Talk:Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Media franchises Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Fantasy / Harry Potter Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

July 31 to August 6, 2016 (3rd)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)#James Potter|James Potter Sr.]] The anchor (#James Potter) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

@Brendan Mooney[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] refers to “This more explicit acknowledgment of Albus and Scorpius’ gay romance.” [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [3] [4]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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”: [5].

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)[reply]