Appendix talk:Harry Potter/Cloak of Invisibility

Appendix:Harry Potter/Cloak of Invisibility
Didn't we decide that these shouldn't exist? Shouldn't they be deleted/merged by the perpetrator? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Special:WhatLinksHere/Appendix:Harry_Potter/Cloak_of_Invisibility for some more. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason Potter terms are relegated to an appendix is that they're not attested. But this one in particular (and certain others on the list DCDuring's linked to, but they're not nominated) is not idiomatic either, so shouldn't even be in the appendix. Delete without merging. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems irrelevant to me. People already decided that the page in question shouldn't exist. However, what msh210 said above is inaccurate; the definition "One of the Deathly Hallows, a fictional magical cloak that is known for causing invisibility indefinitely, as opposed to other invisibility cloaks which may be worn out by time or spells." makes Cloak of Invisibility an idiomatic term. --Daniel. 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had read it. I don't think it's idiomatic. It's like saying that Aunt Sarah is idiomatic with sense line "One of the aunts in the world named Sarah, the specific one whose last name is Smith and was born in Hunter, New York, on February 29, 1948, as opposed to other aunts Sarah who were born elsewhere or at other times". If there are three independent cites for such a term Aunt Sarah (say, three of that Sarah's nephews writing independently of one another), it'd be attested, but IMO it is not idiomatic. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Point taken. --Daniel. 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah SoP, delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ¶ Delete, please. I think this is identical to invisibility cloak. --Pilcrow 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)