Talk:Harry Potter and the Cursed Child/Archive 1

Archive 1

Age Limit

It has now been added several times that play is recommended for teenagers age 12 and up, (with a minimum suggested age of 10 and up. The plays official website states The show is suitable for ages 10 and up. It does not mention teenagers. Why this may be correct a source must be added for this before it can be changed. As for babes in arms, its clearly theatres terms and conditions that everyone entering a theatre regardless of age must have a ticket. This is a standard term and condition and there is nothing notable about it, therefore it should not be included in the article.Blethering Scot 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have directed various Ip users here for discussion. Please note In addition to the Official website The London theatre site also says 10 up. Blethering Scot 21:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I had gone on a london theater blog by Lotte Hines, who purportedly worked on the production, and it said that the show was likely to be suitable for "teens and their families." I haven't been able to find the site since, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.9.65 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

? Paragraph

Its my opinion that the final paragraph of the background section should be deleted as it is entirely repetitious of info given in previous paragraphs. I would have done it but it contained cites and thought I should bring it up here first. Selene Scott (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hermione comment

There has been an edit stating that Rowling's tweet (which clarified that Hermione's race is never canonically specified) is incorrect, citing a quote from PoA about Hermione's "white face." My interpretation of that comment is that she was pale, not particularly white, but that's besides the point. Should this comment be removed? -Rmaynardjr (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There probably should be some mention, that the casting caused controversy. Plenty of reliable sources to do that, however the comment as it ways was original research and you could interpret it in multiple ways.Blethering Scot 16:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I added that. JK Rowling, the original author, creator and God of all the Harry Potter world said she never stated Hermione is white. As I said in the hidden text, if you believe Hermione is white, that is interpretation and if edited to mention this 'white face' comment can be viewed as Original Research. Charlr6 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research when its discussed in reliable sources and it is. The controversy should be covered but only using reliable sources and not using the book V Rowling. Its one that needs written wisely but not something that should be excluded altogether, the hidden note isn't entirely helpful. The way its written now is very weak.Blethering Scot 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what sources say something as such "Hermione is and has always been white because of this 'white face' comment made in this book in this chapter on this page....". JK Rowling has stated, the original author, creator and God of this world that she never specifically detailed Hermione's skin colour. That line in the book to me was clearly always a description about her reaction, and not skin colour. But to others, it will be skin colour. That is interpretation, and if some article (even if reliable) mentions this, that would be interpretation by that journalist. However, your mention of it being badly written, is the very reason I deleted it in the first place, because the line as written on the page was a form of interpretation, and more of an obvious opinion by editor, instead of a neutral view and just quoting and referencing a possible reliable source. Charlr6 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you keep referring to Rowling as creator and God. She may have wrote the book's and yes her interpretation of what she wrote is highly relevant, but simply because she states something doesn't mean there wasn't a controversy or that others interpret her words differently. Nobody is saying the article has to go into detail regarding exact extracts or even mention white face, but it should be covered and covered well with reliable sources. At present were using a twitter source. Hardly great. And to say sources are irrelevant when highly reliable sources have covered the stories using facts, not opinion is utter nonsense.Blethering Scot 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Harry's Childhood Pre-Hogwarts

The production news for this play is unbelievably confusing. J.K. Rowling initially announced through her official Facebook page on 30 December 2013 that this play was meant to be about Harry's time with the Dursleys, pre-Hogwarts (not a prequel, of course as this would have been between Chapters 1 and 2 of Philosopher's Stone). Then suddenly, as of 2015, the play switched gears to focus on the trio and Albus Potter 19 years later. Glimpses of Harry's early years may still be included, though that it no long the main focus as initially promised. I don't know why or when the production team settled on this decision, contradicting everything released prior to what the play is now, though whatever the case, should this not be included in the article? --76.0.226.234 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/10/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-spoilers-here-s-the-plot-of-the-play.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. PhageRules1 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers?

Rowling requested that fans who are seeing early screenings not spoil the plot of the play. A user has added what appears to be the full plot to the page (I'll admit, I didn't read it... I don't want the play to be spoiled for me!) Does Wikipedia have a policy about this? Given that the play is still in a very limited release and the plot isn't finalized yet, should this section be removed? I'm honestly not sure. -RM (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Spoiler plots should not be withheld just because they are "spoilers". At the end of the day, it's up to people to decide if they want to read or not. MisterShiney ✉ 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Article update

Rather than wait to see if I get reverted again, I'm just going to pre-emptively post here that it is stupid for the article to say that something that has already happened is "scheduled to happen" on a date that is in the past, and if my attempt to correct that is reverted again, I encourage someone else to fix it, because I'm not going to come back and check nor will I make any more attempts to comply with Blethering Scot's idiosyncracies. I spent years contributing under an account, with many thousands of edits to my credit, and I quit because too many efforts to fix simple, obvious issues led to idiocy like this. 97.65.49.168 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No one cares less whether you edited as an account. Although if you have one you should be using one, not socking. As for your edits, you were removing encycolpedic content and when you play nice like your latest edit you won't get reverted. In short if you cant handle the heat, maybe get out of the kitchen.Blethering Scot 20:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rowling's thoughts on eighth chapter

I thought back in February Rowling stated that this is not the "official eighth chapter" in the series. [1] Shouldn't we change that? Irishlady85 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't say that it's not the official eighth chapter, she just says that it's not a novel. —Flax5 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the entire 'Plot' section vandalism?

Having read the plot synopsis currently displayed (as of nearly 7pm, 11th June 2016), I find it so ridiculous that it's hard to believe it's real. Has the page been vandalised with bad information, or has the canonical storyline of the Harry Potter universe merely taken an extremely... interesting turn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorsiaReservationHotline (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not see a plot section now, only the synopsis released by the producers long ago. All if fine in my estimation. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

New title for this thread: Official Site for the Play and the BBC confirm a single author of script

Every article I find says that John Tiffany is also one of the writers, based on a story by Rowling except for an older bit of info: https://www.pottermore.com/cursed-child

However, Pottermore, the publishing house owned by Rowling also confirms three authors. Direct quote from publisher: A new play based on an original story by J.K. Rowling, Jack Thorne and John Tiffany

The book is the script and the book stores also show Tiffany as an author, as well as Rowling. https://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Cursed-Child-Production/dp/1338099132 AND http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-parts-i-ii-j-k-rowling/1123463689?ean=9781338099133

Same in Canada: https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/harry-potter-and-the-cursed/9781338099133-item.html?ref=shop%3akids%3akids-books-bestsellers-youngreaders%3abestselling-books-for-young-readers%3a1%3a

so I have revised it. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I revised the text to indicate a single playwright, Thorne, as now confirmed by the official Web site for the play (http://www.harrypottertheplay.com/) and the BBC (http://www.harrypottertheplay.com/ The play, written by Jack Thorne, is set 19 years after the seventh and final book in the series by JK Rowling.) as well as reviews in publications such as The Guardian today. (https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/jul/26/harry-potter-cursed-child-review-palace-theatre-london What we have is a brand new work by Jack Thorne based on an original story by himself, Tiffany and JK Rowling)

Hence I changed the title of this thread.

Yes, I was the one who had previously found highly reliable sources claiming three authors, but since then, that information has been clarified. Hence, I edited the article accordingly. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we add more about the play from the Reviews?

Reviews published today provide more information than our article does. Except for a short section about them, we have not added info from the Reviews.

e.g. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/jul/26/harry-potter-cursed-child-review-palace-theatre-london It is also clear that the story is going to take an unusual turn. Harry’s son, Albus, is an isolated, unpopular kid living under the shadow of a famous dad. His one true friend is Scorpius Malfoy, the son of his father’s arch enemy, Draco. But is Albus, as Harry suspects, an innocent dupe? And is there any truth in the rumour that the blond Scorpius, who looks like a thinner, adolescent Boris Johnson, is really the child of the dark wizard, Lord Voldemort?

I will disclose little more except to say that the two plays rely heavily on a knowledge of the fourth book, The Goblet of Fire, in which Cedric Diggory was killed during the Triwizard Tournament and Harry escaped. But what struck me was how Thorne, like Rowling, knits together a series of mythical strands. There is the quest motif, which is as old as Arthurian legend. There is the idea of time travel, which has been a standard part of sci-fi from HG Wells to Doctor Who. On top of that you have a Manichean world in which good and evil are locked in perpetual combat. Underlying all that is a mix of white magic and Christian theology that leads Harry to say, at one point, “A child died to save the world.”

... much of the story revolves around the adult Harry’s angst at his past actions and Albus’s need to prevail over his father. But, just as things start to get a bit heavy, Thorne adds a touch of leavening humour and reminds us that a smile is as good as a myth. At one point, Scorpius reminds us, with a smirk of self-congratulation, that “It’s time the Time-Turner became a thing of the past.”

I suppose that makes sense (not to add to the article yet); the Reviews are not spoilers per se, but perhaps we should wait until the official opening before adding more specifics. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Plot Hole

There is a major plot hole in the book. Delphi is Voldemort's child by Bellatrix Lestrange. According to the book, Delphi was born before the Battle of Hogwarts while she was isolated in Malfoy Manor. She obviously couldn't have had the child after the Battle of Hogwarts, where she was killed. Sometime between Easter 1998 (visit to Xeno Lovegood) and May 2, 1998 (The Battle of Hogwarts, J.K. Rowling), Harry, Ron, and Hermione, were captured and taken to Malfoy Manor. Bellatrix may have or may not have been pregnant during that time frame, but if she was Harry, Ron, and Hermione would have known about a baby. More importantly, Draco was in Malfoy Manor several times during the 7th book, which is when Bellatrix would have been pregnant and he should have also known about Delphe and according to Cursed Child he has no knowledge of her. At the very least, Narcissa and Lucius would have known and told Draco, but this is never addressed. This is obviously original research and I don't have all the time I need to do the real research, but wanted to bring it up in the Talk section. I'm not even sure if it needs to be in the article at all, but it feels like a pretty big plot hole to me and should be addressed. Maybe with the future edits and re-writes of Cursed Child, the writers will address this problem. Seanpatt42 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was... Magic? Kid Bugs (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Longer Plot Description

I think the longer plot description (see history) is more appropriate because it acknowledges the play is split into acts (relevant) and is detailed enough to expresses the themes of the play (importance of school relationships, the need to let the past go). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceInnovader (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

Hi Flax5, this is common across many Wikipedia entries of newly released works. Please stop removing it because your justification isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia Civility WP:CIV. It is common and courteous to include a warning.--MattyMetalFan (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not used at all. See WP:SPOILERS, which is an extension of WP:NODISCLAIMERS. clpo13_(talk) 15:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how often you visit Wikipedia, but spoiler warnings were phased out entirely nearly a decade ago. If you don't want to know how a story turns out, then you shouldn't look it up online, it's as simple as that. —Flax5 15:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Math

"The play is set nineteen years after the conclusion of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"

Shouldn't it be still 9 years?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.54.196 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nineteen is correct, per reliable sources such as this one.Blethering Scot 19:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume it's meant to be 19 years after the "main story" of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, not 19 years after the epilogue? Otherwise Albus Potter would already be an adult himself. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct. --194.76.232.188 (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence of Act II plot summary is not supported by the Special Rehearsal Edition Script.

The last sentence of Act II plot summary is not supported by the Special Rehearsal Edition Script. I haven't seen the play itself, which may have changed on this point since, but someone might want to delete that last sentence. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

When Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is mentioned in the article twice, it should include the other published title of the book and movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Any article reader who knows only the title Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone might perceive the title Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as an article error.

• A devastated Hagrid arrives at the scene to bring baby Harry to the Dursleys, sparking the events of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
• A devastated Hagrid arrives at the scene to bring baby Harry to the Dursleys, sparking the events of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone).

• On 26 June 2015, the project was officially confirmed under the title of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child,[13] and it was revealed it would receive its world premiere in mid-2016 at London's Palace Theatre.[14] The announcement marked the eighteenth anniversary of the publication of the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone,[15] published on 26 June 1997.[16]
• On 26 June 2015, the project was officially confirmed under the title of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child,[13] and it was revealed it would receive its world premiere in mid-2016 at London's Palace Theatre.[14] The announcement marked the eighteenth anniversary of the publication of the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone),[15] published on 26 June 1997.[16]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the first novel in the Harry Potter series and J. K. Rowling's debut novel, first published in 1997 by Bloomsbury. It was published in the United States as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by Scholastic Corporation in 1998.Link to book; https://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Sorcerers-Stone-Rowling/dp/059035342X

Mjcarpenter2010 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The article of that book is already linked which explains the alternative title. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

Harry Potter's last line is " you thought it is going to be a bad day." not "I think it is going to be a bad day."

Arclooney (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out the mistake! —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception section.

The reception section makes repeated references to a newspaper called the Evening Standard. This is a former name for the London Evening Standard, which has not used the previous name for nearly a decade. Should references be corrected? Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Response within the HP Fandom

I believe that a "Response within Harry Potter Fandom" section should be added alongside the critics reviews. The response within the fandom has overall been mixed to poor. Adding this information would give a more accurate perception of Cursed Child. Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4 source 5 Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Source 1 is a blog and not a reliable secondary source. I am not so sure about Source 2, having never heard or seen it before, it would depend on their reputation and editorial oversight. The rest of the sources seem OK. Please don't use 1 or 2 in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Source 2 appears to be from Inverse, an online magazine founded by the founder of Bleacher Report, and geared toward millennials. It appears to be reputable, However, I'll let others on the page discuss. I plan to edit the wikipage using the 3 sources. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

What is a "reliable source" when it comes to reviews? It doesn't make sense to say the play has been received highly positively just because some paid writers, disguised by renowned publishers and whom we know of as little as "unreliable fans", said so. Your idea of reliable sources is very problematic. Why do you discard blogs and publishers with low reputation? Why does media care about the motives of a dead terrorist previously unknown? It may not be the best example, but you can substitute it with any other situation. A single Harry Potter fan could stir up something, mainstream media starts writing about them and suddenly their opinion becomes important. What's your obsession with reliable sources? This is not about original research of facts, we are talking about the inclusion of those very opinions. --2.245.172.69 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"What's your obsession with reliable sources?" You must be joking. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a content guideline. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary and style guidelines

I would like to encourage that we significantly shorten the "plot" section on the grounds of our usual policies regarding fancruft and plot summaries.

First, consider WP:NOTPLOT which states "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." Rather than a "concise summary" we have an article is disproportionately focused on a highly detailed plot blow-by-blow.

Second, going a bit further to seek for positive advice about what we should have, we have MOS:PLOT which cites guidance of "400 to 700 words". We currently have around 2420 words out of the entire text of the article of 3550 words! 68% of the article is devoted to the blow-by-blow summary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

SOFIXIT, Jimbo. - 172.56.28.195 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

SOFIXIT? Be that as it may, would it be out of the question to fork out the blow-by-blow into a separate article? Of course everything would need to be cited (or tagged "citation needed").

Being able to continue to dig deeper into a subject matter - layer by layer (or thru spinoff articles), is for some part of the attraction of wikipedia.

(I have only seen clips of one or more of the movies.)

Please forgive me if I commit "Potter-sacrilege", while I try to narrow down the plot. 176.11.80.41 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, while citations for a plot summary can be useful (especially for direct quotations), they are not necessary, since the work itself serves as a source. Anyone can watch the play or read the script to verify the information in the summary. clpo13_(talk) 21:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A spinoff article should largely require notable, independent citations for the plot. These citations give some indication of what parts of the text have more notable coverage than other parts. 176.11.80.41 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone place a tag at the top of the "Plot" section

Suggested tag: "Please help narrow down this section to "400 to 700 words", per guidelines." 176.11.80.41 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As nothing had really progressed on that front, I removed the section completely for now. A detailed blow by blow doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, as it is WP:FANCRUFT and a violation of our longstanding style guidelines.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales whilst it is too large you also have to Remember Cursed child is two plays. Therefore it will be longer, unsure what theatres guidelines say but film's is between 400 and 700 & tv episodes is 200–500 words. As its two plays I don't think 300-350 words is appropriate.Blethering Scot 18:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's one article. So a smaller number of words is appropriate. The point is that a blow-by-blow plot summary is not within our guidelines and does not make for a good encyclopedia article. It's not the best presentation for a reader. If someone wants that, they should go to a fansite or read the book or whatever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the plot section. It's only about 741 words now (both parts combined), and I feel it covers all the main parts of the story. Jaydude1992 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The premise/official synopsis is totally sufficient. This is not even a feature film. It is a play. Even a feature film suggests no more than 400-700 words. Xilech137 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh? A film deserves a longer plot summary than a play? You want to try and take that approach to something like Hamlet? Go and have a look at the plot there - you'll be shocked - and then see what happens if you take a pair of scissors to it.

Ah. I see your point now. Xilech137 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate for a while without really wanting to get too involved. Given JKR's request about revealing plot details I can understand some people's protectiveness on that issue. However, if a play like The Mousetrap (the longest running West End show in history and one where the audience are similarly asked not to reveal the details) has a lengthy plot summary AND a major spoiler - then I see no reason why that same approach can't be applied here. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that Rowling doesn't like spoilers, but it's not like the play hasn't been performed yet, and you can pretty much buy a copy of the script. Or are we not supposed to give a complete version of the plot for plays until the initial run of their performances is done? Jaydude1992 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

After further investigation, I'm reverting Jaydude1992's plot summary on the grounds that 742 words is less than the count for four other current and well-known West End Plays - specifically 1) Hamlet (1,450 words) 2) The Mousetrap (1,383 words 3) An Inspector Calls (791 words) and 4) Kite Runner (play) (916 words). There may be other grounds for not including the plot but on the basis of current practice, length is not one of them. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, unlike films, there isn't a restriction on how many words plots can be on an article about a play. Even if there was, I would argue that this one should be double the guidelines, after all, it is two plays. I would also say that there should probably be more detail, maybe not a blow by blow essay, but certainly could be fleshed out a bit. MisterShiney ✉ 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast table is not viable

We're on an age where we can easily verify and put down all the names of all the casts (which was in the article). However, someone thinks they own the article and transformed it into a table with a "notable west end cast members replacement" when notability is a personal concept and varies from person, aside from the fact that this play only had two casts. Sure, I don't see how a table with the original cast and the current cast can hurt, but I also don't see why it is impossible to make collapsible sections with the whole casts and the characters they played according to each year's programme (the way, you know, the article was). And seriously, understudies aren't relevant? According to who? Because to me, they seem very relevant to someone looking 10 years from now and also for those who saw them on stage. Rodrigo-hp (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Identity of the Cursed Child

How could the Cursed Child possibly be Harry Potter, notwithstanding what the cited Time Magazine piece says? (“Or could it be Harry Potter himself, cursed as a father by his own unhappy childhood?”) That would mean the title in effect meaning /Harry Potter and Harry Potter/. Can we remove that sentence? Ulmanor (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is possible. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"KeepTheSecrets" should be removed or moved elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's irrelevant to basically anything. "Popular show's creators would like people to not spoil anything" is not noteworthy. Game of Thrones, the Avengers, Harry Potter, plenty of franchises do it. It doesn't matter how many references there are, #ThanosDemandsYourSilence/#KeepTheSecrets/#etcetcetc simply isn't that notable. Maybe as a small aside in some other section, but it in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the plot apart from "pls don't spoil". Especially with the irony that it's a plot that is immediately spoiled by the fact that this is an encyclopaedia and it tells all the twists. --46.208.92.251 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. The user who nearly instantaneously reinserts it and thinks it just needs more references doesn't care and will never be convinced otherwise. They wrote the section, placed it where it is, it's their baby, damned if it actually improves the article in any way. Now I'm recalling why I gave up on Wikipedia, this sort of article camping nonsense. --46.208.92.251 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't move it to that section, some other editor did. KeepTheSecrets is a notable part of this play, as evidenced by its standalone (e.g. where it is the sole topic of the article) references from the BBC, Washington Post, Time (magazine), and CBS News. I could have added 10 more references on this specific aspect, so much so it would almost meet WP:GNG on a standalone basis for its own article (e.g. over three dedicated articles on it in it in tier one WP:RS). Anybody who attends the play today gets sent a video from JK on it, and it is printed on the front of every ticket, program and other items. Not liking that a fact is WP notable, and by some distance, is not my fault? Britishfinance (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Here is The Guardian reviewing the opening of the play in Melbourne in February 2019, and they are still citing "KeepTheSecrets" prominently in the summary? Harry Potter and the Cursed Child in Melbourne: first look – in pictures. Britishfinance (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No issue with the content, as it is well sourced, but I do not believe it is in the correct place in the article. It would fit better further down the article in a separate header as with "identity of the cursed child".Mark E (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I had it further down originally, but it has been moved several times by others. I don’t mind either way but think the item it notable and worth inclusion. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it to the productions section where I believe it is better placed. Mark E (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REMOVE THE PLOT SECTION

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

u need to remove the whole SPOILER plot section now! #KeepTheSecrets! j.k.rowling wants no one to share these things and you are RUINING THE PLAY for millions of people and for the author herself! #keepthesecrets i was linked here from my friends' tumblr and this is SHOCKING that you cannot even follow the simple desires of the athor because of your selfish and hrutful need to share spoilers! #KeepTheSecrets if you dont change it i will delete the whole plot summary as soon as i figure out how this site works!!!!71.241.137.38 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you don't want to see spoilers, stay off the Internet. clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. A plot section is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. MisterShiney ✉ 23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to read this. If I read the title 'Plot' and I don't want the play/book to be spoiled, then I wouldn't read it, would I? There's a Contents box too so you don't even have to glimpse at the articleRandomUser000_(talk)7:31, 15 August 2016(UTC)

1. KeepTheSecrets delete the plot.Joseph.ludwig (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)joseph.ludwig

As above Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SPOILERS mean that plot summaries will be included.Blethering Scot 16:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the Critical Reception section accurate?

The "Response within the Harry Potter fandom" subsection begins with the line "The response to the play from the Harry Potter fandom was fairly positive.". The citation doesn't support that, because the cited line is "As a longtime "Harry Potter" enthusiast myself, I regretfully agree with the vocal minority who did not enjoy "Cursed Child" and would rather it wasn't part of Harry's story.".

But there's no actual proof that the reception was positive, it's being assumed from the author's unverified claim of being from a minority that didn't like the story. This seems like an odd citation to use, so much so that I briefly wondered whether someone involved with the writing of the story didn't edit that in as a form of spin. I'm not sure how to handle it since I'm pretty sure just editing a section of the article out isn't kosher, but it just doesn't seem right to me. 183.83.146.157 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Plot section needs to be trimmed

The plot section for this play is way too long. Currently, it stands at 1619 words by my count – longer than any play I can find (for instance, Hamlet is at 1570 words) or any other Harry Potter book (Philosopher's Stone is at 1274 words, Chamber of Secrets at 1013, Prisoner of Azkaban at 917, etc.). There is no serious reason the plot needs to be this long. Many details are unnecessary; for instance, the detail that the Time-Turner was built by a Slytherin contemporary of Harry's, Theodore Nott is completely irrelevant to the rest of the story. (Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.) Moreover, WP:NOVELPLOT establishes that 400 to 700 words should suffice for a full-length work unless it is unusually complex and lengthy. While I recognize that this is not technically a novel, I see no reason to not follow the spirit of that guideline and cut the plot down dramatically.

I am aware that this topic has been discussed before. However, at that time, the plot summary was much shorter than it is now. I'm not sure how the plot summary became so bloated after that, but it's time to fix it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

New film

These is an article saying a the film if the same is in the works. https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-film-reportedly-in-development-at-warner-bros-will-main-trio-return-563458/amp Cwater1 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Brendan Mooney

Please stop reversing my correction. Did you actually see the play? Nowhere were the two boys encouraged to explore themselves. Nowhere did either child come out as gay by stating the other was their favorite person. That does not insinuate romantic feelings. RoyKent1 (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, expressing love and admiration for a friend is a perfectly normal emotion. The conflict between Albus and Harry is regarding Albus being friends with a Slytherin and Harry eventually accepts. RoyKent1 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As I’ve said both times I’ve reverted those edits, reliable sources describe the changes in terms consistent with the material you’ve removed. The Los Angeles Times [2] refers to “This more explicit acknowledgment of Albus and Scorpius’ gay romance.” [3] says “The sub is gone from the subtext.” How reliable sources describe the play is what matters, not your interpretation of it or mine, which would be original research. Both of the links in the previous sentence are to core Wikipedia policies; I encourage you to review them if you haven’t already done so.

We can certainly debate the wording of the description of those changes to the play; the entire plot summary is overlong and needs to be trimmed. But entirely removing discussion of that aspect of the revisions when reliable sources have highlighted it as significant would not be encyclopedic. Brendan Moody (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So, all of your reliable sources are opinion pieces? So, nothing actual factual? RoyKent1 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The subtext is as plain as day, as noted by multiple sources. A brand-new editor doesn't get to just swoop in and excise content they find objectionable, especially when challenged by others. So, Mr. Roykant1, stop edit warring, start discussing here. This is not optional. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I find it objectionable, it's that there's no factual basis behind it. Merely opinions from reviewers. Aren't we supposed to be striving for facts on Wikipedia? RoyKent1 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If the reviews are found in reliable sources, then yes, that is what we base articles on in this project. You are cautioned to not remove this material again without consensus, otherwise there may be sanctions coming. Zaathras (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable, factual sources. Because there is no transcript that documents explicit changes or discussion with the playwrights, producer, etc., any mention of perceived changes is opinionated. RoyKent1 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant that these children have to be gay when there's no proof, no facts that support this? Have you actually seen the production? Produce a link or anything that shows this was the intent! I'm merely removing information that has not been fact checked. RoyKent1 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Every reliable source I’ve seen that has commented on these changes to the play has described them as making the relationship more explicitly romantic (here are two more: [4] [5]). I don’t have any objection if you want to insert a qualifier like “changes that critics described as…” in that section, but we can’t add caveats to the description based on your personal interpretation of the play. If you have a reliable source that treats the relationship in the revised play as non-romantic, we can cite that. Brendan Moody (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m curious why this edit war is happening and yet this section of the article continues to remain unsourced? Is there a source from the authors confirming this change and their intentions behind it? Or is this all just from opinions made from reviews since seemingly these changes are not published? Mark E (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t yet found any quotes from a writer or producer describing their motivations for the changes; however, there’s an interview with the actors who first played Albus and Scorpius in the one-part version on Broadway where they discuss working with the director and the writer to produce what one of the actors calls a “more literal queer vision”: [6].

I think, given how under-covered the changes have been, the article might be better served by deleting the revisions section from the overlong plot summary (the details of what was deleted to condense the story are not really significant) and moving discussion of the revisions to the characters’ relationship down to the “Queerbaiting accusations” section under “Critical reception.” Brendan Moody (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)