Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Less Old Yet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tom Riddle's diary 2 Harry Potter section dispute 3 adding a VfD section 4 General rearrangement 5 Overuse of succession boxes? 6 Disappearance of long plot summaries 7 Flobberworms 8 Discussion place consensus 9 Disappearance of all articles relating to fictional content 10 Patronuses of each character 11 Harry Potter Book 6 Index of Characters 12 Vanishing Cabinet - Requested Article 13 Joining 14 Suggestions 15 Is it better to change all the Actors' picture to the drawings else from the book? 16 Roman Term and a Notice.

[edit] Tom Riddle's diary

Tom Riddle's diary seems really unattractive. Just to point it out and ask someone to go there and see if something could be done. --Jotomicron | talk 10:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we should possibly delete it and just have a blurb about it on the Tom Riddle and/or Lord Voldemort page

Or possibly even the actual Horcrux article? In any event, the Lord Voldemort, Tom Riddle, and the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets article pretty much say the same stuff as this one. It's already incorporated in these, so why yeah, why not start a vfd for the page and strengthen the diary parts in any of these articles.

[edit] Harry Potter section dispute

There's a bit of a disagreement over whether to include slavery as a subsection of "Themes". There seems to be rough consensus to include it there, but one user insists it should be combined with another section. Outside opinions are wanted. Hermione1980 14:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] adding a VfD section

I'm adding a section to the project page for articles within the project that come up on VfD, which does happen on occasion. If you find an article that has been nominated for deletion within the project, please add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/AfD. If you feel an article within the project should be deleted, and nominate the article for deletion, also please consider adding a note on this page. All participants in the project, please consider adding the /VfD page to your watchlist, so you will be aware if any articles from within this project are nominated for deletion, and participate in the deletion discussion if you choose. EvilPhoenix talk 05:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think we might as a group think about taking some steps to avoid this issue altogether. There are a large number of articles in the HP space on wikipedia that are marked as stubs when they actually just don't have enough material (and even after the next book are never likely to have much more material). We might try and start some sort of consolidation drive. Perhaps re-directing a lot of the pages to things like List of minor characters in Harry Potter, List of magical objects in Harry Potter etc. I know that R.A.B. has its own article and is on VfD right now. I voted to merge it back into the appropriate places and redirect. The truth is not every person place or thing in HP needs its own article (combining them will not reduce coverage but make for better more readable and more consistent, informative pages). Dalf | Talk 05:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Likewise I think we should probbly get rid of a lot of the categories like Category:Slytherins and OotP etc. replaing them with lists. The point of the category system is as a navagation aid there is a idelogical debt on wikipedia about the utility of Lists vs. Categories and how that fits in with rules about placing articles in both a category and a sub-category of the same (this is generally frowned upon but is ok in some instances). I think we should create one category called Category:Harry Potter characters and place not only the individual character articles there but also the things like List of Slytherins rather than a sub-category. Which solves the problem of for example right now Draco Malfoy is in both categories which is technically a violation of (unoffical) policy on wikipedia (though one that lots of people will enforce). I know a lot of people are opposed to this sort of consilidation, thinking that the more articles the better. But in my expirence works of fiction and culture actually are better represented by a smaller number of articles where they can become more consistent etc. The coverage invarably gets better. I want to see what everyone thinks and if enough people aregree I think we shoudl put some of these categories up on categories for deletion and populated the equivlent lists. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: the groupthink issue, I think it's okay for all of us to have differing opinions on what should be deleted or kept. What makes the VfD section important for us is that we would presumably know a bit more about Harry Potter than the average Wikipedian, and would therefore be able to provide more of an opinion into the debate. Looking at a few templates and articles that were put up for deletion, I know I've disagreed with a few folks involved with this WikiProject, but that's okay: all of us have our own opinions. The important thing is that we let the people on this WikiProject know that there is a Harry Potter-related page that is up for deletion. --Deathphoenix 16:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That's really why I added it, it's just so people can be aware if something comes up for VfD that's project related, and voice an opinon to keep or delete it, as they see fit. It's not really intended to be perceived as a "warning" list or anything, just information. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General rearrangement

We're not required to keep to the WikiProject cookie cutter starter version. I rearranged the main page to better serve members and to get to the point. We also have two different open task things for no reason. I removed the smaller one. I moved the Harry Potter image to-do lists to /Images#Requested work so that the license tag warning can be easily seen (several pictures have been deleted recently) and so that when people do the requested tasks, they are more likely to update the /Images page. If anyone dislikes small parts of these changes, please revert only those parts. — 131.230.133.185 08:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This talk page used to serve two functions: talk about the main page and talk about work on Harry Potter in general, which made it hard to see comments about the main page. The /General page also used to serve for talk about work on Harry Potter in general, which failed (and it showed in the lack of editing there) because this was the designated location for that. I reordered things to give some good benefits :

• The new /Forum page is now the one designated location for Harry Potter-related discussions, such as questions about editing articles and other forum-like things.
• The /General page is now a normal article, where we can put links and a short guide to help people edit. We didn't really have a specific place for that before.
• This talk page is just for talk about the main page of the project, so that we can improve it and complain about it without it getting lost in the forum noise.

— 131.230.133.185 15:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas, but I prefer things to be the way they were. Further, it is general Wikipedia practice to discuss making major changes to the structure of projects and articles and such things before doing them. I appreciate your attempt to be bold, but I don't think deletoing major sections of the project page and moving the talk pages around is the way to go. If you disagree, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page, and try to get a sense of consensus from the Project participants. Also, why not go ahead and sign up for a username? It's free, and it's fun. EvilPhoenix talk 23:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I changed everything in order to get it to conform to general Wikipedia practice. The earlier version violates several Wikipedia standards :

• Indicate parentage with "< [[Parent article]]" in small text at the top of the page, rather than devoting a section to it.
• Be concise, rather than scattering the same thing repeatedly throughout an article.
• Use talk pages of articles for talk specifically about the form and content of those articles, not talk about anything casually related to them.
• Choose one page for general discussion about a topic, rather than several.

That's why I deleted the parentage and related blank sections and put the "< WikiProject Fictional series" at the top. That's why I condensed the three scattered sections about why this project exists into one introductory paragraph. That's why I changed the main page and the talk organization; having several places for general discussion, all in improper places, isn't good, which is why I created the aptly named /Forum. Also, there was no place for a getting-started guide, so I chose the well-named-for-that-purpose /General.

The only things I deleted were the template examples, which I'll be happy to readd, and the smaller open tasks thing. "Open" and "pending" tasks are the same thing; again, it makes no sense to me to have two places on the same page for the discussion of the same thing. I chose the larger of them because we'll probably only have a need for a listing of tasks on this one page; the shorter list doesn't seem useful. Let's pick one or the other of those. Let's pick one or another page for a forum. Let's pick one or another page for a newcomer's guide. Etc. This scatteredness only leads to wasted effort.

Because we are the only ones discussing this, I'll assume there is no consensus either way, and change at least the main page to conform to standard Wikipedia style. If you're going to revert, at least revert just the things that you dislike, so we can discuss those, specifically.

— 131.230.133.185 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No comments on the individual changes myself, but I also would echo EvilPhoenix's last comment and suggest that you create a user account, particularly if you plan on being active in a wikiproject and proposing changes. It's a lot easier to have discussions with someone with a consistent identity, rather than an IP address that is subject to change. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to revert several small changes. If I want to revert an edit, I can only revert to somewhere before or after that edit. So I can't just revert one small thing, in the middle of several edits. I'm telling you this just so you can understand the nature of Wikipedia regarding edits. You can't make assumption about consensus just yet, though only one other editor has commented in this thread so far, generally discussions on Wikipedia do take some time, as editors aren't always checking this page very often. That is why I suggest you discuss major changes before implementing them, and give the discussion some time to develop. Hopefully other editors will voice their opinions as well. Personally, I don't really mind the edits to the Main Page I see that you made today. However, please do not move Talk pages around just yet. If there is a strong consenses for implementing the Talk Page moves you favor, I will be fine with that, I simply wish to see that kind of change being made with consensus. However I do still think that Talk Pages should stay where they are. And again, please do consider creating a user account, that would make discourse much easier, and more comfortable for us. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of succession boxes?

I've noticed that over the past few weeks, succession boxes have spread from "Minister for Magic" and "Hogwards Heads" (which happened to be my doing) to "Defence Against the Dark Arts Teachers", "Transfiguration Masters" and "Slytherin Housemaster". The "Transfiguration Masters" box seems particularly pointless, since we only know of two, Dumbledore and Minerva. I'm not complaining or anything, in fact I think the D.A.D.A. Teachers succession box is an excellent idea, but I just don't want to see an article like this next:

Harry Potter is an abnormal freak from the Harry Potter series of fictional books who has far too many succession boxes for his own good.

Preceded by Wendelin the Weird	The Chosen One July 31, 1980 - present	Succeeded by Incumbent
Preceded by Albus Dumbledore	Horcrux Finder c. June, 1993	Succeeded by Albus Dumbledore
Preceded by Albus Dumbledore	Horcrux Finder c. June, 1997 - present	Succeeded by Incumbent
Preceded by Tom Marvolo Riddle	Parselmouth October 31, 1981 - present	Succeeded by None
Preceded by Albus Dumbledore	The Only One He Ever Feared c. November, 1997 - c. June, 1998	Succeeded by None

Maybe overuse of succession-boxes isn't a problem, but I thought I'd mention it after I saw "Hogwarts Potions Master" and "Slytherin Housemaster" on the pages for Snape and Slughorn.

(Edit: Change signatures from three tildes to four) -- Nandhp 12:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. "Abnormal freak" — is that describing Harry or some of the fans? :-) Anyway, I think that is going a bit overboard. I think we should keep it to roles that we know at least three people have been in. Hermione1980 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearance of long plot summaries

I have still not found any explanation of why long plot summaries have been removed from the HP articles. What is the reason for doing something which is making these articles worse, not better? Sandpiper 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• They were originally split out into separate articles with " - Full Plot Summary" appended to the book title, then promptly VfD'd because of possible copyright issues. Someone moved them to Wikibooks and created a "Harry Potter plots" Wikibook, which was also promptly VfD'd with many users over there wondering why Wikipedia didn't want it. It still exists over there as the "Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter", so that's the reason AFAIK. Hermione1980 23:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not seen the debate here yet (I was trying to find it), but on 'books it was not considered a copy violation. This question was raised and dismissed. Its potential deletion there has nothing to do with copyright, but because they think it is an encyclopedia entry and belongs here. If it was a copyvio, then how could it be transferred to a different wiki? So I repeat, what is wrong with having them here? Sandpiper 08:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The debates occurred at great length on the various WP:VFD sub-pages for the "full plot summary" articles (which you know the locations of, since you've edited them) and then continued at WP:VFU. It is also mentioned on several article talk pages. The dust has just about settled, and we now have a workable compromise, that appears to suit all parties (those that want extensively detailed coverage and those that want brief overviews and no original research), where we can now get on with writing content. Please stop trying to resurrect the debates. We don't need to revisit them. We have some broadly agreed places to write content now. It's time to do so. Uncle G 17:32:17, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
      • It would appear that the result of the VFD was actually a vote to keep, yet the pages were transwikied anyway. The official result was a decision to transfer them. There has been no explanation which I have seen of how the result came about from the postings (which I have now found and read). Some very heavy votes to delete were based on the issue of the articles being copyright violations. But as the pages were transferred, I have to assume this argument was rejected. That simply served to further muddle consideration of which votes remained valid, and the eternal question of which might be spurious. But as I said, I have not found anything which explains which votes were counted and which not. The result of that mess was a vote to undelete. Judging from the number of voters, few people were aware it was taking place. This may follow the process of reaching a decision, but it does not feel like a consensus.Sandpiper 01:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, it was only the one user wondering why Wikipedia didn't want it, and in fact only the one user voting to delete at all. He wrote a lot, so it may have seemed like more than one user. ☺ The deletion discussion at Wikibooks has now closed. The Muggle's Guide has been kept, and is now looking to have the plot analyses drastically expanded. (Ironically, what looked overweight and lengthy as a "full plot summary" in Wikipedia looks thin in the Muggles' Guide.) The first five books need their analyses expanded into a detailed chapter-by-chapter treatment, as has been done for the sixth. And the topical index needs further building, to cross reference each character/location to the chapters in which it appears. All editors are encouraged to contribute. Uncle G 17:32:17, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
    • It seemed to me that it was only one user, Matt(user:withinfocus?), who was arguing that it should be kept on wikibooks. He was also working overtime to create an outline of a potential book which would be satisfactory for them to keep. The only new content in it when I last looked was a couple of pieces I wrote myself. Having read them again, I think they could be included in the identical articles here anyway. A number of people expressed the view that a vfd was premature, and they would prefer to wait and see what happened before deciding. That was probably the consensus outcome. The problem with it is that it is exactly that, a temporary result. Sandpiper 01:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flobberworms

Hi there, I'm a new member here at Wikipedia, so forgive me if I've commented in the wrong place, but I recently wrote an article for 'Flobberworms', when the 'Minor Beasts of Harry Potter' page was not yet concieved, or at least in it's infancy. I belive my article should be promptly moved into yours, to keep a consistency going. I shall assume full responsibiliy and move it myself if You wan't me to.WeaponX445 02:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion place consensus

Let's discuss where we want to discuss things. No change means to keep everything where it is. Change means to make the following changes :

• Discuss general and strategic things on this talk page.
• Remove /General and /Strategy from the front page and delete them.
• Use /Guide for an article-like (not discussion) guide to basic hints and tips.

Change + /Forum means to make the changes above, except to make /Forum the place for general and strategy discussions, keeping this page just for talk about edits to the main project page.

This isn't really a vote, just a chance to see good reasons for the choices to help us come to a consensus. You can, of course, give reasons to make other changes than those of Change.

Change + /Forum for the following reasons :

• We need a well-written (article, not discussion) participants' guide for things we've come to consensus on.
• General and strategy discussions take place here anyway. People who post on /General and /Strategy are ignored because everyone checks here, instead.
• /Strategy doesn't really exist anyway.
• We'll have a specific, well-named page (/Forum) for discussions.
• Newcomers will see /Forum in the list of subpages on the main page and instantly know where to discuss things.
• Current participants won't be confused if we put a link at the top of this page to redirect people who missed the vote. We'll also catch the newcomers who use the talk page as a forum.
• We can use this page to discuss edits to the main page without those discussions being crowded out by the noise of general discussion. That is the generally accepted purpose for talk pages all over Wikipedia; we're violating that here.

— 131.230.133.185 01:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearance of all articles relating to fictional content

The logical conclusion of the alterations currently being made to the HP project is that all content relating to the actual stories in the books is to be relocated to wikibooks. The long plot content has only been accepted onto wikibooks on the condition that it will form the basis of detailed analysis. Categories over there already reproduce everything which is here. By the time that process is finished, the same articles will exist over there as exist here now, except that those will have additional content which is more detailed and more conjectural. In other words, if it goes to plan, that will be the best place for someone to find something, and the more interesting place to work. That will inevitably mean a scaling down of the project on pedia untill it only contains topics about Harry Potter not related to book content. Logically, this will form a policy which will apply to all articles about fiction. No information about fictional content on 'pedia.

Is that what you want? Discuss- Sandpiper 01:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patronuses of each character

Each page for a HP character has some info about them in a table in the upper-right corner of the article... why not put the characters' patronuses in that table? 195.225.245.243 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, because JK Rowling has only revealed the patronuses for six characters. The complete list is on the page for patronus, though it needs to get cleaned up. --MrBawn 00:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Book 6 Index of Characters

This article has been moved over to Harry Potter Wiki, and completed there through the end of the Book: http://harrypotter.wikicities.com/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_%28Index%29 DonBruce 13:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a list somewhat similar to this one, that indexes the first three books. http://www.marysia.com/hpcanon/index.html 64.42.155.30 14:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As I read the American Scholastic hardcover Edition of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince I wrote down what page each character first appeared on, and in some cases later appeared on, again and again. Would this Index be useful? Should it be done for all six books? I realize that this Index is not very encyclopedic, but it might be a useful tool for Harry Potter researchers. Opinions please!

SPOILER WARNING!

Page numbers here are from the American Scholastic hardcover edition of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

*Chapter One: The Other Minister

• 001-Prime Minister
• 002-Herbert Chorley
• 003-Cornelius Fudge
• 004-President
• 007-'Serious' Black
• 008-Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore
• 013-Amelia Bones
• 014-Emmeline Vance
• 015-Rufus Scrimgeour
• 017-Kingsley Shacklebolt

*Chapter Two: Spinner's End

• 019-Cissy and Bella
• 022-Severus Snape
• 023-Wormtail
• 026-Avery, Yaxley, Carrows, Fenrir Greyback, Lucius Malfoy
• 028-Quirrell, Kirkaroff
• 030-Harry Potter
• 033-Draco Malfoy

*Chapter Three: Will and Won't:

• 038-Harry Potter
• 039-Obliviator
• 041-Augusta Longbottom, Neville Longbottom
• 044-Dursleys
• 045-Vernon Dursley
• 046-Petunia Dursley
• 047-Dudley Dursley
• 048-Madam Rosmerta
• 050-Regulus Black, Sirius' mother, Billatrix Lesstrange
• 051-Kreacher
• 053-Buckbeak

*Chapter Four: Horace Slughorn:

• 059-Budleigh Babberton
• 060-Hermione Granger
• 061-Madam Bones
• 062-Inferi
• 064-Horace Slughorn
• 068-Dolores Umbridge
• 070-Lily Evans, Sirius Black, Regulus Black
• 071-Dick Cresswell, Barmabus, Ambrosius Flume, Ciceron Harkiss, Gwenog Jones
• 076-Weasleys
• 078-Ronald Weasley, Hermione
• 079-Severus Snape
• 080-Arthur and Molly Weasley

*Chapter Five: An Excess of Phlegm

• 081-Harry Potter, Molly Weasley, Nymphadora Tonks
• 083-Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger
• 085-Mundungus Fletcher
• 086-Mr. Weasley
• 087-Fred and George Weasley
• 089-Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger
• 090-Ginny Weasley
• 091-Fleur Delacour [Phlegm]
• 092-Gabrielle, Bill
• 096-Percy Weasley
• 098-Lucius Malfoy

*Chapter Six: Draco's Detour 105-Remus Lupin 106-Igor Karkaroff, Florean Fortecue, Ollivander 107-Charlie Weasley 108-Arkie Philpott 109-Rubeus Hagrid, Tom Riddle 112-Draco Malfoy, Narcissa Nalfoy 117-Fred and George 120-Verity 121-Dean Thomas, Michael Corner 124-Mr. Borgin 125-Fenrir Greyback

Two different formats are shown above, one with obvious quick readability versus other with obvious space advantage.

• Try taking this to the Harry Potter Wiki. It's probably a bit more detailed than we need here at Wikipedia. One question: Do the page numbers refer to the American version or the British version? Just chapters would probably be more useful than page numbers, as those differ from version to version. Hermione1980 00:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• The chapters are far more useful, and a start at such cross-referencing of characters to chapters already exists in the topical index in our Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter (Wikibooks:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Index). You are encouraged to contribute there. Uncle G 02:00:03, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

[edit] Vanishing Cabinet - Requested Article

As it already has three (four!) references...

[edit] Joining

Hi there, everybody. The project page said I must inquire here about joining. I am a Harry Potter fan (who isnt?) and a wikipedian who is eager to help and get involved. Is there a place on this project for an editor like me? If so, please let know on my talk page. Thanks. Banes 17:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you can just add yourself to the participants list. I think the bit that says inquire on the talk page is if you want to help, but are not sure what to do. --βjweþþ (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Given the numerous list pages (locations, people, spells, eg), would anyone like it if I compiled a List of Broomsticks (Harry Potter) list? I figure there are the Cleansweeps, Comets, The Nimbi, Firebolt, the Silver Arrow, Madam Hooch mentions a few others when discussing the Firebolt (I believe), as does Quidditch Through the Ages. I could include some information from the section on development of the Racing Broom as well. Maybe just Broomsticks (Harry Potter) as opposed to just the small mention on Broomsticks? Staxringold 06:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Broomsticks in Harry Potter already exists. You can work on that. --βjweþþ (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Grah, sorry, I assumed it would have the (Harry Potter) nomenclature, not in Harry Potter. Staxringold 15:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Finished, BTW, if anyone wants to review it. Staxringold 00:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, changed the headings to avoid repeated sentence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjwebb (talk • contribs) 12:02, August 28, 2005.

[edit] Is it better to change all the Actors' picture to the drawings else from the book?

There are serval reasons:

• 1. Actors are not equal to the character in Friction. readers might mix up easily.
• 2. The look of characters in Movie have a gap difference between Year1/2 and Year3/4.
• 3. The Characters are from a Fiction book. No reason to post a real Image to show us "it is that character."

Please agree with me and post your comments on this . ^^

--Mmlcs36 14:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this would be a good idea. There aren't good pictures of all the characters. Also, what about fair use? What is the copyright status on those images. Taking a large part of a small (copyrighted) image is still a violation. Cmouse 15:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

1. The majority of people think of the actors when they think of the characters. For example, when I say "Harry Potter", who do you think of? Daniel Radcliffe in glasses, most likely. The pics are of the actors in character.
2. True. But so does regular art, whether GrandPre or fanart.
3. There again, people associate the actors with the characters. Wikipedia articles are encouraged to have pictures that illustrate their subjects, and this is the closest representation we have. Hermione1980 22:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As for copyright violations, I think pictures of the actors and illustrations from the books should fall under fair use. As for fan art, if we can't get it copyleft, either directly from the artist, or from a collection clearly marked as public, it's not worth having. --MrBawn 01:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. Look at the LOTR characters, especially Frodo Baggins.--MrBawn 02:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC))

The movie pictures we use were released for the press, so I doubt they are a violation. Could you please clarify how the book pictures would be fair use? Cmouse 04:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, so I can't really clarify that. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images and found a few GrandPre images, and those had {fairuse} tacked on them. --MrBawn 11:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, the movie =/= novel Many things has been changed or deleted when WB was filming. The uniform of the three tasks in Gof is a good example. The movie is misguide the people who have just watch the film.

Moreover, the actors' life in Harry Potter filming will be end one day. Do you want to keep their photos forever.

Harry potter is a Fiction character. No one can be him, even Daniel Radcliffe. So, the drwing is the best way to point out that "it is Potter" --Mmlcs36 10:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well is no one can act him, then surely no one could draw an exact picture either. --βjweþþ (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is friction a typo or a joke I am mising? The pictures from the films are widely recognised and I imagine the producers are quite happy for extra publicity, so are not likely to object to their use. They add recognition to the articles in a way that a drawing can not.Sandpiper 22:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I spell the word wrongly, it should be "fiction". Drawing can let reader imagine, just like "opera in the concert". WB producers have changed a lot with actors/actresses when they are filming. the uniform in three tasks are one of the examples. And many of readers (someone like you, may be) have mixed up who is the real one/fiction one. And those "photos"(not really) have given no imagine space for readers. "Oh, I know! Dan Radcliffe is Harry Potter." It is totally wrong!--Mmlcs36 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Term and a Notice.

Patronus - the plural is patronii - is a Latin term used to refer to a social conventional/legal role in Republican Rome. As a result - Patronus has "come up" in the historical side of the Wiki, and an entry was required.

As those working on the Harry Potter related pages had simply created a "redirect page" to the entry for Patronus Charm, I've entered the Latin patronus article there instead.

I've placed a disambugation notice at the top of the page, pointing to the Patronus Charm page.

Additionally, using the "What Links Here" page for Patronus, I tracked down and edited all Harry Potter uses of the link to the patronus redirect page, and edited them to point to Patronus Charm - not changing the printed text, just the page that is linked to - so this should not break any of your work.

For future referance, the link you should use for future entries should be [[Patronus Charm]], or [[Patronus Charm|Patronus]]. [[Patronus]] will now just link to the Roman legal term.