Talk:Parodies of Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Peer review Parodies of Harry Potter has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Image:Dumbledore.jpg 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.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click Show →

Contents

[edit] Reverted redirect

I reverted this redirect that destroyed a deal of properly researched and cited material that is not duplicated at the destination. Gordonofcartoon 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

2 articles of similar content don't need to exist, just because the user that created this..didn't know about the list in the first place. Move relevant content to that list page, then redirect. It seems like a simple concept to me. RobJ1981 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree (unfortunately he did know, but went ahead anyway). Gordonofcartoon 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm moving this list here

Tanya Grotter spinoffs. I just don't see the relevance of this unless they can be expanded beyond merely mentioning the titles:

1. Мефодий Буслаев: Маг Полуночи (Methodius Buslaev: Magician of Midnight)
2. Мефодий Буслаев: Свиток желаний (Methodius Buslaev: Roll of Desire)
3. Мефодий Буслаев: Третий всадник мрака (Methodius Buslaev: Third Rider of the Gloom)
4. Мефодий Буслаев: Билет на Лысую Гору (Methodius Buslaev: Ticket to the Bald Mountain)
5. Мефодий Буслаев: Месть валькирий (Methodius Buslaev: Vengeance of the Valkyries)
6. Мефодий Буслаев: Тайная магия Депресcняка {Methodius Buslaev: Depressnyak's Secret Magic)
7. Мефодий Буслаев: Лед и пламя Тартара (Methodius Buslaev: Tartar's Ice and Flame)
8. Хулиганское фэнтези: Великое Нечто (Hooligan fantasy: Great Something)

Serendipodous 09:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Problematical. They were perfectly relevant in the standalone Tanya Grotter article, but have been made irrelevant by the Procrustean decision to dump all Potter-derived works into one article. Gordonofcartoon 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, WP:NPA. I will be delighted to accept my action as erroneous if any of these topics ever reaches FA or GA, or even if you establish consensus for the division. Incidentally, I approve of the integration of the list. Happy-melon 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of an edit is not a personal attack - and I'm not the only one to consider that making sweeping merges that destroy material, without prior discussion of the merge, is likely to be viewed as contentious. [1]. Gordonofcartoon 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comparing an editorial decision to an ancient greek myth involving amputation and torture is a curious method of criticism, to say the least. However, let us AGF and say no more about it. Happy-melon 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing so grim intended; if you read down to derived meanings, it's a reasonably common techie term for shifting things from one format to another with truncation (or padding). Gordonofcartoon 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: The future of the merge

The current article is a five-way merge between Parry Potter, Porri Gatter, Wizard People, Dear Reader, Tanya Grotter and List of Harry Potter parodies. This poll is for the purpose of deciding whether the article should remain complete or be divided back into its five sections. Post Break if you think it should be broken back up or Keep if you think it should be retained.

Break. There's plenty of good (though unsourced) information in these articles, which would have to be trimmed further if a merge with List of Harry Potter parodies were to take place. I say go back to the way things were, so that the old information can be reinstated. Serendipodous 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. I don't think this information is ever going to be properly sourced. Until it is, it should be radically shortened and kept on this list. Serendipodous 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Break for same reasons. Gordonofcartoon 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Break: Agreed, I would like to see that the information is trimmed down so that way the material is still present but there will not be be any excessive details. -Adv193 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I was intending to advocate a further merge, as this has now been done, I advocate its retention. The combined page is a list with clear inclusion criteria (although there are a few dubious entries in the "other" section) which successfully combines several topics which, while independently notable, are unlikely ever to be able to draw upon a sufficiently wide base of reliable sources to create articles of decent length and quality. Happy-melon 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have posted a notice on the WP:HP noticeboard inviting comments from other editors. Happy-melon 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Complex I think that Barry Trotter and the Pet Rock parodies have shown a significant amount of reliable secondary sourcing, and if someone wants to continue to expand them, I would not oppose a split. I think continuing to expand them in the proper encyclopedic style, however, is key. I think the other three parodies do not currently show enough sourcing or other indicators of importance to show a need to be split from this article. I strongly oppose splitting off the "list" article as this article is now the equivalent of it, that is, a general analysis of HP parodies and a home for parodies that do not have a need for their own article. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Pet Rock article was essentially an ad created by the author attempting to use Wikipedia as a selling platform. If it stays I think it should be severely curtailed, so I'm not sure it deserves its own article. Serendipodous 07:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Really. Well that goes to show what I know. I've struck my vote. I think I should have actually read the referenced material rather just look at what the reference was to. – Basar (talk · contribs) 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the other three parodies do not currently show enough sourcing or other indicators of importance
I already reverted the redirect on Tanya Grotter. There's no lack of secondary sources - [2] - and within Russia it has become an ongoing and popular series in its own right. My Russian is very creaky; it'd be useful if someone proper;y conversant with Russian could help find sources (eg reviews) commenting on the content rather than the invariable Western focus on the court case. Gordonofcartoon 12:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As it stands, that article is completely unsourced, so much so that much of it could have been invented by a Russian-speaking prankster and we wouldn't know. Hell, who here even knows enough Cyrillic to say that that isn't just a random series of squiggles? I'm half for deleting the article entirely until someone is willing to go the whole hog and source it. I'm not even sure why reviews of the books themselves are relevant, seeing as this is the English language Wikipedia, and no one in the English speaking world is ever going to read those books. They're only relevant as regards their relationship to Harry Potter. Ergo, I don't think listing spinoffs is particularly helpful. Serendipodous 12:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Besides, it's verifiable. Even if you don't read Russian, it's not difficult to use Google's language tools to get enough of a translation to confirm, say, the book titles. This is, anyway, applying a criterion for verifiability where there's been previous debate even about the Potter books themselves: often the only source about what goes on inside a book is first-hand reportage from a reader. As for the "English speaking Wikipedia" argument: this is systemic bias. We don't not cover texts because they're not currently in English: for instance, Mishima's novel Kyoko's House has never been translated. Gordonofcartoon 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Restoring the Tanya Grotter article is fundamentally unhelpful and rather disruptive to this poll. It has created duplicated live text which is prohibited by WP:CFORK. I would recommend that the redirect be restored until this poll is concluded. I also concur with Serendipoduous' comments vis reliable sourcing. Happy-melon 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the list of secondary sources, and every single one refers to the court case, which is already covered in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Serendipodous 12:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean you've gone through English ones. BTW, I restored the Tanya Grotter article three days before this poll started. I'm currently expanding and referencing it from Russian sources. Gordonofcartoon 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of the timing - forgive my lack of good faith. I applaud your determination to improve these articles; however if this poll determines on a continued merge I will still be responsible for merging the new Tanya Grotter article back into Parodies of Harry Potter. Happy-melon 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. If he can expand the article enough for it to stand on its own (particularly by sourcing the book titles and by elaborating on plot points) then I think this article can link to a main article and keep a stub of the article here. That said, a lot of the material in Tanya Grotter is probably uncitable, particularly the "Similarities" section, which reads like an essay. Serendipodous 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thx. I've worked on the sourcing a bit, and found some news items that assert a bit more notability (i.e. sales and reader poll rankings). I agree about the character/plot comparisons being problematical; they are technically OR, but not unusual on Wikipedia for articles on derivative works (check out Bored of the Rings). Still, I've put an unreferenced tag on that section, and have no objection to it being snipped if no specific verification is found. Gordonofcartoon 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment leaning towards break but not about to explain entire position right now - Wizard People is fairly major, and should not be left unbroken on the basis of unimportance. I remarked on Talk:Wizard_People,_Dear_Reader#Listing_found_sourcing that it has full-length articles in both Salon and The New York Times, along with a few lesser ones, but they hadn't been integrated into the article at the time of the merge, a short while after. --Kizor 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, at least I am ok with it. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. --Kizor 08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
WPDR was also given a full story on NPR if that counts as a source. Hewinsj 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note The following are redirects that was targeted to List of Harry Potter parodies. I've changed it to redirect here atm since the merge, depending on what you decides to do with the articles, please fix the redirects to desired article. (Harry Potter Parodies‎, Harry Potter parodies, JK Rowling parodies, Rowling parody, Harry Potter parody, List of harry potter parodies‎) KTC 07:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I initially disagreed with the merge, but today's edits have helped to streemline the article and reduce unnecessary information. I'm happy with how this is shaping up. Hewinsj 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, now that this is getting attention

I can finally ask, without having to fend off a deletion, which of the "Other parodies" should stay, and which should go? Serendipodous 07:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone actually interested in cleaning this article up? Because I don't want to do anything without consensus. Serendipodous 08:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Wizard People sources to this talk page

For integrating into the article.

Major:

Lesser:

--Kizor 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doujinshi

I've never encountered this before; is doujinshi any different from fanfic? If not it shouldn't be here, though it might be mentioned in Harry Potter fandom. Serendipodous 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Doujinshi are fan made comics that are usually sold or distributed in fan conventions. Basically fan fiction with pictures rather than text, so I wouldn't put them here. I don't know if any specific ones could be considered notible, but the fact that they exist could go under Harry Potter fandom. Hewinsj 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What needs to happen

Some kind of consensus needs to be reached concering which online examples are notable and which should be ditched.

Also, Barry Trotter and Wizard People should be properly cited and then it must be determined whether they should be given their own articles. (EDIT: OK, done that) Serendipodous 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Bad Roommate

OK. This Youtube vid produces 580,000 hits on Google, so it's obviously popular, but all the hits I can find are links to the video. Should it be kept or dumped? Serendipodous 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg

Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed. Serendipodous 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)some of this stuff is spelled incorrectly check it over agian 3 times

[edit] Television

hi there, im new to this. But i noticed that Dr Who is not mentioned in the television section. In the episode "the Shakespear Code", JKRowling is mentioned several times as well as the 7th book. Does this need a mention? (Quotes: "all this magic, its a bit Harry Potter"-Martha Jones to the Doctor, "wait till you read book seven, i cried"-Doctor to Martha Jones, "expelleramuis"-Martha Jones to Shakespear, "good old JK!!!"-Doctor) Lovingnews1989 (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)