Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Events

Most of the events listed under the events section have websites, is it acceptable to include links to them? --Niu 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

HPfGU?

I'm very late into this discussion but I am suprised that there is no mention of the Yahoo Group HPforGrownups, especially since so many key characters within the fandom spent time there. Was this intentional or just an oversight? Dumbledad 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fansite links moved from Harry Potter

I've moved links from Harry Potter#External links to this page without prejudice because I assume any external links in the main site have already passed "spamlink scrutiny". See Talk:Harry Potter for my justification in moving the links to this article. I split the articles between those with Wikipedia articles and those without (then alphabetical after that). I'm not sure if they should just all be combined, but I think splitting it like this seperates, sites like MuggleNet from the less notable sites. --Deathphoenix 14:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fansites: notability?

I've checked a couple of the newer fansite additions, and noticed that a couple of them have no Alexa rank. I removed those two. I've also run an Alexa rank check on the rest of them, and here are my results as of the time of this posting:

  1. The Dueling Club: 4,569,034
  2. Fiction Alley: 50,063
  3. Frogrot Academy: 670
    • This rank isn't really applicable, since the Alexa rank is for the top level URL, not the subdirectory.
  4. Godric's Hollow: 300,884
  5. Immeritus: 952,939
  6. The Portkey: 3,450,579
  7. Potter's Prophecy: 2,235,443
  8. Riddles House: 382,453
    • This rank isn't really applicable, since the Alexa rank is for the top level domain, not for the subdomain
  9. Snitchseeker: 71,562
  10. Wizards.pro: 2,814,396

Now, we're talking external links here, not articles, so I think standards are a lot lower, but I think we can agree than anything that doesn't have an Alexa rank can be removed. How about some of these other ones? What would be an appropriate barrier? 2 million? 3 million? None? I don't mind leaving these in, though I might want to delete some of the really low ranking ones like 1, and maybe 6. --Deathphoenix 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think 3 million would be reasonable, which would mean deleting 1 and 6. Definitely delete 1, pretty much no matter what. Hermione1980 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Alexa is a bit unfair because they can only really generate statistics for Internet Explorer users running Windows and their toolbar. I tend to go by a combination of the Alexa rating and the Google PageRank (which is supposed to be a content relativity rating). For example:
  1. http://www.duelingclub.com/ has PageRank 5/10.
  2. http://www.fictionalley.org/ has PageRank 6/10.
  3. http://s12.invisionfree.com/frogrotacademy has PageRank 0/10.
  4. http://www.godrics-hollow.net has PageRank 5/10.
  5. http://www.immeritus.org has PageRank 4/10.
  6. http://www.the-portkey.com/ has PageRank 4/10.
  7. http://www.pottersprophecy.com/ has PageRank 4/10.
  8. http://riddleshouse.proboards78.com/index.cgi/ has PageRank 0/10.
  9. http://www.snitchseeker.com has PageRank 5/10.
  10. http://harrypotter.wizards.pro/ has PageRank 4/10.

Mugglenet has a 6 PageRank by the way. --Ariadoss 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

PageRank refers to how many other sites link to the website in question, while Alexa ranking refers to how many users running the Alexa Toolbar actually visit the site. I'd say a good schema to apply to this would be that anything below an appropriate PageRank should be removed unless it exceeds an appropriate Alexa rank; however, 3 and 8 should definitely be removed because it has no PageRank and the Alexa rank only applies to the top level domain/directories. Since these are external sites and not Wikipedia articles, we can afford to be lenient. Without coming to an appropriate hard schema, I think 1, 3, and 8 should be removed, 6 might be removed, while the others should stay. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sound perfectly fair to me. Glad we are coming to an agreement on this. --Ariadoss 04:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What about adding the very popular harry potter quiz & trivia site at funtrivia? http://www.funtrivia.com/quizzes/for_children/harry_potter.html
On the one hand, I would say that it passes the Alexa/PageRank test, but on the other hand, I would say that I don't really consider it a part of the Harry Potter fandom. Therefore, on the third hand that I don't even have, I'm going to let the other editors here decide. Hermione1980 14:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It definitely passes the Alexa test (~8,630), Google's a little low, but acceptable (4/10). I don't really think it's a fan page, but then again, considering how popular this site apparently is, it's not spamlink either, and that's all we're really trying to prevent. I say there's no harm in putting it in. --Deathphoenix 15:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There are numerous "popular" quizzes out there on the subject of Harry Potter, in fact some of the fan sites listed are home to some of these quizzes. I feel that if we have any links at all they should be directed towards sites that are dedicated to the Harry Potter Fandom rather than just have sections concerning it. --Ariadoss 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to remove Godric's Hollow because it is constantly being defaced and I'm worried about Wikipedia linking to objectionable content. --Ariadoss 09:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Even now, what, eighteen hours later, this page is still defaced. Egads/ --Deathphoenix 03:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

www.darkmark.com is pretty reputable. It's an affilate of mugglenet and constantly updated. 82.5.205.241 17:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ali

Thanks for listing it here first. I'd support the addition of it, with ~220,000 on Alexa, and 5/10 on Google PageRank. --Deathphoenix 19:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Sugar Quill is linked I don't think anyone would have a problem if Portkey.org was. I don't think there would be any notability problems since its a pretty well known fanfiction/fanart site and its forum has nearly 13,000 members. I also checked it on Alexa and PageRank, and it stands at 34,863 and 4/10 respectively.--Blinkus 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a check shows that you were talking about portkey.org, not the-portkey.com like I was originally checking. I have since restored the corrected URL. --Deathphoenix 16:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that Dueling Club now has an Alexa Rating of 1,400,266 now. A big change. Still has a PR of 5/10. Oh and the others: Fiction Alley - 24,239; Godric's Hollow - 469,442; Portkey - 3,650,713; Potter's Prophecy - 2,279,382; Snitch Seeker - 95,930; Wizards.pro - 348,338. C'est tout.66.80.7.67 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Godric's Hollow has been remove amd I'm not so sure if Potter Propecy and Portkey should even be included. I'll come back later on this month and re-analyze the links so we are not referring people to duplicate or very simmilar content. --Ariadoss 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why FictionAlley was moved to the Minor Sites section, when our Alexa stats are certainly higher than HogwartsLive, more consistent and somewhat on par with Veritaserum and well above Harry Potter Fan Zone. So I am moving FA to the other cateogry, but I wanted to explain why I am doing so - it's not just because I'm one of the admins on FA - it's because of FA's Alexa-stats. Heiditee 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Major Sites section is reserved for web sites that are deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. FicitonAlley does not. That's the problem with labelling it "Major sites" and "Minor sites" (I'm not sure who did that). We originally had everything lumped together, with the sites with Wikipedia articles listed first, and the ones without listed second. I think I'll restore it, as the "major" and "minor" moniker is a little confusing and somewhat insulting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Then I am really confused because FictionAlley does have a Wikipedia page, and we have for a long time. Is it because the page is under FictionAlley.org? I know I don't edit on Wikipedia a lot, which is why I am not familiar with all the conventions around here, but I'm trying to figure it out. 207.244.160.13 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me - Heiditee 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) - I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. And I also just realised that the FictionAlley.org article is a stub; is that the differentiation? )
Yes, that's the reason and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I had no idea FictionAlley.Org existed at all, and especially when you put in FictionAlley and it came out as a redlink (which indicates that the article doesn't exist). I'll put it in as FictionAlley.Org and maybe move it to a better name at a later time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
IS this one of those moments where having FictionAlley.Org redirect to FictionAlley would be a good thing? Heiditee 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, almost. I think moving (rather than redirecting) FictionAlley.Org to FictionAlley is the better plan of action. I believe that title (with no space in between) is the preferred name of that web site, right? --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think alexa rankings should be used to determine the order of websites. Users at some sites are mory web savvy then others, and don't download toolbars with spyware like the alexa toolbar. The ranking the google toolbar gives would be a more appropriote basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.24.127 (talk • contribs)

As said above, Alexa is simply for a general glance at things. The "Google test" is more often used, I believe. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved new comment down to the bottom to make it easier to see. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Roleplaying Games

I noticed links to funpic subdomains were posted though the sites do fit the category, they are not very notable. lumusrpg.lu.funpic.org/ has a 0 PageRank and hogwartsonline.ho.funpic.org/ is just a splash page with no content. In addition to that the Alexa rating is for funpic.org, which is a freehost comparable to geocities. --Ariadoss 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Shipping

No offense intended to our hard-working volunteers, but the shipping section is just bloody awful. Can someone who knows more about shipping than I (and therefore has a better idea of what is notable and what isn't) please clean up this section? I think this section could use some serious pruning. --Deathphoenix 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, but looking at the diffs, it doesn't really look like I did that much. I got rid of the one-sentence paragraphs and the clunky bulleted list, at least. Hermione1980 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hermione. I took a brief stab at cleaning up the text as well. --Deathphoenix 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have a go at expanding/clarifying this since it's something I have experience of.Alecto 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, might have just made it worse. The main thing was making it sound less like shipping had died in HP fandom, since that's simply not the case. What do you think? Alecto 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


You may want to think about editing the bit about ship names. The "HMS Whatever" is, AFAIK, a Fiction Alley-specific usage. Other sites have different conventions: the Snape slash sites that came out of the Yahoo mailing lists are all "S.S. Whatever." On LJ, people tend to use the blended names that Lotrips and Buffy fandom popularized, like Snarry for Snape/Harry and Snucius for Snape/Lucius.nmw 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did wonder that, but of the people I've consulted it seems that the really popular ones had become common usage. I see that someone else has added to the list though, which perhaps isn't the way to go. When I've got more time I'll see if I can write something appropriate.213.48.73.94 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Should Wizard rock be merged to here?

Hi, I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd have on merging and redirecting the contents of Wizard rock to this article. Please provide your feedback on Talk:Wizard rock. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to include this link in the external links in regards to Wizard Rock. http://groups.myspace.com/wizardrock It includes many of the major Wizard Rock groups as well as some of the lesser known ones. -AbbaLoveU

Someone already completed the merge; I removed the merge tag. SujinYH 16:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Woops, that would be me, but I forgot to remove the tag. Thanks for the cleanup! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a few other band names, though, because out of fairness, if we're going to refer to H and the P specifically, the other bands (mentioned in the H and the P article) should be as well. --Hiraeth 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the article be unmerged, as Wizard Rock, is a genre of music such as Alternative Rock. Wizard Rock, is like other genres and contains sub genres such as Dark Wizard Rock. It is simply, focused on the Harry Potter fandom, and should not be merged, and be taken seriously as a genre. - 16:45, December 21, 2006 - Hpfan9374 ( talk · contrib)

Spoiler web site belongs in fandom?

(CC to Talk:Harry Potter: Book Seven)

Do you think the Dumbledore is not dead web site currently in the External links of Harry Potter: Book Seven belongs in the Harry Potter fandom External links?

It was likely included there as a "reference" for the fact that many people believe that Dumbledore isn't dead, but since that was fan speculation that doesn't belong, the original text was removed, thus leaving this web site as an orphan that should be removed. However, as a site with an Alexa rank of 198,865 and a Google PageRank of 5/10, I think it certainly belongs in the fandom page. What do you think? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I seldom go so far as a 'further reading' section on wiki, but Dumbledore is not dead sounds exactly the sort of thing which should be in it, on the book 7 page. Probably not something to publicise by going into it here, but for completeness such sites ought to be mentioned. Especially if it possible to find a balanced selection with different views. Sandpiper 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick Quotes Quill moved from Harry Potter

I'm moving the "Quick Quotes Quill" from the main Harry Potter page because, even though it's a collection of Rowling quotes, it's not an official collection, and therefore, it is a fan site. With an Alexa rank of 808,458 and a Google PageRank of 4/10, this site is a little low on the notability scale, but I believe it's appropriate for a fandom link. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I was just discussing this sort of thing elsewhere. Anyone who wants to work on the Common Fisheries Policy, feel free to do so. Never read it? well I suspect few people have read its main reference either, which is the EU website which describes the policy. And similarly on other articles. If you can find a better website which actually has a good list of JKR statements, then feel free to substitute or add that additionally. But this is an important reference to primary source material relevant to the topic.
This is also the argument which says you may not quote the BBC news describing government policy because it is not the 'official' view direct from the government press office. Isn't that called censorship? Sandpiper 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't think I fully understand your comments, but my reasoning is that the Quick Quotes Quill isn't an official site, it's a fan site, so I moved it here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
yes, my argument was getting muddled. But Quick quotes doesn't qualify on grounds of notoriety, but rather of necessity. It isn't offering opinions, just a collection of known Rowling statements abouit the books. Unless anyone has a better source, it is pretty important, primary source material available online. Sandpiper 09:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hermione/Snape ship?

Is this edit valid? Hermione/Snape sounds more like a "Harry/Malfoy" type of ship, ie, not notable enough. I'm going to revert this edit, but since I am unfamiliar with the shipping crowd, I'd like someone in the know to either endorse or undo my revert. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge content from Harry Potter podcast

I think the content in Harry Potter podcast can be merged here as it's not really a notable-enough subject to warrant its own Wikipedia article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm… I'm a bit neutral. The content might belong here, but it has enough information for its own article. With a bit more clean-up and additions, it might be good on its own. You can see here that I did a bit of copyediting a while ago, but it still needs some more. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That's quite a bit of copyediting. If I were to merge, I'd probably merge it more or less word for word. I'd probably fold the History section into the intro and bring down the heading level of "Topics" and "List of Potter podcasts" so it becomes one down from the Podcasts heading. External links will probably be eliminated entirely, or placed beside their parent entries in "External links". --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Very well then, I'm for the merge. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge, definitely. The podcast is not notable enough to stand on its own. Fits better here. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I think I'm with FBV on this. I think it is sufficiently large to remain as an article, there are quite a few smaller ones on HP. However, it does belong under the heading of HP fandom. In general I prefer that relevant information should all be on one page when this is possible. The difficulty here might be the total length of the fandom article. What other topics might you have in mind to merge with this one? As it stands there is room to exand it and get in most of the podcast article, but do you envisage a lot more stuff being added. If you do, then we might end up looking for something to de-merge. For cataloging purposes, maintain a redirect to the section here. Sandpiper 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Now's the question of notability. If there are articles that are smaller and less notable than Harry Potter podcasts, the solution is to merge those articles somewhere as well. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There are characters with a lot less written about them than this article. The only thing I dont like about merging such characters into an appropriate collection is that then you can't get individual entries in the catalogue for each character (as far as I know). My favourite merge candidates are Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince. The two articles say essentially the same thing, and I think merging a couple works quite well. Sandpiper 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Notability? Yeah, not enough (yet) to have an article on its own. Provided we don't loose anything, I am in favor. Lgriot 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic should be merged here. Podcasting itself deserves its own article, but every topic of podcasting? I don't think so. However, I honestly think the article or section it becomes needs a revision. The way it's written, it sounds like MuggleCast and PotterCast are the only two Potter-themed podcasts in existence, which isn't true (iTunes alone has more than 70). --Hiraeth 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that is the principal author (Yep, that's me) of the article didn't know about the other podcasts, well, I knew that other existed, but I didn't know any details about them. Tuvas 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems we now also have an article on Snapecast
Well, it seems as thought a list of HP podcasts is now on the article, and there's just too much information there to merge it. I would suggest that we decide this one way or another, I'm tired of seeing the merge template on both pages... Tuvas 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the podcast article and made it a redirect here before noticing this discussion. If anyone disagrees and recerts I won't fight over it, but IMO there's nothing to be said about Harry Potter podcasts particularly. That article had no sources and was turning into a list and was encouraging the creation of vanity articles about individual podcasts. Just because Harry Potter is huge, this doesn't mean everyone's personal website is encyclopedia material. Friday (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Wonderful, I almost forgot about this merge proposal. It's long overdue. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've now merged the content, at least, the important things that were in the old page. It might need to be gone through a bit to improve it's readability with the rest of the article, but, I would say it's alright. There was a few good things on that page, after all... Tuvas 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of HP websites

An issue has arisen on the HP portal page, where someone was asking about what websites deserve a mention on wiki. My own view is that we do not have an adequate list, and we ought to. Yes, there is JKR's site and warner bros, but there are other like leaky hplexicon, etc which JKR has herself recommended, and then there are a lot of others with interesting content but not necessarily so famous. We should have a sensible spread to offer people for further reading. Sandpiper 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think those lists should be maintained in one place, and links be provided from that one place to other places. As I stated in the Portal Page, I believe that the best place for those links would be in the External links section of this page. I'd rather not have to maintain links in several articles at once when the links would be very similar. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This question may not be directly related, but I feel that the top list of links should be organized by traffic rank or alphabetized. I already alphabetized the bottom links. Any opinions on this? --Ariadoss 06:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I Add My Site?

I would like to add the site www.darktimesrpg.com although it only has a pagerank of three it's alexa rank is 3 millon ~spyfox

I was going to edit the links to add a roleplaying site I have been running for 2 1/2 years, but the edit area said to wait until I talked about it here.

The site is www.hprpg.net and I would love to have it added to the list of links. We've been around since October of 2004 and are an active community.

Hi, I appreciate your asking here first. Alexa rank puts your site in the 6million mark, and Google Pagerank is 3/10. I don't think your site is notable enough to be included here, but let's see what other people think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask what sites have to be at to be mentioned. My site is fairly old, but is only a 3/10. What is an appropriate ranking? My website is The Shrieking Shack (http://www.s-shack.org) Thanks for any help you can give me.


My google rank is still 3/10, but I believe since moving things around on my site (I used to have the main portion used in a sub-folder and now I've moved it out of the sub-folder), my Alexa rank has gone up. What is required for a link to be added? My site is www.hprpg.net! Thanks! ~Shanae, Owner, HPRPG.NET

The Quibbler

Hello. I'd like to know if The Quibbler Newsmagazine [1] could be added in the link area. The Quibbler is a monthly newsmagazine site, notable for delivering most of its article, interviews and up-to-date Harry Potter news from the point of view of the wizard/witch. It has been running since 2003 and was the launcher of the Mattie Stepanek Petition [2]. Though in the Google Pageranks has a 3/10, it might be due to be a monthly site, rather than a daily one.

Dissendium

I'd like to suggest Dissendium to be added to the list of external fan sites. They have produced the online Triwizard Tournament in association with Warner Bros which is claimed to be the largest online tournament of its kind to take place, and also what is claimed to be the world's first full 3D unofficial Quidditch game.

  • The web site seems notable enough due to its involvement with Warner Bros. What do the rest of you think? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yup, sounds good to me. I visit the site on occasion. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I appreciate this, as that site works hard for the HP Fans! Thanks!

I noticed this site was added, please could I ask that you continue to keep the links alphabetized. Thanks.

Events section

The Events section seems to display the historical promotional tendencies of several other sections in this article. I'm going to do what I did with the Wizard rock section, which is to remove all the examples. Text explaining what is being done is fine, in my opinion. Including examples implies that these ones are more notable than others, and I think encourages people to add even more examples. Before long, we'll have twenty or thirty events added to this section as examples. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix, while I agree with the general principal you've described, I maintain that such notable events, like Accio, Lumos, and Patronus, to name just the top three, be included somewhere in Wikipedia. This seems like the best spot for it, but I completely understand that some anons will come in and just add in some random event with no notability. I considered the suggestion of creating a main article for the events, but knowing what happened to Harry Potter podcast, Wizard rock, etc., I doubt it would last long. Any suggestions? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know how notable these events are, but if they are notable enough for an article, they would definitely be notable enough to be mentioned here. If they are not notable enough for an article, I don't know how notable enough they should be to warrant a mention here. Do we include the top three events in terms of attendance? Media exposure? I'm not sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to read a bit more on each, you can see Accio, Lumos (which TLC and MuggleNet are covering), and Patronus (which Steve Vander Ark of the HP Lexicon attended). Not to say that the attendees mean anything exceptional, just noting their popularity. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we add my site?

Hi,

I run a Harry Potter site, and i reckon it might well be worth including on the Wiki page on fandom. Here is the link:

www.trivia-duelling.com

It is based on the most popular fan game called 'Trivia Duelling' and is played on most if not all fansites, but ours is the largest Trivia Duelling site.

Nick Hilton, TD

Hi Nick, and thank you for asking here first. From what I could see, it appears that you have an Alexa ranking of over 4 million, and a Google PageRank of 3/10. As such, I don't think it's notable enough to be included here. However, as a fan of Harry Potter, I do encourage you to take part in editing our numerous Harry Potter-related articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deathphoenix, That's fine...How do you find out the Alexa and Google rankings, and what are they determined by?

Thanks alot, Nick

Hi Nick, Alexa rankings basically track how many visitors (with Alexa installed) go to your web site, and can be found here. Google PageRank refers to how many other web sites link to your web site, and can be found here. In general, either one has its strengths and weaknesses, but so far we've agreed to apply a combination of the two for a rough estimate of whether a web site is appropriate for linking on this page. I do appreciate your talking about your web site here first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deathphoenix, That's very cool! :) I'll aim to get those rankings up! In that case i'm alittle bit surprised that the sites: www.mud-blood.net and www.thepotterpolice.com are not included! The second has to be one of the most important sites in the whole of fandom!

Thanks alot, Nick

Hi Nick. Well, rankings aren't the only mark of notability. Don't try to get your rankings up for the sole purpose of being on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a trophy room (nor is it just an indiscriminate collection of links, though this fandom page is certainly becoming one). :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not a trophy room, but it's a mark of respect if your fansite merits a place on the lsit...Bit like JK's official site, just a bit less important....:)


Hello, Without starting a new topic I was wondering if my site can be considered for the link section as well. The site is Xauror.com and is kindly mentioned in the Role-Playing section the Alexa ranking is xauror.com 2,084,160 and google 3/10 and This site has an Alexa ranking of 38,433. This site has a Google PageRank of 6 out of 10..

Thanks you for your consideration, xauror


Hello, I also am inquiring about a website to be added to the link section of Harry Potter Fandom. It is http://harrychatpotter.proboards103.com/index.cgi . We are a forum that talks about all aspects of Harry Potter. We are just getting started but the members that we have are extremely active. I believe that if our link gets added to Wikipedia we would have a large amount of new members in no time. Please consider our site as I believe it would be a great addition to this article. Thank you, Prefect of HCP -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.11.237 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for the official Wiki guidelines which we all are expected to conform to. External links are intended to provide verifiability and reliable sources as reference information that bolsters the article's quality, or purely as "examples" of what is being discussed in the article - and in general very few "examples" are needed. External links that are provided specifically for the purpose of increasing traffic to the external web site is really contrary to the Wiki guidelines and policies. I think stating that "I believe that if our link gets added to Wikipedia we would have a large amount of new members in no time" is really not the approach you want to use. Thanks for asking. --T-dot 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When I made that statement, I was trying to convey that this forum would be a good addition to the article because there would be many members to talk with about Harry Potter. If you do not consider forums as good "examples", then I suggest you skim through more articles and delete all the forum links that you already do have implanted in the external links section, because I know there are many.

Good luck with that. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.11.237 (talk • contribs)

Well yes, it may well be that there are more than sufficient Fan Forums listed as "External Links" in a large number of Wiki pages, HP-related or not, and it will take much time and effort to clean up the excess. But two (or dozens) of "wrongs" do not make a "right". Again the Guidelines state that External Links may be provided, IFF they serve to illustrate the point of the article; for example on a page that describes what such Fan Forums are, and how they are used. One or two popular and high quality examples of such Forums is sufficient. There are probably tens of thousands of other HP Forums and blog pages and other web sites set up globally by fans, but the Wikipedia is NOT the place to list them all, or even any more than a very small sample. Wiki Policies state that the motivation for posting such External links must not primarily be to serve to increase traffic to that External Link, which is what you seemed to be suggesting was your purpose for posting it. I understand, and grant to you, that there may be tens of thousands of young motivated fans who would love to know all about your Forum web site, and they might find thousands of other fans there with similar interests, but this is not the place for it. It is not the duty of an encyclopedia like the Wikipedia to publicize such links and provide "free advertising". The more links that get posted, the more there will be that also want to get posted, and then the list explodes out of control as everyone wants a piece of the action for their pet website. The "me too" temptation just produces a massive snowball effect, and eventually someone is forced to get all wiki-legalistic and delete them all, or perhaps leaving one or two prime ones as examples. I believe there are objective ways to sort out which forum sites are "most notable" as good examples, based on traffic, from Google and Alexa, as discussed by Deathphoenix above. Please understand, we are not trying to shut you down, I am trying to assist you and others with understanding why we have to keep a limit, and make good choices, on these external links. If your Forum page is ranked among the highest in Google and/or Alexa rankings, then I certainly do not have ANY problem with pointing that out in the main article, and providing a link to the site, so all can see what a "good example" Fan Forum looks like. Good luck with that - and HAVE FUN! --T-dot 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get back to you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.11.237 (talk • contribs)

Release Rate

What's with removing my (Podcasts release on sunday night). Demonblade  (talk)  11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article already says "New podcasts are released weekly," referring to both MC and PC. I didn't think it was necessary to specify the day of the week. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove all external links?

There are way too many fansites, even for a fandom article. Under "Links to be used occasionally", WP:EL states: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." -- Win777 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(put up a section header for navigation purposes) You have an excellent point. I think we originally discussed these fan sites when we didn't have WIkipedia articles on any of them, but now that we have an extensive collection of Wikipedia articles on fan sites, now would be the time to get rid of all external links to articles that don't have a Wikipedia article. That would also make it very easy for us to set a standard on what sites should be included: basically, if it can pass an AfD, it can be included. I'm thinking of what we used to do for the now-deleted "List of web sites": any red links get deleted automatically. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections or further discussion, I'm going to remove all the external links to fan sites very soon. It'll create a precedent for not adding every single little fan site to this article, and the list of fan sites notable enough to have a Wikipedia article are more than enough to show examples of fan sites. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw this. I'm a bit torn. While I understand all these reasons, and think they're very rational and sensible, I don't quite think these fan sites should be deleted. We're doing fine with the "ask on the talk page to post a site" thing, why not keep it at that? Besides, the page is about Harry Potter fandom, and having links to Harry Potter fan sites on such an article is quite acceptable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm actually somewhat torn as well, since I know we personally looked at each link and deemed them "notable enough" at the time. As I recall, there weren't too many of these fan sites that were notable enough for a Wikipedia article (only MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron). Now we have six. Feedback I do pay a lot of attention to would be from "outsiders" who have no real vested interest in an article: from what I see, Win777 is a "Harry Potter outsider" who has seen and edited many other articles. Coming into this one he (or she) was taken aback by the sheer volume of external links. I can see how removing external links can really make it much easier to handle potential spamlinks in this article: simply revert any addition of a redlink or external link. On the other hand, this list is already slightly filtered to exclude fan sites with little or no notability (incidentally, since I do have a response now, I won't delete these links until we come to a consensus. Regardless of how I've stated my opinions, I'm not exactly very gun-happy). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree that the article may look cluttered to an "outsider" who comes to the external links section. But, as I said above, this article is about the Harry Potter fandom. Is there another place where we can put the fan sites? You can't very well direct readers to the talk page or a subpage, and the article is supposed to be about fandom and fan sites and fan whatever. Suppose we removed all the fan sites, or left none but the six with articles. That doesn't say much about the fandom -- that there's only six (or no) fan sites! The HP fandom is one of the largest, why downplay it by removing what makes the fandom? Just my two knuts… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you downplay (or show off) the size of a fandom by increasing the number of external links; you can accurately convey the size of the fandom by writing about it. In other words, rather than indicating that there are tonnes of fan sites by showing tonnes of external links, why not simply say "There are tonnes of fan sites" in the article itself (better worded, of course)? If we need several external links to show how large the fandom is, there is a problem with the content of the article. I'm getting more and more convinced that we need to submit this article to a formal peer review to see what other people think. I think this article is one of several that could use some work from many Harry Potter outsiders. What a typical Harry Potter fan thinks is appropriate for a Wikipedia article is very different from what a typical Wikipedia editor thinks is appropriate. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to mention within the article that there are qualitatively "very many"? (or something quantitative - "dozens"? "hundreds"? "thousands"?) of HP-related fan sites, and making mention of a very few that are ranked extremely high on the traffic scales. List External links to the few key ones in an appropriate heading: "Example HP fan sites", with a hidden note to editors stating "please do not add other fan web sites unless they have a higher ranking than those already shown, and have been peer reviewed on the talk page..." Perhaps we can also provide a Google link to "search results" for "Harry Potter fan site" or something sensible - as a citation reference to the "hundreds" or whatever (and: can we legitimately post a Google search result link?). Just wondering "aloud" to the community... --T-dot 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
All right, all these suggestions sound good to me. I dunno about linking to Google as a ref, but that sounds good as well. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed blacklisted links

I just changed the blacklisted links so the spam filter wouldn't block me from adding an edit to this page (adding archive box and talkheader). Abby724 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Site for consideration

Hi, I have a web site called The Harry Potter Detective, and I was wondering if i could have a link on the Harry Potter fandom page. Here's the link The Harry Potter Detective--Res2216firestar 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Site for Consideration

Hello, I was wondering if you would consider xauror.com for the link section. It is kindly mentioned in the Role-Playing section.

Site Stats for xauror.com:

   * Traffic Rank for xauror.com:  908,429 (up 1,759,261)


Thanks you for your consideration,

Xauror 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)xauror

PS sorry for the second posting - I must have missed the response back in August and just curious what the decision was one way or another.

Hi Xauror, thanks for asking (again – sorry that it was missed in all the discussion back in August)! I think one thing we have to do in the article, and one thing I'm in the process of doing now, is prove the notability of each site in the External Links. For example, from what I can tell, Wizards.pro is not that notable of a site, and I may be removing it from that list fairly soon. Most of the other sites are fairly notable at first glance: JKR has given them her fan site award, or they have an extremely high Alexa/Google ranking. So, if you can prove that your site is quite notable (eg it's been mentioned in a publication like a newspaper or something), then it belongs on the page. But – and with no offense – if you think this would primarily just be advertising for your site, then the answer is no. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia regardless, in other subject areas to which you can contribute! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks for your thorough response. The only reason I ask is because you have been so kind to mention the site because of it being the first that I know of based on phpbb in your Role-Playing Article however no link exists for it in the link section. Your main fandom Role-Playing Section article lists it as:

"Other sites such as Xauror use modified versions of phpBB that allow for a certain level of interactive role-playing and are what is commonly referred to as "forum-based roleplaying". Interactive gaming can include player versus player features, some form of currency for making purchases in stores, and non-player characters such as monsters that must be fought to gain levels and experience points. However, these features are more prevalent in games that are not forum-based. Advancement in such games is usually dependent on live chat, multiplayer cooperation, and fighting as opposed to taking classes or simply posting to earn points for the House cup."

It was published in an article by Contra Costa Times: http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/176268/harry_potter_fans_make_own_magic/index.html. Thanks again like I said it is more of a curiosity than anything that it is nicely described in the body of the article with no link to it. I can not handle any more traffic so it is no big deal. Thanks again Xauror 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)xauror

Oh, I see it now! I didn't even realize it was in the prose of the article! Now that I've also seen it in a publication, I've added it to the list. Thanks for your patience. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks so much Xauror 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)xauror

A proposal

I am involved in the Warriors (book series) page, and I think this page should be deleted. We were told that we cannot include fan sites in the external links section. We were also told that we could not create a Warriors fan sites page. Warriors has outsold Harry Potter on many occasions, and this is Wikipedia, why should Harry Potter be any different.--Res2216firestar 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this page is slightly different. This is not a fan sites page, but a page discussing all the fandom in the world about Harry Potter, which happens to mention some notable fan sites, notable because J. K. Rowling has referenced them on occasion, and personally invited them for interviews. If Warriors fan sites have had this much press from Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry, or any other distinguished source, you have grounds to mention these fan sites. That is why most fan sites suggested on this talk page don't make it to the article -- and some fan sites currently in the article should be removed because they do not mark this notability. However, the article talks about topics like fan fiction and wizard rock, which are real-world topics which merit encyclopedia entries. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

I am involved in the Warriors (book series) page, and I think this page should be deleted. We were told that we cannot include fan sites in the external links section. We were also told that we could not create a Warriors fan sites page. Warriors has outsold Harry Potter on many occasions, and this is Wikipedia, why should Harry Potter be any different.--Res2216firestar 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this page is slightly different. This is not a fan sites page, but a page discussing all the fandom in the world about Harry Potter, which happens to mention some notable fan sites, notable because J. K. Rowling has referenced them on occasion, and personally invited them for interviews. If Warriors fan sites have had this much press from Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry, or any other distinguished source, you have grounds to mention these fan sites. That is why most fan sites suggested on this talk page don't make it to the article -- and some fan sites currently in the article should be removed because they do not mark this notability. However, the article talks about topics like fan fiction and wizard rock, which are real-world topics which merit encyclopedia entries. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussing whether we should add this: --Please do not add a site here without first discussing it on Talk:Harry Potter fandom first. Thank you.--

Lets count how many agree or disagree with it:

  1. I disagree. We should not add it. Everyone should be free to add his site here. Carhonda 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in having this poll, because the inclusion of the comment is not a breach of one of Wikipedia's policies. Including "Joe's Harry Potter Fan Site" is not in accordance with WP:NN, unless J. K. Rowling publicly declares, "I love Joe's Harry Potter Fan Site!" or a significant number of people use it, i.e. it is high in Alexa's traffic rankings, or it has been noted in a publication (and even then it may not be notable, if the publication is not a notable publication, for example), etc.. The comment is directing people to this talk page to discuss the notability of Harry Potter fan sites. It has been in the article since April 15, 2006 without objection, with a fully functioning system where people suggest sites for inclusion and, if they pass the test of a discussion among frequent editors to the page, they are mentioned in the External links or See also sections. If they do not pass, they are not mentioned. If you would like to include whatever site in the external links section, feel free to discuss it here and we will assess it accordingly.

In addition, you might want to read WP:POINT as this is bordering on that policy. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this is bordering on WP:POINT. You are wrongly interpreting WP:POINT. Actually the one who added this sneaky invisible restricting phrase into the article, this is the one who did this to make a point. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we have plenty of space here to include all Harry Potter Fan Sites. Carhonda 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That is patently false. There are thousands perhaps tens of thousands of unofficial web sites, blog pages, forums, and other fan-made pages based on the Harry Potter universe and phenomenon. It is not the Wikipedia's place to attempt to list "all Harry Potter Fan Sites", nor even many or several of them. The Wikipedia is not to be used as a list of external web sites. See WP:EL and WP:NOT. --T-dot 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is a point of policy and a simple straw poll won't change that. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just wonder, who is responsible to give us the correct interpretation of the policies? Who is about to decide whether we should keep or delete the phrase? You are? Carhonda 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus determines the policies, but once an actual policy has been set, they don't usually change except under specific circumstances. Ultimately, Jimbo has the power to set or disband policies as he sees fit, but he usually lets the Wikipedia community determine it. If you want to question these policies, you are welcome to do so on those policy pages, but a little Harry Potter page is not the place to be setting policies. That's the last I'll have to say on this matter on this page. I think any further straw polls you try to set on this page will only dig you deeper. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not about questioning the policies. Policies are great. It is about interpreting polices, and what I am asking you is who is responsible to interpret them. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is the first policy, so apparently is more important than "wikipedia is not a democracy". Also, who makes the point here, am I? or the one who without reason prohibits the insertion of harry potter fan sites? Regarding notability, what is more notable? A harry potter fan site or a single hidden comment someone inserted someday whithout anyone to notice? Is the author of this comment an expert or something? Carhonda 10:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, that doesn't mean go ahead and list hundreds of thousands of fan sites in it: there is no point in listing them all, because Wikipedia is also not a directory. From WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: Links mainly intended to promote a website [are normally meant to be avoided]. Also, you are misinterpreting the use of a comment. Read here: "You will not be able to see the text on this page, but it will be seen when you try to edit this page. Hidden text is mostly used for warnings." We inserted the comment so that people would be directed here, because this article is not a listing of Harry Potter fan sites. It is text about Harry Potter fandom, discussing wizard rock, fan fiction, podcasting, with a brief listing of notable fan sites. To prevent the page from continuing on and on, listing after listing of fan sites, we've cut it short at those which, in alignment with one of the most important policies on Wikipedia which should rarely be ignored, are notable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It would be polite, if nothing else, to discuss what sites are referenced in the article. I think the bigger issue here is: what effect will discussing sites have? Will editors have any power to prevent or encourage site inclusion? Or will it merely be a courtesy announcement? That is the bigger issue. Also, I don't think that this is a case of WP:POINT on either side: merely two different viewpoints over what should and should not be included in the article. Nonetheless, a notice to be thoughtful of what is included is hardly dangerous in itself. Michaelsanders 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
editors always have the power to decide an issue, by editing the article as they see fit. Rules are all very well, but articles frequently come down to the views of those interested enough to keep editing them. Sandpiper 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Discussing whether WP:NN, WP:POINT and WP:NOT policies apply in our case

I also agree with WP:NN, WP:POINT and WP:NOT policies. But, I firmly believe that these polices do not apply in our case.. So lets discuss about it. Do you agree that the above policies apply here, so we dont need to discuss whether we should add this "--Please do not add a site here without first discussing it on Talk:Harry Potter fandom first. Thank you.--" in the article ?

  1. I disagree. The above policies do not apply in our case. We do need to discuss about it, and the fact that this invisible comment stayed there for 8 months, this does not legalise for it to remain there without discussion! Carhonda 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'll just go along with this so that you can see that these policies do apply. I agree. Incidentally, all comments are invisible: they are notes to editors to alert them to something about the page, but they are not meant for the reader to see. An encyclopedia, especially Wikipedia, tries not to self-reference within the text of the article, thus saying "Do not add a site here…" without the comment markers (<!-- and -->) would be inappropriate. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Important, but very complicating. Obviously, a site needs to be notable in order to be included (so agree: that applies) - the neurotic ramblings of one fool in his shed who is trying to use wikipedia as advertisement should not be referenced. The problem is how one decides what is notable. Probably by means of discussion here. Ignoring WP:POINT, since it is purely circumstantial: sometimes it brings good, sometimes bad. Also, what one person terms 'disruption to prove a point', another can easily term genuine diligence. Wikipedia has to be flexible. To WP:NOT: disagree, on condition that the constraints of WP:NN are applied. Lists are, contrary to the belief of some, useful, as is information others deem useless. But the information which is included should be by common consent, and with some limits - otherwise, it will be impossible to use the article. Michaelsanders 20:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I havn't got time now to go through all the sites included at present and decide if I feel they are either representative or includeable, so as to get an idea about inclusion criteria. I also do not have time to read the fine print of all the policies quoted (which always takes hours), some of which are downright confusing, and therefore not helpfull. I think the number of examples currently included is reasonable, it ought to be a representative sample including ones which are particularly noteable for some reason. absolutely should not be a comprehensive list. This includes an implications that a new one wanting to come in must be at least as good as those already mentioned, and adding one might involve knocking out another. I don't think page rank is the last word in noteability. Content is very important, perhaps also uniqueness. I'm afraid this is something which requires editorial judgement. That is what editors are for. We do not provide free advertising, at least not per se. Sandpiper 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hogwarts Forums

Is Hogwartsforums.com notable enough to be added? It is involved with Sulake's Habbo Hotel.CityPride 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've added it already, but I'd say that, though unacquainted with Sulake and Habbo Hotel, the Wikipedia text asserts its notability. However, I hope that soon we're going to establish a method for establishing the notability more easily.
With Respect to Hogwarts forums, t

--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I'm an occasional visitor to Hogwarts Forums (as with around 20 other Harry Potter fan sites) and maybe it would help if I got some pageviews and visitor statistics?CityPride 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

Delete the whole Fansite external link section. The uncontested fan sites like HPANA and Mugglenet aren't even linked there. They are worked into the Articles text and have their own articles which have links to their sites. If this is the case, why do we even need a fansite link to clutter the page and distract from serious article/project work? Commit the whole damn thing to the fire.

And if in the future, some other well intentioned webmasters try to add their sites to the article, instead of us debating whether they are notable, we should delete and leave the burden to prove notability to them. TonyJoe 20:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That attitude is remarkably unhelpful. Attacking subjects people believe relevant merely gets their backs up. Michaelsanders 23:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleting isn't the same as attacking, and the vast majority of those who insert these links don't actually have the encyclopedia's best interest at heart so much as they do the prominence of their sites. There's no attitude or attack here. TonyJoe 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I imagine the greatest majority of people who contribute to wiki have no interest in creating a great encyclopedia. They just have a particular interest in some subject and fancy having a go. If wikipedia sets about excluding these people, then it would be vastly smaller than it is now, much poorer, and certainly not the encyclopedia written by everyone, which I presume it still claims to be. As to 'their' sites, I also imagine that people suggesting additions here are more likely to be users who are recommending something they personaly consider useful, rather than people who own or created those sites. Assume good faith? Sandpiper 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel as though you're considering "excluding people" where the issue here is comming up with the most effective way to be rid of extraneous information. This question isn't about the overall impact on the project or the veracity of its "encyclopedia by everyone" tagline, it's about this article's overall message being made second to fansites for the latter's sake. That is the issue here, nothing else.TonyJoe 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

er, no, to wholesale deletion. this is an article about fandom. While having its very own wiki article might make a website an obvious candidate to be mentioned in this article (in fact mandatory to mention it here, really), it can hardly be the only one. There obviously must be websites worthy of a mention in a general article, which are still not important enough to have their very own article. Otherwise, what you are saying is that the only grounds for inclusion on wiki, is already being included on wiki. Talk about OR. Sandpiper 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if they're "worthy," what matters is whether or not they're helpful to the article in articulating its message. If it is,it should fit comfortably into text. Why does one even need so long a list of fansites? The fansite's section encourages webmasters to add their site without considering its value to the article.TonyJoe 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Who cares if they're "worthy,". That attitude is offensive and insulting to those who are actually interested in this topic. Moderate your tones or be quiet. Michaelsanders 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Moderate my tones? Excuse me, but this is the case of the reactionary kettle blackguarding the pot. Relax sir, and take a momment to think about why you are finding an "offensive and insulting" attitude where there is none intended. TonyJoe 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hardly. I simply don't like people, such as yourself, who immediately attack the hard work and interests of others. Furthermore, I hardly think it's a case of pot vs kettle. You have said, "Commit the whole damn thing to the fire." "Who cares if they're "worthy,"". That, I think most people would agree, is remarkably uncivil. It also demonstrates your intolerance to those who work on this page. What have I done? I warned you, based on bitter experience (on both sides), that when you behave in such a manner, you get peoples backs up, and turn what could be a rational and calm discussion into all-out war. It is unhelpful (as well as against civility policy). I also warned you to moderate your tones for the same reason. That is hardly the same. I suggest, with every possible politeness, that you tread carefully. I haven't noticed the editors who care about this page engaging in such blatant rudeness. Michaelsanders 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"Blatant Rudeness"!?! Calling for the destruction of a section is not rudeness. Asking for links to be evaluated based on helpfulness to the article rather than whether they're "worthy" is not rudeness (both are subjective but "helpfulness to the article" forces the link to be relevant while worthy could see them added because of opportunism). And my intolerance of others? If I was intolerant of the views of others I would have at least one edit on the article in defiance of consensus. As it stands, I have none, defiant or otherwise.
As I've already said, you are seeing things where there is nothing. You are correct though on the point of me not caring about the "hard work or interests of others." If I "attack" them (which implies malice where there is none), its because I see them as interefereing with the integrity of the article and wikipedia at large. The people to whom they are connected are of no concern to me. I will not appologize for trying to make the article better as I see it, nor will I "tread carefully" or change my manner which I have already said is in no way directed against anyone. 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

ASSUME GOOD FAITH. And stop making allegations: "The people to whom they are connected are of no concern to me" - what is that supposed to mean? You are also contradicting yourself: "nor will I "tread carefully" or change my manner which I have already said is in no way directed against anyone" and "If I "attack" them (which implies malice where there is none), its because I see them as interefereing with the integrity of the article and wikipedia at large." I'm going to put this bluntly (and rudely, because you clearly refuse to listen to polite warnings): keep a civil tongue in your head or take it elsewhere. Or it will be removed. Michaelsanders 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also: from your userpage: "I love Wikipedia's loose structure that's pretty egalitarian with only your own merit to distinguish you from others. I don't really have any positions on controversial Wikipedia issues and prefer to see whatever's most practical enacted.I really prefer contributing to actual articles than getting involved in those types of policy debates or votes for this or that."
I really hate hypocrites. Michaelsanders 19:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This is going in circles, and only you are the only person causing it to devolve into unpleasantness. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction between my posts and my user page. I'm not getting into wikipolicy debates. The statement on my userpage was referring to the userbox wars, which were ongoing at the time. I have made no accusation, save the legitimate one that these links are (or give rise to) opportunistic links that make the article secondary to themselves. And I would like to see what is most practical here enacted- the destruction of the section that seems to be a constant problem/distraction.
In short sir, you are a presumptuous little fundamentalist (look at your own userpage), who insist on engaging me rather than the idea. You warned me to "keep a civil tongue in your head," then in the same breath warn that it (cyber or physical?) might "be removed."
I hate hypocrites too, especially the disgusting assertive bullying type. For them I have nothing but contempt. We're through here.TonyJoe 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
...Right...paranoia appears to be a major flaw here...as is an unpleasant false civility ("In short, sir"). The word fundamentalist, when applied to myself, I find appallingly offensive, and entirely typical of your own style. You are rude, you do not care about the opinions of others, you have engaged in rudeness purely for its own sake. You are trollishly not only rabidly demanding in the most inflammatory tones the destruction of part of an article, but determinedly engaging in hostility towards others. So I'm going to be really blunt - since you evidently prefer to throw insane suggestions of physical violence about when you have the chance. Be polite, go away, or you will be blocked. Michaelsanders 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If my tones are inflammatory, why are you the only one inflamed? If I am making "rabid demands" why is the section under which you write called "a proposal." If I am determinedly engaging in hostility towards others, why are you fighting this battle alone?
If I was determinedly engaging in hostility toward others, I would not offer you this peice of advice that Christ gave his disciples on the night he was betrayed: "Let a man examine himself." Instead of focusing on me, look within yourself. You have the single most aggressive userpage that I've ever come accross. When taking it with this talk page, it almost appears as if you go looking for battles, even going so far as to start them where there are none. If Wikipedia thrives on compromise, cooperation, and coordiality, your rude stubborn unrelenting bullying obstinancy would surely be a cancer to the project if users like you became more numerous. It's an old moral test for personal behavoir, that if you can't imagine an entire community behaving like you and still remaining functional, you should probably reconsider the act. I can imagine the entire community saying something like "commit the whole damn thing to the fire" as merely a colorful phrase. Can you imagine them all reacting as you have, alleging "blatant rudeness" despite the fact that the speaker has said repeatedly he meant none (tantamount to calling him a liar), calling others hypocrites, and rudely issing commands to each other ("moderate your tones or be quiet" "keep a civil tongue in your head or it will be removed")
Perhaps I should take my own advice. I've said my peace on my tone (and I am removing myself from the fansite discussion), but that thing about tongue removal... you obviously weren't going to remove my physical tongue, but the corruption of meaning went well with the charge of fundementalism (one I stand by, a charge based on what I percieve of you- here and on your userpage). For that I appologize. I however will not be bullied. At this point, if you'd like to move forward in having me banned, go ahead. I have a thing for righteous struggle against those who would attempt to dominate me, you see. I'd be curious to see which of our asses will be riding a rail out of here first.
NOT determined to fight, offend, or be rude to anyone, I am, respectfully, and humbly your most obedient servant, TonyJoe 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you would care to look back over these entries: I think you will find that it is you that has brought this down into this argument. You began by leaving an over-hostile and egotistical demand to 'commit the whole damn thing to the fire'. I warned you - based on personal knowledge, on both sides, that when an editor goes about a proposal or an argument in such a way, they arouse hostility or contempt in others - to be careful. You made a mealy mouthed reply. You then replied to a comment by Sandpiper, claiming - against every single piece of wikipedia documentation, I might add - "who cares if they are worthy." I again warned you to be careful. And you, I am afraid, took that rude, insolent and militant attitude. Bringing our discussion, as I had warned you, into simple hostilities. To clarify: I warned you to be careful and polite. You turned that warning into full scale hostilities. I was acting within wikipedia guidelines. You were not.
You are, I am sorry to say, delusional. You think you are being bullied. You are not. You also think that others care what you have to say. They do not. You accuse me of being a fundamentalist. I am anything but (if I was, I would be accusing you of belittling my faith by quoting Jesus at me, thereby implying anti-Semitism...). I do care about principles, and whilst I am not always able to follow through, I try to keep to what I believe in (I also generally give my respect only to those who earn it. You, my illiterate high-school friend, have not). You, however, have displayed a disturbing attitude distinctly alien to wikipedia ("I have a thing for righteous struggle against those who would attempt to dominate me, you see." Wikipedia is hardly the appropriate place). Wikipedia is the place neither for psychofraudulent claptrap ("Instead of focusing on me, look within yourself.") nor religious fundamentalism. Moreover, your own moral code must be severely warped if you believe that a warning to be civil is an instance of bullying. For that matter, your ethics must be rather damaged if you believe that not only is hypocrisy fine, but that any one who evinces dislike of such people must be a fundamentalist. And I certainly can't imagine any sort of community made up entirely of people like you: you'd all interpret greetings as insults, and end up killing each other before nightfall because you decided that a question about your mother was a sexual innuendo.
Oh, and in answer to: "alleging "blatant rudeness" despite the fact that the speaker has said repeatedly he meant none," - generally, it's rather hard to believe that if the person, in so claiming, is doing so in a rude manner.
And learn how to spell. Reading your posts is like looking in a child's exercise book.Michaelsanders 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts

How about this? If a fan site is mentioned in the prose of the article (in which case its notability would be established with a cite and by the surrounding text), it should be linked in an External links section, as per WP:EL. However, if the fan site is not mentioned in the prose, it should not by any means be in an external links section. (I brought this up on the talk page of the WPHP.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As this has received no objection in nearly a week, I will consider implementing it tomorrow (later today by UTC times). The new policy on external links will be as such:

  • No site shall be frivolously added to the External links section, or the prose of the article, without either discussing it on the talk page first or asserting its notability through referencing with verifiable and reliable sources. A comment, using the <!-- and --> markers will be inserted into the markup of the article to alert editors, but not readers.
  • A site shall only appear in the External links section if it is mentioned in the article. As per WP:EL, no external links shall appear in the prose of the article. This will show that all external links have their notability proven, because in order for it to appear in the article it must be well-referenced.
  • Fan sites with Wikipedia articles have already had their notability proven through the fact that they do have articles, and if this is disagreed with they should be sent to WP:AfD. These fan sites shall be listed in the See also section and the URLs of their web sites will also appear in the external links section.
  • In general, the mention of fan sites throughout the article shall be kept to a minimum. Any attempt to mention a fan site in the prose only to have its URL appear in the external links section will be reverted.

Hopefully, in future archiving of this page, this can remain on the talk page for all editors to see. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of several folks who worked hard to try and get some sort of notability standard for this article, I'm happy to have you blow our work up and implement this standard as it is much easier to enforce. Furthermore, when you rejig this section, may I recommend that you change the title from "External links" to "References"? That way, it makes it more clear that any links to fan sites must have been mentioned in the article first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm just happy to blow your hard work to smitherings! ;-) Since the whole article was in desperate need of a rewrite anyway, I decided it would be best just to start a new draft of the page, working to enforce the policy above. I've started it at Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite and was able to work on the top two sections of the page, fan sites and conventions. However, I don't feel experienced enough in the fan fiction world or the RPG world to contribute well enough in revising those sections, though I'm happy to cover podcasts and possibly music later. Anybody want to work on it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The list of conventions seems a little much (and it certainly doesn't need a list of "future conventions"). That's just my opinion, though, I'd like to hear from more folks before I shrink that list down. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it's a little long, just wanted to put them out there for possible removal, rather than omit them and leave it incomplete. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanfiction Section

I'd like to see the Fan fiction section made concise and succinct, then have any extra details merged into the main Harry Potter fan fiction article. That article has recently been cleaned up quite a bit, and could be improved more with some of the details which are mentioned offhandedly here. Furthermore, some of the information in the section is incorrect. Where contradicting information is available, assume that Harry Potter fan fiction is correct, as it contains more citations and has been updated with the latest informations available. Cattlyst 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Animé

Can someone, anyone, if possible, which it may not be, please try to explain to me why Harry Potter fan stuff, and I mean all of it, every medium, worldwide, is like 94 percent animé? Seriously. Getting annoying. VolatileChemical 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)