Talk:Wizarding world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B
This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Should the transportation section be expanded and moved to its own page? There is a lot of stuff that could be added... I'll do it, if anyone wants me to... Phoenix Song 02:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Could someone please clarify for me, dwarves have been added to the magical creatures>beings list. As far as im aware there are no dwarves in the Harry Potter serise. I have deleted the entry but on the off chance that I have missed an errant dwarf hidding in Dumbledore's broom cupboard, I will of course add them back on. Death Eater Dan 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


There are dwarves mentioned in Book 2 : HArryPotter and the Chamber of Secrets during Valentine's Day. The one who sang Ginny's letter to Harry. And where were minotaurs mentioned?-Isao

I don't recall a mention of minotaurs anywhere in the series, but perhaps someone else can. Noneofyourbusiness 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] British Vs. American spelling

Could Kestenbaum please expand on his comment that the American artifact is prefered to the British spelling artefact? As it is commonly taken on all the Harry Potter articles (dicussed several times on the talk pages) that British English is the more appropriate spelling, as the series is set in Britain with predominantly British characters, written by a British author and originally published in Britain. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha)

This source discusses the difference: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm (both forms are used on both sides of the Atlantic, but apparently the "artifact" version is more widely used overall).
Moreover, as to the very specific Harry Potter context, on Wikipedia alone, there are seven articles that reference "muggle artifacts", and only two that reference "muggle artefacts". The Google numbers are 11,500 for "muggle artifacts" and 693 for "muggle artefacts".
Based on those sources, I thought I was on pretty solid ground changing the spelling back to "artifacts". But, I could be wrong, and if so, there are a lot of other references to be changed.
I don't know whether the British edition of Rowling's works uses the "artefact" spelling (perhaps you could check and post that here?), but the American one certainly does use "artifact". Kestenbaum 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if the American one does or not, we're going with the British spelling. If the British version does in fact use "artefact", then that is the appropriate spelling, irregardless of what other Wikipedia articles on Harry Potter use...if they use "artifact", those articles may well be incorrect as well. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Artefact" may be the leading British spelling, but it is not the only British spelling. No one yet has answered my question as to which one Rowling actually used in the British edition of the Harry Potter books.
I don't think American readers of the series outnumber British ones by 15 to 1, but the Google references to "muggle artifacts" outnumber "muggle artefacts" by more than that. This strongly suggests that both editions use the "artifact" spelling.
May we have something tangible to go on, please? Kestenbaum 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm only saying that whatever the British version uses should be the correct one. Until that's determined, it doesn't matter as much. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that we should try and be consistent, the consensus is that British English spelling is the more appropriate for the subject matter, this is also the guideline stated in the Wiki Manual of Style. The fact that both versions are in common usage is not relevant as this is an encyclopedia and therefore the correct grammar should be used and the fact that some web site can argue either way on the usage of certain words is not relevant either as artefact is and always will be the correct British English spelling (see British dictionary). Who knows, in years to come we may all be calling pavements - sidewalks, but encyclopedicly the correct version in a British context would always be pavement no matter how popular the American English word may become. I have to say though after all the google tests and website quoting, I must go back to my initial point, consistency is the key - British subject matter = British Spelling. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources quoted above stated flatly that both spellings are used on both sides of the Atlantic.
If Rowling used "artefact", then sure, let's go with that, and make all the references consistent.
But if, let's say, Rowling used the "artifact" spelling in both the British and American editions, does that mean that she misspelled the British word? Are we also going to argue with her spellings of "muggle" and "horcrux"? In this case, the word is not invented, but the concept ("muggle art*facts") is. Can't we find out how she actually spelled it in the original UK edition and go with that?
Danlina, I can't help but be a little put off by your position. Does you mean that a British author is not entitled to spell it "artifact"? That use of such a spelling by a British author would be simply disregarded as error, and your preferred spelling substituted?
Again, let's have an answer from the actual text, not rhetoric about what it ought to be. Kestenbaum 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not allow both spellings as both are recognised in the english language as a whole--Radioactive turnip 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizarding Examinations Authority. Petros471 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Per my reasoning in the above AfD, I don't really have too much of an opinion on this one, but I think the section titled "Education" would be a good place to put this simply because this group is responsible for evaluating students as part of their education. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of wands in Harry Potter

As a result of the recent AfD of List of wands in Harry Potter and my discussion with the administrator who closed the debate, I've created a redirect to Wizarding World. This is a link to the most recent version of the list of wands. From this, we can decide on what information needs to be merged into this article. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article/section is supposed to be entitled "List of Wands in Harry Potter", there is no need to fill the reader in on details about the status of wands in the Wizarding World. I propose a recreation of the List-of-Wands-article, containing a only a list of the various wands dealt with in the series and their properties, while the additional information on Harry Potter wands as such would be found either in the Wizarding World article or -seeing as the Wizarding World article is alreadz rather long- in Wands (Harry Potter). Of course, all three articles would be linked.

User:Livedevilslivedevil

[edit] Population

The article states that "about 40" people entered Hogwarts with Harry, and referenced HP1. I can't find any reference to this count in the book. I'm assuming that it is a calculation, based on (five students per dorm [going by Griffendor]) * (two dorms, boys and girls) * (four houses). However, in HP5, when Harry quarrels with Seamus, he says "If you've got a problem sharing a dorm with me, go and ask McGonagall if you can be moved," implying that there may be more than one male dorm in their year. Is there some more definitive basis for this comment? -- Delius1967 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In Chapter 7 of The Philosopher's Stone, there are 22 1st years who are named in the sorting. It must be mentioned however that Dean Thomas, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle are not named, sugesting that there may be others that we dont know about in Harry's year.--Radioactive turnip 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limits of Magic

"About the only feats disallowed by magic are the conjuration (creation from nothing) of permanent objects [...]" Where does this come from? Wizards are conjuring solid objects all the time. Dumbledore creaates a chintz armchair at Harry's hearing in HP5; he conjures mead (and glasses for it) in HP6; Malfoy conjures a snake in HP2; etc. These things only disappear when he directs them to, which for all practical purposes makes them permanent. There is some limitation, obviously, since why would they need Diagon Alley otherwise? But it's not as black and white as "no conjuring anything". -- Delius1967 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Can we really say that one knut equals a British pound? If 493 knuts equals a galleon, that means a galleon is worth about 500 pounds. At the Quiddich world cup, Harry buys everyone omnioculars for 10 galleons apiece, and by the current standards, is dropping around 1500 pounds on his buddies on a whim. There are a number of other examples as well that would suggest the money is worth far less.

There is a lot of confusion about the value of a galleon. See Money in Harry Potter. And please sign your posts. Four tildes should do it :-) 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: reversions

There are arguments for keeping the old layout; that I will concede, though I think my layout is clearer. But changing the intro, which, by any definition, is far too short, that I cannot abide. For now, I'll leave the layout as it is, but the intro should be retained. Serendipodous 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the sources tag

I placed a sources tag on the article; another person reverted it very shortly after with the edit line "sources are from the text". "Sources are from the text" is not acceptable, not with an article this large (the Harry Potter article itself is very well sourced). If a whole universe fictional universe article is synthesized from a text, it's original research. There should be third-party sources to corroborate the information in here. This is Wikipedia, we can't just go making up large amounts of text from our own interpretations of books. ColourBurst 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Since none of the other HP articles on this site are referenced at all, you'd have a hard time drawing the other editors to your point of view. Serendipodous

[edit] Wizarding Genetics Section

I have deleted the genetics section, as it has no place in this or any other article. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the HP series. Furthermore, it has no basis in the series and isn't mentioned, ever.
John Reaves 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/z/Talk%7EWizarding_world_b1ff.html"