Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Start

This article has been rated as Class Start on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Tasks you can do:

[edit] Book covers

You do have permission to put these images of the covers in, right? (--User:67.171.166.178)

Before I uploaded any book covers (and I uploaded a *LOT* that week), I posted to the village pump to find out what the dela is from a legal perspective. You can find the discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Fair use of book covers. The summary is - as long as we use them in an article related to their content, we're covered by fair use. →Raul654 09:32, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the cover image shown here is of the US version (with the alternate title)? Surely the Bloomsbury ones are more relevant, since they were the first publishers to pick up the series. - Mark 09:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - because it's what I had sitting on my shelf when I scanned them in :) →Raul654 09:24, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

The book cover for the UK version can be found on the UK's Amazon site:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0747532745.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I finally got hold of a scanner, and scanned in all the Bloomsbury covers. Six months isn't much of a delay! ;-) - Mark 13:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Grown-up covers

Can anyone get us the covers for the "grown-up" editions? (I hesitate to write "adult" for obvious reasons :-) --Phil | Talk 16:58, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that there's a grown-up cover of the Philosophers Stone on the Leaky Cauldron website, but I don't know how to paste pictures into Wikipedia.

--Janet6

[edit] Controversy

Should this section be merged into the corresponding section in Harry Potter: we don't really need a "controversy" section for each book, do we? --Phil | Talk 13:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need synopsis of Gryffindor Hufflepuff Ravenclaw Slytherin?

I think this article lacks a synopsis of the different houses the sorting hat sorts students into. What do people think? Each "house" already has its own article (Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin) but there aren't even any links to them in this article, let alone a synopsis. zen master T 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree! Although I'd choose a very brief mention to them, like:

===The four Great Houses=== [or something, and even maybe under some already existing section]

Hogwarts rules imply each student to be sorted into one of the four existing Houses: Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. This sorting is done in their first arrival at the caste, during a sorting cerimony in which the Sorting Hat reads their minds and chooses appropriately the house.

This houses were founded by four wizard of the same name, during the creation of the school, a thousand years ago.

Then perhaps add a Main article: sentence referring to the links of the Houses.

Jotomicron | talk 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are chapter titles necessary?

I removed the chapter titles from this (and the other books) because the consensus at Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince indicated that Chapter titles were not necessary for an article that is supposed to be a brief summary of this piece. Just thought I'd explain my now-reverted edits and try to get a gauge on how the folks on this article feel. --Death phoenix 13:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You removed them? Then they came back I see. I just removed them again in an effort to make all the book pages consistent. All that uses the non-standard look is HBP now since it has a lot of news stories attached. I definitely think the chapter titles are not necessary. -Matt 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish cover

I think that the Spanish cover should be deleted, edited, or made smaller because it is very pixelated. What do you all think?

Image:1012159-n.jpg

Which one?

[edit] The Sorting Hat's preferences

In chapter seven the sorting hat sorts Harry Potter into Gryffindor; however, the synopsis of the article states that the hat wants to sort Harry into Slytherin. I would take out the phrase that states that the hat "reluctantly" sorts Harry into Gryffindor. I think that the hat is above a personal preference. It debates with Harry, who has his mind set on not being sorted into Slytherin. Perhaps Harry's being linked with Voldemort, from the Slytherin house, is a factor leaning the sorting of Harry into Slytherin. The hat is influenced by Harry's own will in his not wanting to be sorted into Slytherin. So my contentions are:

1. The hat does not have a personal preference, and from the text of the story it does not appear that the hat wanted to sort Harry into Slytherin, and
2. The hat does not reluctantly sort Harry into Gryffindor.

The first contention is not as strong as my second: the hat firmly sorts Harry into Gryffindor not reluctantly. IMHO, David Boisclair drboisclair 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Overview

This section needs an overhaul. The writing style is very childish and opinionated. Wanka 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American version

" "Thomas, Dean," a black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table. I read this in the American version and seem to remember a capital B for black. Rich Farmbrough. 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And... - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1991 or 1997?

Hey guys, I really think Harry was born on 31 July 1986 . . . can I change it, or should we all have an agreement? :-) --Janet6, 31 January 2006

The general accepted consensus is that The Philosophers Stone is set in 1991, therefore Harry would not have been born in 1986. The timeline in use is the most widely accepted and has been used across the whole of the Harry Potter articles, so to keep this article in line with the rest please don't change it. Thanks Death Eater Dan 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How has it been determined that the fist book starts in '81 and takes place mostly in the year of 1991 and the early months of '92? I just want to know how people figured this out. --Thaddius 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

see Dates in Harry Potter for the explanation of that. It does seem a little silly to spend so much time and effort establishing specific "real time" event dates to fictional events that never actually happened. But if you try to remove references to AD (or CE) years, then you get a riot from the fanatics, mostly from the younger crowd who seem to want to relate their ages and birthdates to various characters. --T-dot 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Overview Revision

I'd like to start going through each of the HP books' pages and condensing the plot sections, but I was worried what opinion was on the matter. For instance, though Philosopher's Stone is considerably shorter than the other summaries, there are several instances of information mentioned here that is revealed over the course of other books, such as the details of what Voldemort did to the Potters, why Harry survived, and why he had to stay at the Dursleys all his life.

True, this is important for informing HP fans of important information, but why is it being revealed on the first book's page? If this issue has been settled, fine, but I wondered whether or not we were being strict with only events happening in the book are featured on the page. Cybertooth85 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that plot details revealed in further books should not be covered here. The spoiler notice doesn't cover the other books - I can well imagine a new reader having finished this book deciding to read the entire article and then having the other books spoiled. There is a variant spoiler notice that would cover the other books, but I don't really see the value of that over simply doing as suggested above and removing the references. In other words, I support this suggestion. BTW, please sign your talk page posts with "--~~~~" --Estarriol 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've copied all the current plot overviews and will be combing through them on my PC, before seeing how they compare. One thing that really needs to be done is the removal of the "Long Summary" section on Goblet of Fire. That's just ridiculous. I'll look at the Long version for important details, but honestly, if a scene by scene synopsis is desired, go to the Wikibook or Sparknotes. Apologies for the lack of signature, usually I don't forget. Cybertooth85 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm solidly in the camp of having short plot summaries (I once condensed the plot summary for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince from about 600 words to abou 300, though now it's huge again), but there are also plenty of people on the other camp. I've become a little tired of being one of few voices arguing for shorter plot summaries, and it's actually hard work to shrink these down. If you want to do it, you have my full support. --D e athphoenix ʕ 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First edit made. Not sure if it's necessarily shorter, but I think it makes efforts to only have the most important, book-centric information featured, with other minor features taken out. I think there are still minor sentences to be retooled or taken out, but it's good enough with the main plot to allow easy trimming. Definitely will need more trimming for the rest, though, as they give a real blow-by-blow of the novels. Cybertooth85 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original UK book cover

The UK has two different versions of the back cover. The second version definitely depicts Dumbledore but I am not sure whether the original is Dumbledore or Cornelius Fudge. Could anyone help with this issue? Should it be added into thea article?

If I remember correctly, Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear until book 2 (although Hagrid mentions him in book 1 shortly after meeting Harry, implying that he is incompetent). That would suggest that the original cover in particular does not depict Fudge. Brian Jason Drake 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it to be Dumbledore; this also makes sense why he was later changed, to match the book's description. I have one of the old copies if you need a scan of this picture. User:ADR3988

I disagree, I belive it to be Hagrid, in now way did it depict Dumbledore, I ahve it here in front of me and it is a tall, brown haired man smoking a pipe, either Hagrid, possiblyanother teacher? Is there any official refernce to it on any websites? User:Deadferrets

I have it in front of me. It is a tall skinny man with a long nose and a beard and moustache. And eccentric clothes and a spell book. It doesn't look like Hagrid; it does look as one might depict Dumbledore with some of, but not all of, the facts, and rather too much imagination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Is there a pic online somewhere? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Why is the reference commented out? What does 'Dead note "dumbledore"' mean? Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French cover

Shouldn't the French cover be on the French equivalent of this page, not here? -Phi*n!x 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Thomas

Do the British books ever mention Dean Thomas is black? If not, the Dean Thomas line in the US version creates an even bigger gap between the two versions, because the British readers never get to know he's black. Anyone know more about this? MrTroy 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

Why doesn't this article contain the ISBN of the book? Isn't it one of the most important information that an article on book can have? --Acepectif 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting Hat's owner

"The Sorting Hat, which was once the property of one of the school's founders, Godric Gryffindor"

Should this be mentioned in this article? It wasn't specifically mentioned until the next book, so this may be spoiling more than needed. The Sorting Hat is already wikilinked anyway. --Geopgeop 05:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it really shouldn't be there. In the interest of being bold, I'm making the edit. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Abandoned Plot Line

On JKRowling.com, if you punch 62552 into the cell phone and press send, you get a sheet of old plot.

On it, it mentions that Nicholas Flamel was already dead, the stone had been stole, and it was found in Harry's parent's vault. Should this be included in the article, or is it somewhat un-needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.9.14.58 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think rejected plot ideas are relevant. We should just give a general outline, not information of interest only to HP fans. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They definitely aren't relevant. Wikipedia would consider it fancruft.John Reaves 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes Section

Is this really necessary? A general overview of the book's plot is needed, but not its subtle connections to other books in the series. I put spoiler tags around it (some of these are big spoilers for later books), but I think it may be necessary to remove it. Your thoughts? Person132 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it.John Reaves 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Where is the citation for the amount of copies sold? le Dan 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy concerns

I am concerned that the current version of this article may be in violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, as the majority of it is currently a plot summary. It is very borderline right now, but adding another section or shortening the summary would be very helpful in preventing it from becoming a problem.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone_423e.html"