Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 11

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

How about a Harry Potter (related) Objects Template

It might be interesting to link each object to the book, character and the event it occurs in. - Mayuresh 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tasks list and announcement list

I think we should combine these lists since they appear to be serving a similar purpose. The announcement list is currently off the main page, and I think it should return under tasks. The combined list would occur in the project banner and on the main page. The tasks list needs cleanup by the way. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your right, the project needs clarity and coherence and that would only help. Judgesurreal777 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Project tag redesign

I've always thought the project banner looked a little funny, no offense to whoever designed it. I don't think it would take me long to switch it over to a standard design like {{WP Australia}}. [Clarification: the comments section would turn into our announcement section like our banner has currently] – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles without Sources

Hi, recently I've been nominating some Harry Potter related articles for deletion - with mixed results. Generally my main reason for nomination has been that they do not meet the notability guidelines as set out it WP:NN and WP:FICT. A lot of the articles are also plagued with original research and fancruft type material. I see the lack of significant coverage by multiple, reliable seocndary sources and the complete lack of real world content as being a problem common to many Harry Potter related articles even those that could probably be cleaned up and presented in a way that met WP:NN. Rather than continuing with multiple AfDs which have rarely given rise to a consensus I have been advised to raise my concerns here. To try and show what I consider to be the scale of the problem I have made a list of the articles that I believe in their current state show no evidence of meeting WP:NN - it can be found at:

User:Guest9999/Harry Potter articles that may - in my opinion - not meet with WP:NN

The list includes a range of articles including those ehich seem to be n almost completely original reasearch essay based upon a couple of lines in the books (e.g. Being (Harry Potter)) to articles which almost certainly to meet the criteria for having an article but currently have no secondary sources (or real world content) (e.g. Harry Potter Universe). I think hat a lot of the material in these articles might be more appropriate on a Harry Potter faniste or Wiki rather than Wikipedia. Going through the articles, by far the most common sources are fansites (HP-Lexicon, Mugglenet, etc.) or interviews with J.K. Rowling - I do not think that these sources plus the information from the books justifies an article in many cases. [[Guest9999 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]]

I think it was a good idea to come here rather than AfD. I am willing to help you merge and redirect these articles as long as there isn't significant resistance from other project members. I think the first step would be to establish what articles should remain so we know where merge any pertinent content. If this general idea is acceptable, I'll make a new Harry Potter navbox in my sandbox to organize the articles to this effect. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. This will definitely help in filtering the articles down a bit. And I've added this to the WikiProject announcements, considering it's pretty major. -Phi*n!x 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur, and good thinking adding it to the announcements. I am also grateful to Guest9999 for coming here - making 144 AfD nominations would have earnt you some really bad press!! I propose that we continue this discussion at the list's talk page, as it could easily get quite weighty. Happy-melon 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I am willing to help too -Mayuresh 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to miss the point of why those articles exist. If all the Hp articles were combined into one page it would be a zillion characters long. People, very many people, have contributed all that stuff because they think it belongs in this encyclopedia. I rather agree with them, it does. So, this zillion character article has been split into manageable sections. Some of them might be deleted, certainly, but I'm not necessarily convinced. The example given above of an article really deserving deletion actually does something rather more useful than parroting the plot. It rearranges information essentially from the books to explain a point to a reader. Now, why exactly is that unencyclopedic? A quick glance at the list suggests to me that the content should be kept. Please guys remember just what a phenomenon this is. Sandpiper 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to all of your posts and your user page, I think you will find that you will never change core Wikipedia policies like no original research, neutral point of view, citing sources, and notability. These have been the fundamentals of Wikipedia since its inception and unless you are willing to cede to these policies, you will not find Wikipedia to be a very welcoming. Working with a consensus, even if you disagree with it, is the fundamental way that Wikipedia operates, and I do not think it would be appropriate for us to challenge official policy in the articles we write for this project. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Hey hey, hey hey hey. Don't be mean. Remember, wherever you go, there you are." (points if you know where that's from). I'm supposed to be the righteous bastard in this wikiproject, so let's all calm down. Basar, Sandpiper isn't being a dick abut their objections, so ease up a bit. Sand, I understand what you are talking about, but we aren't a compendium of all things Harry Potter. We just aren't. We cover the notable things about the series that are interesting, and most often, point folk into the direction of more in-depth sources for people to go for more information. A great many articles have been written that have no business in Wikipedia, like Snape's parents, and crufty lists like Hogwart's employees. We have to exclude some stuff that is not intrinsic to the story and it's pivotal characters. I personally think Neville Longbottom is to Harry Potter what R2D2 was to Star Wars, but we can't go batshit on writing about Neville, because, for all his coolness, he's not a main character. His story is not being told. We have to limit the crazy to the stuff that deserves All the Crazy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Who's not calm? I think it's from The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't say as I understand the above. wiki has been trotting along for years carrying in-depth and complex articles about things HP without anyone batting a hair. They were perfectly acceptable a couple of months ago. Hardly sensible then to complain that they contradict core policies. Sandpiper 22:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Project page redesign and automatic archiving

I was wondering if anyone would mind if I tried to redesign the project page after WP:SIMPSONS. I also think automatic archiving would be good for the talk page, is that OK? – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool, it looks good. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I set the auto archiving, but I don't think I should redesign the project page unless some more people think it would be helpful. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that would look awesome; and a lot more organized. :)  Bella Swan(Talk!) 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
By all means, go ahead. Ours is rather plain. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Well I implemented the new page. I'll start prod'ing old subpages if no one has an issue with the new design. The way we list AfD's changed a little, so I'm going to wait for comment by the people who run that before I redo the documentation. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have only one word to use. Awesome!! Seriously, that is excellent. I like the new AfD format, indeed I like everything about the new layout! The only thing I would say is that the double navbox for the subpage links (i.e. having the links in a box, which is itself at the top of another box) looks a bit wierd. If you're not planning to add another box alongside it, I'd remove the links from that box. Other than that, it looks brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy-melon (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I saw what I take to be the new page and thought 'oh my god!', and not in a good way. Far, far too cluttered. Sandpiper 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cluttered? Really? Sandpiper, this is so much more organized than before, plus it's much more appealing on the eye. What is it exactly that you have a problem with? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Title for Places in Harry Potter?

I had the locations article called "Places in Harry Potter", but a new user just moved it to "Geography of the Harry Potter stories". I do not think this is a good title because "geography" is a good title because that word does not refer to houses and such which is what we are describing. Anyway, before I move it back somewhere, I wanted to see what you guys thought a better title would be since I don't know if "places", "locations", or something else would be best. – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's looks like the guy's moved it back to "places", though I'd support "locations" or even "List of locations…". --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I favor "locations" too because all the cats use that term. I don't think it should be called a list though because it isn't a bunch of bulleted items, but it has prose. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Project navboxes

Our navboxes are becoming very out of date, and I would like to convert them to a single, new navbox, just like the one at /Notability. I think we've done enough merging to switch {{harrypotter}} and the locations navbox over, but I think it would be slightly premature to switch the characters navbox over as we haven't done enough merging of those articles yet. Just throwing that out there to alert everyone and fish for objections before I go running through with AWB. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good idea, make one good navbox that includes the articles we are going to keep. Judgesurreal777 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the new one looks really really really bad. Chandlertalk 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Thank you for the enlightening comment.</sarcasm> It is the standard navbox that everyone uses, {{navbox}}. – Basar (talk · contribs) 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just delete everything?

It's quite obvious that anything dealing with fictional material (unless of course, it's Halo or Warhammer, can't touch anything computer geeks like, it seems) is being ravaged. So what's the point? The Harry Potter article is a mess, no want wants to clean it up, and it's the only article that no one seems to want to kill. So why not just get rid of everything? Reduce Wikipedia's entire Harry Potter domain to a single sentence? Obviously that's about as notable as most people on Wikipedia seem to consider it. Serendipodous 10:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking. Otherwise I'd say you need some wikicounselling - you seem to be depressed :D Happy‑melon 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Serendipodous was joking, but there does seem to be a bit more deletionist sentiment directed at the Harry Potter articles...I'm a delusionist, so it's kind of frustrating on my end. =David(talk)(contribs) 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well all the "not notable", "need third party source even though the books are perfectly fine sources" is getting on my nerve too. Chandlertalk 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on! Well, would adding references to chapters within the book not be "referencing"? If yes, then lets get started - Mayuresh 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Seri was joking - it was a straw man argument, designed to inflame us into fixing the article. He's got a point, though. We should stop adding crufty little bits to the article like chapters and whatnot. We ar not here to chew the food for the reader. We write an article and let them do the reading. We don't recite entire plots, and we don't cite chapters, as it is almsot certainly a violation of the MOS. In films, the only things that go uncited are the Lead and the plot synopsis. Everything esle is cited - not with chapter and verse, but with actual external citations by reviewers, academics and cast and crew. The same sort of logic should be applied here. We are getting tagged as hard as we are for allowing this sort of sillyness to deflate any claim we might wish to make regarding the authenticiy and professionalism of the article's quality.
I would suggest that we focus our efforts on one book and one character article, getting them to FA status. Doing this will give us a guide on how to construct every other article from it. There are a number of FA articles about fictional characters that we can draw upon for help in creating these, like Jabba the Hutt and Padmé Amidala for character guidance, and for books we can turn to FA articles like Watchmen, The Illuminatus Trilogy, and The Lord of the Rings. The latter is especially useful in that it shares some of the same characteristics with the HP series, in that it has been adapted to film.
Of course, this is only my opinion, but FA articles are pretty much the benchmark of good writing in Wikipedia. By following the examples of these articles, the HP ones only improve in quality and durability. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with serendious. the harry potter article is a bit of a mess. Reading the introduction is a bit like reading my little bro's story -(no offence, just a joke =D). This happened, then this, then that, and after that and so on. Furthermore only someone who has read harry potter thoroughly will be able to understand it, so it needs to be a bit more 'reader friendly', mind my bad puns. the articles structure i think may need some work on, as it starts with translations and the end of the series before the real meat of the article. Lastly, and most surprisingly THE TRANSLATIONS AND LITERACY CRITICS PARAGRAPH'S ARE LONGER THAN THE THEMES!!!!! This i fail to beleive, as the themes presented by harry potter are a very important part to the analysis of the series. IT also misses some major themes, as i continually stress on but im being ignored.My opinion is that the structure of the article is bettered slightly first, and the rest of these issues. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

An existing HP Wiki

To revive an old discussion, I just wanted to add an alternative to the Harry Potter Wiki, which is still quite small. If you want to contribute to a HP wiki, check out UnknowableWiki, which is where I'm active. --Oxys kai moros 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, No Way!!

Aw, man, the differences between the books and movies shouldn't have been deleated! We gotta do somthing to show how different they are! Please, please, that stuff is really important! Could we make them agian? I didn't get to the vote in time, but they sould stay! Please? Keyblade Mage 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

The consensus and arguments for removal were pretty strong. If you are interested in reading the discussion, you can find it here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination). – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I can't change anything on that. And what's with all this other stuff going on the Harry Potter articles right now? It's total chaos, and everything's getting deleted (Dragons come to mind), Lupin got merged to Lupin/Tonks family, Moody lost his page to staff at Hogwarts! What's up with this! Keyblade Mage 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Wikipedia has certain guidelines for professionalism and content inclusion that the Harry Potter section of Wikipedia was not abiding by very well. So recently, a number of editors, including me, have sought to clean it up to reflect those guidelines. The chaos will hopefully subside soon. If you are interested in reading the guidelines and policies I am referring to, they can be found at WP:WAF and more generally WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR. At least for your own sake, it does not look like you have made too many contributions that have been deleted :) – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Read up on those things, take a look at some other featured articles to get an idea of what are aiming at. Your edits are for the most part pretty solid. so knowing the policies at play and some examples will only help you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:WPHP/N for our discussions. As for the differences between books and films articles, the relevant content (meaning important and notable content that could be cited) was moved to its own section in the film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah, sorry guys, I guess I've been pretty grouchy latly to just be whining like this here. There's been a lot of work being done, and I gotta just work and stop complaining. Keyblade Mage 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

A Template for "real people"?

I just relised, a good number of the actors, J.K. Rowling, and a bunch of other people associated with HP are part of this project's "scope" but we don't have a template for them. Should we make one, or was this already discussed before? Keyblade Mage 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Harry Potter fandom's FAC

Hey guys, I've found myself rather busier than expected this week, and HP fandom is undergoing an FAC. If anybody finds it in their heart to do some work on the article as per the concerns of the one reviewer right now, that would be SO much appreciated. Here's a reference for the towel girl; here's one for the dying girl, Natalie Macdonald. I'll keep thinking about how to incorporate the other wizard rock bands, unless someone has an idea -- just go ahead! MANY thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Army Article Important!

Why did you delete the Dumbledore's Army article? I believe that Dumbledore army is a VERY important part of the series. You should bring the article back.--Nick4404 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord Opeth

Would someone with more time check over this guys contribs. I already reversed his unilateral copy/paste move of Minor Harry Potter characters. -- John Reaves 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That would seem uncool. Didn't that just have an AfD or Merge that failed or something? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this guys seems to have redirected just about every article. He's claiming there is discussion approving this somewhere, but I don't see it. Was it decided somewhere taht this would happen? -- John Reaves 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh, pretty weird calling out a very active user who is merging articles that, after a formal review and discussion, have been shown to lack notability and should be merged/deleted/redirected/transwikied. So, please do not disrupt the consolidation of the harry potter topic. :) Judgesurreal777 09:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here There Be Cruft

I'm putting out a call to all of the CruftEaters Local 665 (the neighbor of the beast) to go to Blood purity (Harry Potter)and be prepared to dine. I am sure there are more crufty and synthesized articles in Wikipedia, but this is one where I am running out of [citation needed] tags (I don't use the page tag, coz folk are willing to take a look at one or two tags - they aren't as willing to sift through the article to deal with them all). Please drop by and lend a hand and remember, those claims likely to be challenged by a non-HP wonk need to be cited, which means claims that you know to be accurate but are extraordinary (as defined by WP:V). See you there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone provide me the citation wherein JKR defined what folk in the novels considered to be blood purity? Someone said that she said that if both grandparents were practicing, then the grandkids are 'full-blood.' Where did I hear this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, for example, Harry is considered a half-blood because only 2/4 grandparents were wizards, despite the fact that 2/2 parents were wizards. Source --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the source - very helpful. :) Wasn't there a webchat in the Leaky Cauldron about this as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, there's this; search for "Peverell" and read that question and answer. Other than that I can't find anything, although I advise you to use http://www.accio-quote.org/ for searching for official JKR interviews. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Awards subpage goes live

I have finished work on the project Awards page, using the images that we decided upon above (actually now archived). In response to some concern that three awards were too many, I have carefully established the Order of Merlin as one award, leaving the determination of the class to award the duty of the editor making the award. Let's try and keep the first class for really special contributions (although that doesn't mean we shouldn't award it if it's clearly appropriate). I have made inaugural awards to Fbv65edel for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), Serendipodous for Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, and Arcayne for general contributions. Happy‑melon 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some ppl are still pushing Sorcerer's

Well, I've sorta been caught in a editwar with user:Cburnett over att {{harrypotter}} over that he's including Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone for the first book. This must have been discussed countless times already, surly Sorcerer's should not be included? Chandlertalk 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Philosopher's is what is widely held as the preferred option. Gran2 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed. Perhaps to prevent misunderstandings of this nature in future, we should excise the phrase cited from MOS:HPP - "At most, high-trafic pages may warrant...". Is there consensus for this?? Happy‑melon 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I linked that page to him, but he answered: " "At most, high-traffic pages may warrant..." and you don't consider this template "high traffic"? Contrary to your tone you are not a god of any flavor and cannot dictate. The HP wikiproject cannot dictate. Nevermind the page you link is a style guide, not policy. " Chandlertalk 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's all calm down. The problem, while annoying, is not worth getting uncivil. Its better to take the concerns to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Style guidelines page and work out a more generalized solution ot the problem, and not tantrum all over an article where it's being applied. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
While I'd agree with the sentiments about remaining calm, it seems to me that User:Cburnett is engaged in trolling or at least bad-faith. This issue has been settled for aeons and yet when the consensus was pointed out politely to this guy he reacted uncivilly, presuming the post to be a personal attack. Far from actually wanting to make constructive efforts the user seems to be POV pushing, using it as a platform to air his dislike of how Wikipedia works. JM2C AulaTPN 08:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet it is clear that his edits aren't being considered because of his behavior. He seems on a one-way ticket to blockie-town. Best to sit back, eat popcorn and watch the self-demolition. Best not to get involved, except to correct factual mistakes. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't he/she be given a fair warning first? And I don't mean telling him that what he's arguing has been settled, I mean warning him what waits ahead if he keeps it up. Or has the user in question already been warned about his/her behaviour?Yengkit19 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Half way through the 4th quarter, how goes the improvement drive?

This article got through FA

These articles got through GA

So that's awesome, we are making great progress toward the goal of doubling the number of FA's and GA's during the September-January 1 time period.

To meet our goal, these were proposed as the next steps;

RENOMINATE FOR FA WHEN READY

IMPROVE AND GET TO GA STATUS

We are an awesome wikiproject!!! Judgesurreal777 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's interested I'm currently working on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) as the follow up to getting the first to GA status. So if anyone has any good sources to do with the film then please wing them my way, as that would be immensely useful. Thanks. Gran2 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gaunts from Cadmus

Well ill start of by saying that I posted this same text on the talk for {{HarryPotterFamilyTree}} some time ago but never got a real answer, so I'll bring it up here again because the template still shows that the Gaunt family are decedents from Cadmus.
Where does it say that the Gaunt family are decedents of Cadmus? This is what the book says.
Meanwhile, [Cadmus] journeyed to his own home, where he lived alone... ...To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry before her untimely death, appeared at once before him... ...Finally, the second brother driven mad with hopeless longing, killed himself so as truly to join her
To me it doesnt sound like he ever had any children (where he lived alone) or other wife (why would he try to call back his old tonsil hockey teammate from the dead if he already had a new one?).
The first brother Antioch is a possibility because nothing is said about him (we don't know how old they where when they got the deathly hallows). The only one we know had children is Ignotus, and i think that both Harry's family and the Gaunt's are decedents of him. If you say "the gaunts got the stone", It could just as easily have been stolen from Cadmus after his death, or left to his only living brother Ignotus? Maybe he had two children, gave them each one of the hallows.
So I think there should be (if anyone has got one) a reference for that statement, or it should be removed that they are decedents of Cadmus Chandlertalk 06:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, was there any prove otherwise? We know Ignotus had children, because he passed his cloak to one of them, but did the book mention at all whether the other two brothers had childern? OK, sure Voldemort is Harry's distant cousin, but from which brother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yengkit19 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Redirects

Lord Opeth has provided redirects for almost all of the minor character pages to Dumbldore's Army and whatnot. However, i don't see any indication of a discussion occurring, or a consensus to do this. I've reverted it in the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw pages, put I am sure there are others. I find it distressing that this seems to happen a lot with Opeth. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been doing this for a while. I had a bit of a discussion with him about it, see here. I was under the impression he had consensus from the HP WikiProject to do what he was doing. GlassCobra 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he does, and its simply been redirected somewhere else (snkr) lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, though, this is something of a problem. I've just undone at least three dozen of these redirects, insisting that he come here first and discuss them. He created a page called Dumbledore's Army Members, and immediately started redirecting articles to there.
This sort of behavior has come up before, wherein he claimed to have had approval for the mass redirects he was performing at the time. To date, no such conversation appeared to have occured. As well, he made the same claim to me in my own User Talk page today; a closer look at his recent contributions show no such posting or conversation in the Wikiproject talk page. There is however a general posting here, in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Characters - a page where his post was in fact the last one there, and for which there was no response and no consensus achieved.
I am concerned that the editor is making some unilateral decisions about how the wikiproject is going to proceed without getting some more input, which tastes a lot like ownership issues to me. I am not suggesting that the guy is vandalizing the pages, but that Wikipedia works as a community edit. The sorts of edits he's performing are complex and quite difficult to undo, if left unattended. Were I a lot more paranoid than I am, I would suggest that this seems to be a cynical attempt to sidestep the AfD's and merging discussions he's been involved with on prior occasions.
I am not trying to pound on this guy, but clearly, there is a significant amount of communication disconnect going on that needs to be addressed with Lord Opeth, and I reckon it should happen sooner rather than later. Again, I am not necessarily opposed to his edits, but I think we should all know about it before major redirects happen for the second time...from the the very same user. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the redirect in some ways arent right. I mean everyone in Gry, Huf, Rav wasnt in the DA and no Sly. I would not move them into 2 seperate articles that might exclude some characters, but rather just make a "Hogwarts students" article that has every student from Harry's school years. Where you even can have all the students with own articles with a "see Harry Potter" or w/e. Because right now (with the redirects intact) i noticed that many students were in fact left out Chandlertalk 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding these redirects and the actual value of them is being discussed at Talk:Dumbledore's Army members. While I certainly feel that this conversation should be happening here, as this is the clearinghouse for all wiki things concerning Harry Potter, it is again clear that Opeth is determined to have a discussion in a place of his choosing. I want to have AGF here, but it gets harder when I undo almost 3 dozen redirects, and put as the edit summary for all of them the suggestion that he discuss the subject of redircts HERE - and then he initiates the conversation elsewhere. It seems as if he were intentionally avoiding the wikiproject. Is there a reason why that might be occuring? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I did write the suggestion here in the Wikiproject HP some days ago, in the Notability discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Characters. I told you that in your Talk Page. And I also thought it would be correct if we also discuss it in the concerning pages. I did those redirects you are talking about before you addressed me (I myself undid some of my own edits). I have never had any intention to disturb you or anyone else in the Wikiproject or in Wiki in general. Lord Opeth 19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was reading a bit more sinister origins for your actions Opeth, and for that, i am sorry. When you told me that you had achieved a consensus "in the Harry Potter Wikiproject", I presumed it would be here in the main Discussion area, and not the subpage. This page is supposed to be the central nexus point for all things Harry Potter in Wikipedia. Conversations and proposals and that sort of thing can arise on another page (and usually does), but they all come here, so all the other Harry Potter editors know what's going on; when your redirects occured, the first place I checked was the article Discussion, and then here in the wikiproject discussion. I'm pretty sure I am not the only editor who tries to do that there, I checked and found that it quite specifically didn't. When I reverted the redirects, I was thinking that you trying to accomplish a de facto merging of a number of articles.
So, I guess you aren't being all sinister. Tell uswhat you would like to do with all the merging of the articles and the Crazy Noise and All That... :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Project watchlist

I see that this project's watchlist has fallen into disuse. I think that such a tool is useful to a WikiProject of this size. It essentially saves members the trouble of having to individually watchlist all of this project's articles, categories, templates, and images. I would be glad to go through the currently outdated watchlist and clean out all of the things that have been deleted, merged, or retitled, and I would also be happy to maintain this list in the future. If there is a reason the watchlist isn't used any longer, or if there is an up-to-date list somewhere of which I'm unaware, please let me know. :) -Severa (!!!) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A more up-to-date list of articles in the project's domain is Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Index. This is very close to being up-to-date. I think it has one extra article - I can't for the life of me work out which it is, but other than that it is very comprehensive. Try Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Index for a watchlist. Happy‑melon 21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clueing me in to this list, Happy-Melon! Perhaps another list should be made which incorporates templates, categories, and images, though, so that it may serve as a central place from which to monitor all Harry Potter-related content on Wikipedia for vandalism (non-article vandalism is not as uncommon as one might think in my experience). -Severa (!!!) 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Book Covers

I was looking through the book articles, and I noticed that for each book, the picture used at the top of each page is the British cover to the book. I have no problem with this, as the series first started in Britain, the author is British, and Britain is the first country (or was at least) the first country to get the new book. However, I did not see for any of the articles the U.S. cover. Scholastic is the other major publisher of the books, and in fact has the largest number of Harry Potter fans, not to mention that after J.K. Rowling finished DH, the first people she gave the manuscript to were her Bloomsbury (UK) editor and her Scholastic (US) editor. Considering all these things, shouldn't we have the U.S. covers somewhere in the articles? Is there a WP reason for not having them there, or has someone simply not taken the time to add them in? Anakinjmt 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The covers of the Australian, Canadian, South African, and New Zealand editions are the same as those from Britain.[1] A case could probably be made that the British covers are more representative of the Harry Potter series to English language readers than the U.S. ones because they are the face that has been presented to most of the English-speaking world. That said, though, the real reason for the lack of American covers in the book articles probably relates more to the difficulty in justifying a second fair use image when we already have one. -Severa (!!!) 04:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

JKR's recent comments on copyright infringement

In light of this lawsuit, we must all tread very careful water in terms of quotations, plot summaries, FU rationales on images, etc. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to us. What the Lexicon did/is doing is publish a book with the intent of making money based on Harry Potter that was an unofficial encyclopedic companion to the Harry Potter series. Wikipedia does not fall under that criteria, as this is a free encyclopedia. Anakinjmt 00:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it doesn't apply to us. But she did express disappointment in the long passages from the book recounted on the site, and excessive plot summary with little critical analysis. Many of our articles resemble that. It's not illegal, but it disappoints her and she could, if the information got bad, request all of it to be taken down or rewritten. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is, we are a free encyclopedia under free/fair use. Therefore, it does not apply to us. And, while I love J.K. Rowling, it ultimately doesn't matter what her opinion is on the information we have, as we have no legal obligation to take it down. I might also add that she did not have a problem with the Lexicon, but their book. Print vs. online. Anakinjmt 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand what Wikipedia is. I understand we have no legal obligation. I want to respect Rowling's wishes as is only right. And, according to Leaky: "Without a review copy, JKR and WB's lawyers have been told the book will be a "print version" of the Lexicon, which they maintain means it will surely infringe on JKR's copyright. It mentions the maps and passages of the books that the Lexicon has on its site, as well as lists and facts, class schedules, potion ingredients and wizarding histories. "The Lexicon Website also slavishly copies lyrics to entire songs, lifts long passages directly from the Harry Potter Books, and transcribes magic spells word-for-word. In addition to copying the fictional facts and language of the books, the Lexicon Website also contains numerous infringing photos taken from Warner Bros. copyrighted Harry Potter films."" These are certainly complains to the web site about photos, spells, and long passages from the books. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the difference. Online free encyclopedia is okay, whereas printed for sale encyclopedia is not. J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have no problem with the online encyclopedia, just a printed version, as she will be writing one and donating proceeds to charity. We're not here to respect Jo's wishes, but to inform people. If the two can be done at the same time, so be it. Anakinjmt 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a big thing. I do entirely understand the difference and recognize there is no problem with the online encyclopedia, as we are not selling it for profit, etc., etc. However, I, personally, me, am interested in respecting Jo's wishes. I thought as the HP WP others would also be interested in respecting her wishes. Not out of a legal obligation, but out of personal esteem. No, there is no problem as it currently stands, I see that. However, for those who had not heard of the incident with the Lexicon, I thought they should be aware and recognize what Jo's wishes are, and attempt to adhere to them while improving the encyclopedia. It would be just wrong – morally, not legally – to go against the wishes of the author if they can be followed. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
While I have the utmost respect for JKR and disdain for the Lexicon for trying to profit on someone else's work, I disagree as far as wiki is concerned. Wiki has a responsibility to its visitors that trumps the author's wishes. What if JKR (or another author) stated they did not want wikipages to exist for their books/characters, should we then just excise the information from Wiki? That would be counter to Wiki's purpose. Removing information (that is sourced, relevant, and notable) solely on an author's wishes would be just wrong, imo. V-train 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I simply thought people would be interested in trying to convey Jo's interests while at the same time improving Wikipedia. Obviously, if improving Wikipedia conflicts with Jo's interests, examine the situation, assess, and execute the action. I really don't want to keep talking about this -- I was advertising the case for those who had not heard it, so they could evaluate her interests as they edit articles. Sorry for the slight commotion -- let's just read the article, move on, and edit like normal. :) --Fbv65edel — t — c // 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harry Potter-related articles on Wikipedia (and, to an extent, the Lexicon) exist to provide readers with information. Unlike the Lexicon, though, Wikipedia does not publish original commentary or analysis of the books (going beyond the simple provision of information would run against NOR and NPOV). We compile all the minute details to be gained from the series into informative articles and leave it at that. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization which aims to "eventually bring free knowledge to everyone on the planet." This isn't the same as writing a book from scratch and donating all the proceeds to charity, but, in my eyes, the spirit is a similar. The point is that Wikipedia isn't planning on publishing a commercial book like The Lexicon. I'm certain that Jo's take on encyclopedizing Harry Potter will have a lot of added value that Wikipedia or the Lexicon won't. Never-before-published facts, detailed genealogies, perhaps even some of Jo's sketches. The Encyclopedia of Arda hasn't stopped most Tolkien fans from picking up The History of Middle-earth. I'd like to respect the author's wishes, as it were, but I've yet to hear Jo breath a word about Wikipedia (from my reading of the link provided above, too, the complaints about the Lexicon site were penned by Jo's/WB's lawyers, not Jo herself). -Severa (!!!) 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Pbv was talking about, and think its commendable that he brought this to our attention. A lot of the articles do suffer from an overabundance of plot details, and they should be trimmed back somewhat. that said, everyone else is correct in that we don't (or at least aren't supposed to) recreate entire tracts of information in the articles, as it is cruft, and cruft is destroyed here. the project is free, and while the other dudes are trying to make a buck off JKR (boy, are they in for a legal disappointment there), WP isn't here to pamper the fanboyz of Harry Potter. or at least, they won't while I draw breath. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
She didn't name the Lexicon by name, Severa, but on her website, she did personally say how she can't support the sale of the encyclopedia. WB just took what she wrote on her website and added it in to their press junket. Also, I think you summed it up nicely Severa. Anakinjmt 05:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The only comment I would make is that Wiki must be very careful about the notion that we have no legal obligation to the author - really? That is not the correct mindset to have - it encourages the notion that we have carte blanche to reproduce any copyrighted work we see fit as long as we think we can justify it under a fair use claim. Fair use law is a wicked and cruel mistress and that is not the kind of litigation we want to be involved in; large corporate entities such as WB have armies of lawyers who specialise in making it much more difficult to prove good intent than it is for them to prove damage. AulaTPN 10:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And to pick up on Severa's point, that actually works against us in terms of fair use. Simply reproducing material is what constitutes copyright infringement - even if there is no ability/intent/attempt to derive profit and hence deprive the copyright holder. This is why the Lexicon is in trouble. Using the copyrighted material as part of a critical analysis is one of the many criteria for fair use and is why none of the many existing HP companion books have yet to be targeted. AulaTPN 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

I suggest merging Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) to the book's article. I don't suggest this in case the film's not made (lol), it's simply because of the lack of information. Opinions? Alientraveller 20:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with merging it, I mean there isn't going to be much infomation until after HBP is finished, and anything that is can be mentioned in a section on the book's page. Gran2 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No objection to a merge-and-redirect, given that reliable information probably won't be available for 18 months to two years. Happy‑melon 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to a merge. Granted, a majority of things won't be discovered until at the earliest when production is done on HBP, and they go into post-production, and then closer to the release of HBP. However, we do have knowledge of cast members coming back, as well as a number of directors that have expressed interest in directing the film, and something from John Williams about how he hopes to come back to score for DH. It's a film that we already have knowledge about, making it notable, and the sources listed are verifiable. Anakinjmt 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk doesn't necessarily mean a film will get made, and although Deathly Hallows is more likely to be made, there's nothing we couldn't summarise into the book's article. Alientraveller 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I support a merge, but think that the pertinent information from the existing film stub alo be preserved as an archive set upspecifically for such in the book article. That shouldn;t be too hard to do, right? That way, when we actually get closer to the actual film's release, we have a pocket universe of Harry Potter film freshness to reintroduce - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry? Do you mean a subpage that an editor can nuture organically, eg my subpage for Transformers 2? Alientraveller 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
yes, very much like that, but set either here in the wikiproject page, or in the Deathly Hallows discussion page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The merge is done. Alientraveller 20:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MoM

Ministry of Magic is perhaps the cruftiest article I've come across. Hardly anything is known about it, yet somehow the article is 50k long! This article requires a massive overhaul. I'm willing to do it myself, but others are of course welcome to join in the fun. I'm just mentioning it here so that no one is surprised when huge chunks of the article start disappearing behind the veiled archway. ;) I assume there are no objections? faithless (speak) 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some parts of the article that indeed need to be shortened or removed. For example, the atrium section is useless, or the list of "past ministers", I think that is in-universe (mainly because of the years). Lord Opeth 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yummy cruft? ooh, goodie! I'm on my way! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal template

Is there a more developed template for the portal that can be put onto article pages other than:

Harry Potter Portal

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 07:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters' FAC

Harry and the Potters is now a FA candidate. Comments will be made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry and the Potters. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 21:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A Hogwarts students article

As Chandler suggested in the Dumbledore's Army members talk page, maybe a Hogwarts student article would be ok, and all of the students (even those like Eloise Migden, that has "no house") could be listed together. For this, I would suggest to remove those like C. Warrington, Penelope Clearwater, Roger Davies or Montague that have little importance in the series. Remember that Wiki is not a complete guide for everything related to HP so I think that listing all the seekers, beaters and chasers of the houses is unnecessary. The article would feature in the end 12 Gryffindors, and 6 members from each of the other houses, which means it would be a 30 characters article. Lord Opeth 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a reasonable request. Others? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but would it be incredibly long? As long as it isn't over, say, 100k I'd say go for it. faithless (speak) 09:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How would we specify which characters are students? Some of them leave Hogwarts throughout the series, or die in DH. Do we count them? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say if they were students of Hogwarts at any time during the span from PS-DH when Harry was at school, they should be included, even if they did graduate (like Percy) or died (like Cedric). Harry's kids I wouldn't include, as the focus of the books is the time Harry is at Hogwarts, or, with the case of Deathly Hallows, would have been in Hogwarts.Anakinjmt (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that those that should be included in this article are the characters from the Minor Grys, Hufs, Ravs and Slys, maybe removing some Quidditch players with little involvement like Montage, Roger Davies, etc. Lord Opeth (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Goofs page?

Why is there still no page listing all the many mistakes and errors the author's managed to put in her books? :-) There's such a lot of them - I've never yet run across as many mistakes in a single book. D.Prok. (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find even one reliable third-party source which makes a scholarly analysis of the mistakes in the Harry Potter books, we can create an article. I suspect we'll be waiting for quite some time. Happy‑melon 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict) Because it...isn't important? :) That would be my gut reaction. Out of curiosity, would you care to name a few of these mistakes and errors? I'll give you Dudley's Playstation (well, not literally, of course), but I can't really think of another. I'm assuming you're referring only to Philosopher's Stone, as you said "a single book." Cheers, faithless (speak) 09:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Because "goofs" are non-notable indiscriminate trivial original research. And a goof for the record: In the original GOF (unless I'm mistaken), Lily comes out of Voldemort's wand after James, which makes no sense because James was killed before her, and so it should have been the other way around. Gran2 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear, God, are we still talking about this? Sigh. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was a policy forbidding people from commenting in sections a whole two days old... Or were you referring to something specific rather than the section as a whole? Gran2 15:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time this has come up, Gran. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What? Do you mean the goof I mentioned? In which case I know, it didn't think I'd discovered it myself... I was just chipping in with another example... Gran2 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think he means this isn't the first time someone's wanted a Harry Potter goofs article. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Okay, I haven't gotten around to fixing the Ministry article yet. Before I get started, shouldn't the article be named Ministry for Magic instead of Ministry of Magic? faithless (speak) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is called the Ministry of Magic, although Fudge, Scrimgeour and Millicent Bagnold have been appointed Minister of Magic. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, what's it called in the British books? Because in the British books, the ministers are called Minister for Magic. If in the British books, it's called the "Ministry for Magic," then that's where the article should be. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just checked the British version of the books, and on page 665 of OOTP it is Ministry of Magic, yet on page 36 of POA it is Minister for Magic. A slight inconsistency but one we should follow. asyndeton (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. I knew that it was Minister for Magic and assumed that it would also be Ministry for Magic. Apparently I was wrong. Cheers, faithless (speak) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed!

As some of you might already know, a while back I rewrote the List of Harry Potter characters article (and renamed it as well), since it was a huge crufty mess before. The characters are now listed alphabetically by last name. In the case of female characters who are married I list them by the name they're most know as, with a note under the other name directing the reader towards the correct section. For example, Hermione is found under "G" for "Hermione Granger" with a note under "W" for "Hermione Weasley" which says "see Hermione Granger." On the other hand, Narcissa is listed under "M" for "Narcissa Malfoy" with a note under "B" for "Narcissa Black."

Now, for Dorea Potter (the wife of Charlus Potter), I have her listed under "P" with a note under "B" as her maiden name is "Dorea Black." An editor has come along insisting that it is never specifically stated that Dorea and Charlus were married (which I'm not sure is correct, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), and therefore she should be listed under Dorea Black only. Even if this is true, which, again, I'm not so sure it is, assuming that they were not married and had a child out of wedlock is, frankly, idiotic. We shouldn't ignore common sense, and to suggest that they weren't married or that she didn't take the Potter name is doing just that. I've started the discussion on the article's talk page, and would like to get the input of the HP project. Cheers, faithless (speak) 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorea Black is Dorea Black. Period. She's never appeared as Dorea Potter, and faithless just has to justify the use of this entirely new and original surname, otherwise it's original research, assuming Dorea and Charlus were married and that Dorea took Charlus's name, which was never said anywhere. I don't know what Faithless has against having children born out of wedlock, but his own opinions don't overturn the WP:NOR rule. Contrary to what Faithless is insinuating, I've never said Dorea and Charlus were or were not married. I'm merely saying we don't know, while Faithless is assuming they are.
If the use of an entirely new and original surname is not justified by any concrete element from Rowling's work, then it's just crufty OR that has nothing to do on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, Folken de Fanel, remain civil. Your tone aside, twisting my words to insinuate that I have something against children born out of wedlock is not very nice. faithless (speak) 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly civil, and I have not twisted your words. So stop making false accusations (they can be seen as personal attacks). Instead of attacking me, try to source what you're asked to source and stop trying to own the article. Respect the rules: your content has been challenged, so be civil enough not to reinsert it by force until you've sufficiently substanciated it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My two pennies worth are on the appropriate talk page. Also, I think it is perfectly clear they are married as they are joined with a line on the Black family tree. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge those of you who have not done so to give your opinion, whatever it may be. If the community agrees with my arguments, the article should be returned to the way it was. If the community agrees with Folken's arguments, the rest of the article needs to be similarly updated. faithless (speak) 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lexicon states that her name is Dorea (Black) Potter. And the Black Family Tree which they have clearly shows that she married Charlus Potter. Here's the link Anakinjmt (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, i don't really see it as a problem to list it as Anakinjmt pointed out. While Faitheless' format is more encyclopedic, Folken's insistence that the fairly traditional wizarding world of JKR would have a woman keeping her maiden name when no other married character in the series has done so is not encyclopedic. The only fact that Folken has is that the matter isn't cited. I don't think that Dorea taking the Potter surname is controversial, so it wouldn't be commonly contested. And everyone here knows what a mofo for citation I usually am; citation exists to verify material likely to be contested. In my opinion, there is no real dispute which would require citation for Dorea (Black) Potter to be cited (though Anakinjmt should be applauded for finding one).
On another note, just how many official JKR sites are there out there? I feel wubbly about quoting that which might be finely-crafted cruft or crap. That would seem (to me, at least) to be something which needs to be defined for the members of the wikiproject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask what you mean by official JKR sites? I only know of one: JKRowling.com Anakinjmt (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge of The Tales of Beedle the Bard

There is an ongoing discussiong at Talk:List_of_fictional_books_within_the_Harry_Potter_series#Merge_The_Tales_of_Beedle_the_Bard about whether to merge The Tales of Beedle the Bard into List_of_fictional_books_within_the_Harry_Potter_series. The articles were previously merged after a deletion debate in late July 2007. On November 18, 2007, the redirect at Tales was changed [2] to reflect the fact that Rowling has written seven real-life copies of Tales, although they are not being made widely available. The debate, if I can summarize correctly, centers around the following questions:

1) Is The Tales of Beedle the Bard notable enough to warrant its own article now in light of the real-world book?
2) If not, where should the article be merged? -Phoenixrod 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article

Hi everyone in the Harry Potter Wikiproject! I thought I'd address this issue here since it concerns this project first and foremost. I have stumbled across the article for the Harry Potter encyclopedia, but it's in an abysmal state. It has about four edits, is linked to one non-descript wikipage and is a stub with no citations at all. I was just wondering whether it should be merged or greatly improved immediately. I think that for now it should be merged, although when it is released it will definitely have its own article. Hope this issue can be addressed. Many thanks and keep up the good work for all us Harry Potter fans. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Portraits

User:The Placebo Effect merged the Magical portraits article into the Magic article, according to the AfD discussion. But the user did not include the information anywhere, and the characters disappeared at all. I suggest that we first discuss where to include The Fat Lady, Ariana, Walburga, etc. before merging the article. Lord Opeth (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally did it myself: I placed the information about portraits in the Magic article, according to what was discussed in the AfD entry, and moved Walburga, Ariana, Fat Lady and Sir Cadogan to the Minor characters article. Lord Opeth (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling

Just thought I'd state for the record that JK Rowling is now an FA. Serendipodous 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Is there an image on this project that can be used freely for the banner? Simply south (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the most generic Harry Potter-related icons currently to be found on Commons are HP books.png, P Harry Potter.png, Deathly Hallows Sign.svg. I suppose if these are still too tied to copyrighted imagery they could always be substituted for a lighting bolt or a magic wand. -Severa (!!!) 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the Hallows symbol the best. What about a free picture of J.K. Rowling? Anakinjmt (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The only issue I see with having Jo represent this project is that, for all we know (and hope!), she will go on to write more stories and so there will come a day when Jo is not defined by the Harry Potter series. I think we should thus choose an image which is able to represent the HP series in and of itself. What do others think of the Hallows? -Severa (!!!) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Member list statistics

I know I've virtually abandoned this project in favour of the League of Copyeditors, but you still might find this useful. User:MelonBot is my new Bot whose first tasking request is maintenance of Project member lists. It basically scrapes a list of users off a Project "participants" page, then compiles a list of pages associated with that project. It looks at the edit history of each page and finds the most recent edit by each project member. The data is displayed in a nice wikitable. It's still in a trial mode at the moment but you might find the data here interesting and/or useful - it was compiled from checking all pages which transclude the {{WPHP}} banner, and all associated mainpages. At the very least, it tells you who hasn't been editing a WPHP article since April 05!! Happy‑melon 10:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Death Eater into Dark Wizards

As the title says, I have made this merging proposal. A couple of suggestions had been made in the past about merging Death Eater into HP Universe, but that article is already large and some articles are about to be merged into them. If we merge the Death Eater article into the Dark wizards one, we will have a very strong article, especially if we find more sources. I think it is reasonable to merge the Death Eaters into Dark wizards because, after all, it is an organisation composed of dark wizards.

I made a Draft of a possible article containing both the list of dark wizards and the whole Death Eater article. No information is lost at all, and the article is 67 KB. Thoughts? Lord Opeth (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~ Bella Swan 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Magic (Harry Potter)

I understand that the goal of this project is to build solid, cohesive articles while cutting down on redundancy and cruft, but I think that Magic (Harry Potter) may have seen the effect of too much merging. It seems to have become something of a place for everything which failed to fit elsewhere, and, as such, is extremely long and rather disorganized. I think it might be beneficial to develop a conservative plan for splitting the article into spinouts, something like Dark magic (Harry Potter), Magical abilities (Harry Potter), and Magical objects (Harry Potter). Thoughts? -Severa (!!!) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's already an article for Magical objects. I am for keeping that. But the rest of the article just need some improvement and clean-up, but is quite organised. I mean, the sections are clearly differentiated, and splitting the article would give us again lots of little non-notable articles. If improved, the article about Magic can be one of the best. Lord Opeth (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't intend to suggest the creation of "lots of little non-notable articles," just two or three daughter articles of Magic, to avoid it getting too long. It's not as if the only choice is between a hundred crufty articles on every minor object/ability or a single article which covers everything but is prohibitively long. There's an intermediate way which I think will help improve article cohesion without stretching the notability guidelines. -Severa (!!!) 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Blood Purity article

As some of you know, the article about Blood Purity was suggested to be merged into the HP universe. I reviewed the BP article and it has lots of OR, in-universe and other stuff. I think that if we get rid of the "Pure-blood families", we can merge the rest of the information into the HP universe. I would like to make some exceptions: the Black family section can be placed in Sirius's article, the Malfoy family in Draco's, the Potter family into James and Lily's, and the Longbottom family in Neville's. There is already an article for the Weasley family, so no information would be lost there. Same with the House of Gaunt, that is already covered in Voldemort's. Lord Opeth (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, consolidate the weaker articlesso that we can make a few more extensive higher quality ones, and that definitely seems to have happened with these changes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I hate the blood purity article. It's the cruftiest piece of OR this side of Hogsmeade. I'd like to junk the whole thing. faithless (speak) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Scottish Project

When should this article be created. For those, who don't know what it is, it is a future book by JK Rowling which will be an encylopedia about the Harry Potter universe, spells, locations, people, e.t.c. Hpfan9374 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's an article for that but under other name. I think we can rename the page when this information is confirmed. Lord Opeth (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to the Scottish book, as it was nicknamed by PotterCast in their interview with Jo, it's much too soon to create the article yet, and it definitely would not go by that name. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think if it isn't already then we could have a small section in another article, such as the main Harry Potter article. But it is much too early for an entire article just for the Scottish book. I imagine we're five to ten years away from seeing the book, so it is just too far away right now. faithless (speak) 05:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Character Pages

So I suppose we finally reached the point in which no more merges can be done to the characters pages, almost all articles are already strong. We have almost 150 characters, 13 of them have their own pages, the rest are divided in 9 group pages (Weasleys, Potters/Dursleys, Hogwarts staff, students, Death Eaters, OotP, House-elves, Ghosts, and the Minor characters). There are also some pages that are not for characters but feature characters like the Ministry of Magic or the Magical Creatures. Newt Scamander is listed in Fantastic Beasts, Kennilworthy Whisp in Quidditch Through the Ages, and Nagini in Horcrux.

The Death Eaters page already features those notable characters that are Death Eaters like Bellatrix, Lucius, Wormtail, Crouch Jr or the Carrows. The Order also features some relevant characters like Tonks, Aberforth and Kingsley. The House-elf and the Ghosts articles are somehow weak but the Magical Creatures article is already large, so I'm for keeping both of them. The House-elf features important characters like Dobby and Kreacher, and the Ghosts have the 4 Hogwarts ghosts, Myrtle and Peeves. The Minor HP characters article lists some secondary characters with a notable information that cannot be lost, such as Narcissa Malfoy, Gellert Grindelwald, Viktor Krum, Rita Skeeter, Ariana Dumbledore, Ollivander, etc.

We have a total of 22 characters pages then. I suggest we include all of them in the Characters section in the HP Template. Thoughts on this?

(I would post a copy of this message in the Notability page.) Lord Opeth (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it will make sure that the template is complete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


A question about fanfiction articles

Having recently done some research into Cassandra Clare's fanfiction days so that I could add it to her article, I decided to see what else I could find about other Harry Potter fanfics and their authors. There seem to actually be quite a few newspaper articles about some of them. So, I was thinking maybe I would write Wikipedia articles on the notable ones, but I thought perhaps I should come here first to see how that might be received. Presumably as long as they had reliable sources to show notability, this is not something people would object to...? I know there is a section in Harry Potter fandom about fanfics, but only one fanfic is specifically mentioned and it's mostly about Harry Potter fanfiction in general. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I say, be bold! You seem to have the right idea about notability and sourcing that you ought to go ahead. Were you going to write an article about a particular author or work? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. If it's notable and can be sourced with reliable sources, do it! Aleta (Sing) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, two weeks later, and I'm back again. After asking that question I continued with my research and somehow got sucked into researching HP fansites and wizard rock bands too. Quite a few things in those areas seem to be notable as well, so I'm now planning to write some articles about those. I've pretty much finished my research at this point and I should be starting to get the articles up soon.

I have another question though, about categorisation: apparently there used to be Category:Harry Potter fan fiction but it was deleted because there was only one article in it - should I recreate this or would they go under Category:Harry Potter derived works? Also, right now, you can't get from the sections in Harry Potter fandom to all of the relevant articles. (For example, as Draco and the Malfoys isn't mentioned under Wizard Rock, you can't get to it from there.) Would it be a good idea to stick in something like See also: Category:Harry Potter bands or See also: List of Harry Potter bands or something? (I can't find anything specific about the creation of corresponding categories and lists... but I think maybe lists would be more useful in this case.)

Oh, and one more thing: in the lead sections of the articles, should I link Harry Potter fan fiction as Harry Potter fan fiction or Harry Potter fan fiction...? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain there is a rule somewhere but a category obviously can't just have one item in it. So, it would have made sense at the time to delete the HP fan fiction cat. However, if you can populate the cat with several notable articles, then recreating the cat is no problem. On the other hand, I would rather see HP derived works cat be the place to put fan fiction articles 'cause such a cat is less likely to be deleted by fiction deletionists. For the other questions, under the 'wizard rock' sub-heading in the Harry Potter fandom article, use the template{{details}}. For example,
For more details on specific wizard rock bands., see Category:Harry Potter bands.
Or, the template {{details3}}. For example,
For more details on specific wizard rock bands., see Harry and the Potters and Draco and the Malfoys.
As for the LEAD in new articles, note that Harry Potter fan fiction redirects to Harry Potter fandom. Using separate Harry Potter and fan fiction makes sense, or you / someone could de-link Harry Potter fan fiction and write a separate article. I'm looking forward to your articles. Sometime during the next month, I will have a new and improved Draco and the Malfoys article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Parentage" field in character infoboxes

I really dislike this field, which identifies characters by their blood status, i.e. pureblood, halfblood, etc. It strikes me as very in-universe. Anyone agree that it should go? faithless (speak) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem removing it, but I can see the point of keeping it. WP:WAF is a strong guideline, but "blood purity" (i.e. racism) is a big topic in HP. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Character template

I created a template linking to all the different character sections in the several group character articles. When I finished I realised it wasn't really suitable for use in main space (pretty sprawling and redundant ot the main Harry Poter template). Obviously others agreed and within minutes it was nominated for deletion. I've userfied it and was just wondering if anyone here thought they could use it (maybe as a jumping off point if they want to work on improving the information on individual characters). Anyway it's - here - if anyone wants it, if not I guess I'll speedy G7 it. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, looks interesting. Not something I ever want to see in mainspace, but very useful as back-end navigation. You moved it to UserGuest9999/Harry Potter characters template rather than User:Guest9999/Harry Potter characters template, so I've moved it properly to your userspace and used my shiny new admin bit (thanks BTW!) to clear up the redirects. I'm sure we can find a use for it somewhere around here. Happy‑melon 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The template is well organized but I do not see the point of using it. The main HP template already has a characters section. That template would be useful if all of those were individual pages. --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters

I have asked to split ths list. Simply south (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Status in infoboxes

I was thinking about this while browsing thru articles and wanted to see what others thought. It would be part of the infobox that follows the characters status (alive, deceased, imprisoned, unknown, etc). It could be made collapsible to avoid easy spoliers. For example, Sirius Black would be somewhat like: Prisoner of Azkaban: imprisoned, later escaped; Goblet of Fire: alive; Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: deceased. It could look something like:

Status
Prisoner of Azkaban imprisoned, later escaped
Goblet of Fire alive
Order of the Phoenix deceased

Grsz11 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article illustrations

The illustrations in our articles are almost entirely shots from the films. Wouldn't it be better to have some pictures that are illustrations from the actual books? Some of Mary GrandPré's work, perhaps, or that of whoever illustrated the Bloomsbury editions? It would be just as fair use as movie shots, wouldn't it? It would be more informative to the reader to see a depiction of Albus Dumbledore from the books than two separate pictures of Michael Gambon's portrayal of him (not to mention a shot of Richard Harris's portrayal), as is now the case. Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds sensible. I think users preferred the movie pix to the GrandPre pix because the movie pix are easily available online, but the book pix have to be scanned first. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
An idea, but someone would have to have the right kind of technology to do it. As I certainly don't. --Jammy (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll magic something up this weekend for all the characters, upload them all and place the links here, so folk can distribute them from this central point. Sound good? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that some characters have come to be defined by the actors who portray them; it would be ludicrous to remove pictures of Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, Rickman, etc from Harry Potter (character), Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger, Severus Snape, etc - these are probably the most clear-cut examples. By contrast, I agree that Dumbledore's portrayal in the movies has been haphazard and inconsistent, and a Mary Grand Pre illustration might be more appropriate. Certainly adding the other images shouldn't necessitate us removing the movie stills - but it frees them to be moved to the "depictions in film" section of each article without issues with overusing fair-use. Certainly having the images available gives us more options. Happy‑melon 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not in favor of removing film image representations of the characters. As well, I think we can avoid the free-user argument (at least in the case of Potter/Radcliffe) indicating how the characters/actors physically grow up in their roles.
How do we handle the GrandPré's different images for Snape? I seem to recall that there was an illustration image change there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for improving this article, it seems to be in a ludicrously bad state (no references, 95% of the content is the plot summary) considering it's one of the most popular books of all time (and the book that started it all). I realise that a lot of the content which would normally be in an article of this type has been hived off due to the amount of coverage but surely sourced sections of reception, legacy, etc. could be put in without being totally redundant to content elsewhere. I don't have a great deal of experience with article building and with a topic this huge I'm really not sure where to start; it just seems a bit sad that there are probably a dozen "sub-articles" of the work that are currently at or on their way to good or featured status whilst the artile on the book that spawned it all remains in this condition. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave a go at the plot, feel free to follow up. Grsz11 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I will give it a crack. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article status of Horcrux

I do not believe that the article as it is meets the good article criteria. I've brought up my concerns on the talk page of the article here. Guest9999 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article is fun but it is not an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

REPLY After Guest999's two unsuccessful attempts to delete the Horcrux article (here and here), his new suggestion to downgrade the article is, frankly, unwarranted and preposterous. If the article needs to be cleaned up, I suggest that Guest999 takes the time to clean it up rather than constantly criticizing the existing article. ∅BRIT 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please then answer my concerns (which the two other users to comment seem to agree with). Guest9999 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
REPLY I'm not saying your concerns are invalid, I'm saying that your repeated attempts to change the status of the article are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think there are problems with an article, fix them. Or at least add your concerns to the discussion page so others might fix them. The article can be improved without your repeated attempts to delete and downgrade it. ∅BRIT 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Or at least add your concerns to the discussion page so others might fix them" - isn't that exactly what I did? Guest9999 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I also put the note here specifically to direct interested editors who might be able to improve it. Guest9999 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first AfD closed with a result of no consensus, several months later I renominated as I felt that the article still did not meet the inclusion criteria and that a consensus might be established. A consensus was established - to keep the article - a view which I disagreed with but accepted as that is how consensus works. My view on the article's good article status is in no way coloured by my past nominations, they are completely seperate issues. I did not delist the article, all I did was give my opinion on the talk page, so far every user but one that has commented there seems to agree that there are issues with the article and some have started trying to improve it. Guest9999 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Guest9999 (talk · contribs) as far as I know is following process. Nominating an article for AfD is appropriate to gain concensus. Asking - on the article's talk page and the project talk page - if others see a problem with an article is appropriate to gain concensus. None of this stops any editor from improving Horcrux. It ought to encourage people to edit and make things better. At the moment, the article does not meet GA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
REPLY Which all goes back to my original (and now 6 month old) point. If there are issues with the page, the energy should be spent fixing them, not in these tiresome defensive discussions. ∅BRIT 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)