the same rules as the books. And he clearly did say "Avada" in the movie. Keyblade Mage 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage[reply]

So very much after the last comment, but for anyone seeing this now, he DID begin to say the killing curse - Isaacs was told to say a curse and that was the first one that came to his mind on the spot. If this should be added to the article I can find the source, but maybe it is better just here? 94.175.97.87 (talk) Lordloss210 —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Tom Riddles diary[edit]

The article is a regurgitation of the plot of chamber of secrets, and has no notability outside of it, so it should be redirected here. Judgesurreal777 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a slight bt of notability with it being a Horcrux, but it does deserve the merge. Or, it's probably easier (for clarity purposes in this article) to just convert the whole article to a redirect. Actually, could we merge with Horcrux? Or Voldemort? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be merged with Horcrux. faithless (speak) 04:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets go with Horcrux instead. Judgesurreal777 05:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here. I agree to the move of the diary to Horocrux. Keyblade Mage 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage[reply]

Fawkes saving Harry[edit]

In the article, it said that Fawkes saved Harry after he destroyed the diary. This is wrong, it happened the other way around. I think the person who wrote that is confused with the movie, in which the things happen that way. However, this article is about the book, not the film. I've corrected this. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fawkes saves Harry before he destroys the diary in the movie too. He pecks out the eyes of the basilisk. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Fawkes does peck the basilisk's eyes in the movie but saves Harry with his tears after he has destroyed the diary. In the book, Fawkes saves Harry with his tears, then destroys the diary. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Been a while since I've seen the movie or read the book. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Davis' comment that Chambers of Secrets is the weakest link in the series, with one of the excuses being that there is no explanation for how Faweks knew why, how and where to find Harry, is not justified. Dumbledore explans it to Harry later in his office, that showing exceptional loyalty to Dumbledore in the Chamber is what called Fawkes to his rescue. The comment was not warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvi D. Shetty (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixed incorrect indentation. --Philcha (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Time frame[edit]

Philosopher's Stone gives no indication as to what year it takes place. This book, however, establishes 1992. Since the infoboxes for this series give timeframes for the books, I think it's important to establish which book first allowed a calendar date to be calculated, so I have added this information. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable to me to mention which book established the dates, but I'll let others weigh in before changing anything. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem like there is any point to establish when the book takes place because in my mind it does not make a difference. Mostly because the wizarding world does not use and cannot use electronics and that is probably the most significant showing of time passing. This all to say if someone were to read the book in 2021 they would not notice that the book was suppose to take place in 1992.Liebecon (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & notes[edit]

Development[edit]

  • J. K. Rowling ch "Pottermania": trouble finishing Chamber; took draft back for revision for 6 wks (may link to discrepancies in printings); worried it wouldn't live up; hear that 2nd book is hardest to write expectatons (p 77); took top spot in UK bestsellers at expense of Grisham and Clancy (p 78)

Book reviews[edit]

Awards[edit]

  • Crossover Fiction - 1st author to win British Book Awards Children's Book Award 2 yrs running; #1 in over h/b bestsellers in UK for a month;

Commentary[edit]

Film[edit]

(NB in film HP stab diary before Fawkes heals him) (check aggregators)

  • SF Site - News: 25 March 2003 - the second film in the series, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" has become only the third film to surpass $600 million in the international box office (following "Titanic" and "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone")

Game(s)[edit]

(check aggregators)

Music for video game(s)[edit]

Until my recent edit the relevant section said (still there but commented out):

The musical score for the game, created by Jeremy Soule, was awarded a BAFTA Award for Best Score, Game Music Category.[1]

This text is not specific about which version(s) - to which does it apply? --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Berghammer, Billy (10/21/2005). "Jeremy Soule Returns To Score Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion". Game Informer Magazine. Retrieved 2009-07-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Lead[edit]

Copy of comments posted to me:

You say that the lead "summarizes the text" which has citation. Where in the article does it mention anywhere that "Commentators noted that personal identity is a strong theme..."? What reference mentions that? Or is someone paraphrasing an actual source and offering their opinion on what commentators have noted? And can you point me to a GA article on a book that includes so much in the lead paragraph? Take a look at The Grapes of Wrath or War and Peace. Even The Lord of the Rings mentions that many critical and analytical works have been written about it, but the lead does not contain details about what those criticisms were. That's the way a lead in an article should be written. Ccrashh (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

  • [[The Grapes of Wrath]] is start-class; War and Peace and The Lord of the Rings are B-class. In other words none of these is valid as a precedent or model.
  • WP:LEAD requires a short summary of the main text. In this article, that would include themes that are widely or heavily emphasised. I would consider the lead deficient if it gave no idea of what the most significant themes are.
  • The "criticism and themes" para of the lead is brief, indicating what's to come without going into all the details.
  • Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1 raised no issues about the "criticism and themes" para of the lead. --Philcha (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So maybe the Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1 should talk about the lead. It appears clumsy and awkward. This lead is more than a short summary. It has too many specific examples - i.e details - of what is mentioned later on (Harry shows respect to nonhumans, Gilderoy is vain, etc). Are you actually proposing that the HP articles are closer to being a GA than other more established ones? Can you give me an example of a GA for a book? Stating that there are criticism and analytical works that touch on the book's themes, and on what themes, is sufficient for a lead. It shouldn't have whole paragraphs devoted to specific examples.
I would reword that one paragraph as follows:
Several commentators have noted that personal identity is a strong theme in the book, and that it addresses issues of racism through the treatment of non-magical, non-human and non-living characters. Some commentators regard the diary as a warning against uncritical acceptance of information from sources whose motives and reliability cannot be checked. Institutional authority is portrayed as self-serving and incompetent.
In that way, the lead retains the summary of the text, without cramming in a plethora of specific examples. Ccrashh (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, edit it in. It's much better than removing the whole para, especially with the edit summary you used when doing that. --Philcha (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh..okay. Thanks. Ccrashh (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

At the GA review we had a long discussion about the plot summary, which is fairly long. If we tried to summarise every aspect of the story it would be at least 50% longer. We concluded that the best approach was to give a coherent of the main sequnce of events that gets the main characters to the conclusion of the story. Other aspects mentioned by commentators were summarised in the "Reception" and "Themes" sections, including Harry's relationship with Dobby. Hence Dobby did not make the cut in the plot summary. Riddle's anagram "I am Lord Voldemort" is just play on words, that has no influence on events. Hence I am reverting:

Background[edit]

I have removed this section detailing the background leading up to this book. Anyone who wishes to have this information can read the synopses of the other pages, there is no need to repeat it here Sage1314 (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it:
  • No problems about this section at the GA review, where 3 particpants where agreed on this.
  • IIRC there's a guideline somewhere that articles should be as free-standing as possible. W/o the "Background" section, who's this Harry Potter person? --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lack of consistency I find objectionable. Either every single wikipedia aerticle about a book in a series should have a plot summary, or none of them should, and there isn't even full consistency in the Harry Potter articles. Three of them have these background summaries, the others do not. And GA status doesn't mean it's set in stone - if the article can be improved upon, it should be, and I don't think lengthy summaries of the plots of previous books help this article r any of the others in any way. -- Sage1314 (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In those that are GAs (all recent) there are sections titled "Background" or "Plot introduction" - except for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where the early dialogue between Dumbledore & MacGonnagal serves this function. I suggest:
  • Absolute consistency may not be desirable, see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
  • The other lower-graded articles may need a background section. Perhaps you could check these articles and the books they describe, and add "Background" or "Plot introduction" sections as needed. --Philcha (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot again[edit]

The recent change to the plot omits a crucial point, "A few days later, Ron and Harry discover a piece of paper with a description of a basilisk, a giant serpent that kills all who look it directly in the eye, in Hermione's frozen hand. They deduce the Chamber monster is a basilisk, since as a snake, it would be able to understand Parseltongue." Hermione solved the case, and survived by looking through a looking glass. She also realised that the monster was a serpent as she already knew that Harry was a Parseltongue. Books 1 and 2 are detective story, unlike the other books, and this makes the story complex. In addition, Rowling gives sleepers (leads) that are only resolved in books 6 and 7. Please see Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and the GA review there. I would be happy to work with you on making the plot summary, and suggest setting up a user subpage to tryy out ideas - your subpage or my, you choice. --?

I changed it to what it had been a while ago, where it was more concise and wikified, trying to keep it up to its GA standards. I did not actually read it. Could we change it back and just add that sentence? Glimmer721 talk 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head portion should be under plot[edit]

I am seeing that the head portion gets somewhat into plot. Wouldn't it go better under plot? It quotes, "The plot follows Harry's second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, during which a series of messages on the walls on the school's corridors warn that the "Chamber of Secrets" has been opened and that the "heir of Slytherin" would kill all pupils who do not come from all-magical families. These threats are followed by attacks which leave residents of the school "petrified" (that is, frozen). Throughout the year, Harry and his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger investigate the attacks, and Harry is confronted by Tom Riddle, later known as Lord Voldemort, who is attempting to regain full power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themes section and Original Research[edit]

The "Themes" section appears to come pretty close to original research. There is lots of analysis cited, but the main points at the beginning of each paragraph aren't sourced explicitly, only the supporting points. I spot-checked one or two, but there are a lot of sources to wade through. Has anyone taken a closer look at this to make sure everything is ok? --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JustinC7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JustinC7.

— Assignment last updated by JustinC7 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesia in Harry Potter[edit]

Hi all, I decided to add a section on amnesia, which is what Professor Lockhart suffered from. I'm part of a cognitive psychology course that has students edit Wikipedia for its final project. I love Harry Potter and thought it would be neat to add this here, since what happens to Lockhart is related to a topic we covered in class. I tried to do everything properly but if I've gone about this all wrong or if what I added doesn't quite belong, feel free to remove it and/or give feedback. On the other hand, feel free to add onto it if you'd like! JustinC7 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't belong as it doesn't provide any encyclopedic value as just a recount of what happens in the books. Even with more than that, it would constitute undue weight within this article to give its own section to amnesia. I'd recommend going to an article that's about amnesia or any other subject more closely related to cognitive psychology, where you could make valuable additions. —El Millo (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; thanks for the feedback! JustinC7 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets&oldid=1207561347"