Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter

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.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Godric's Hollow Infobox

On the infobox for Godric's Hollow I left the affiliation blank because I wasn't sure on how to word it exactly and I left appearance blank as I forgot in which book they first mentioned it. If anyone could add these two things, that would be great. -Hoekenheef 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dursley family deserves a page ?

There seems to be a bit of a dispute between myself and User:67.171.180.209 over whether the Dursley family should have their own page or not. Personally, I think that they are fine being on the Relatives of Harry Potter page, but the afore mentioned user does not seem to think so. If any of you have an opinion on this matter, please states it here. Thank you. -Hoekenheef 19:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but I think the Dursley family should stay where they are, simply because without them the 'Relatives' page is going to be pretty empty. While I speculate that the Author may introduce us to (possibly remote) members of his father's family over the next two books, until that happens I see no reason to create two really short articles when one middling-short one will do fine. Kevin Wells 16:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with leaving them under Relatives. After all, they are not central to the novels. If you only see the characters in the first chapter and then briefly in the final chapter of the books, then the truly do not merit their own page. Mukk 13.29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with that. Petunia will soon need her own page, although at the moment, she is just another Dursley. Jotomicron | talk 09:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British Columbia Injunction

I added a blurb under Harry Potter and one under Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince , and uploaded a copy of the injunction regarding the pre-sales restrictions Raincoast was granted by the BC court. As it would likely be nice to add more links to other people's discussion of the issue, it may merit moving to its own article page, to conserve space in the other articles... thoughts?

—Hobart 06:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy

I just greatly annoyed a friend who had managed to avoid the big Half-blood Prince spoiler until I recommended the Wikipedia as a great resource for refreshing one's mind of the previous books. Here's how it happened: clicking on the Chamber's of Secrets page she is unknowingly taken to the Hogwarts page which completely spoils the Prince in 20 words! Yes, there is a spoiler warning but my friend has read the Chamber of Secrets, in fact, she's trying to brush up on it. So I propose three principles:

Eventually all these pages and links be sorted out properly, something I'm sure you are working on, e.g., why does CoS redirect to Hogwarts?
We need not be over eager in adding new spoiler stuff (and the associated warnings) all over the place -- give it a month at least.
We be clear what the spoiler is about. Articles specific to a book should never have future info on them. Article which span several books, if they have spoiler warnings, should indicate spoilers of which book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagle (talk • contribs) 14:08, July 25, 2005

Wikipedia's Harry Potter section is full of spoilers for all books. The very nature of Wikipedia is to be as complete and accurate as possible at all times, which means that stuff will tend to get updated as fast as editors can add it. This is not a fansite, or a fan discussion forum, it's an encyclopedia, and it will have spoilers. Almost all of the articles have spoiler warnings on them, disregard them at your own risk. I personally did not visit any of these pages until I had a chance to finish reading HBP. EvilPhoenix talk 19:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

EvilPhoenix, you are advocating that WP contain the most recent information possible. That differs with point #1, so be it. However, I don't feel you are responding to the usage scenario above, or perhaps you are but you are simply arguing that it is not approriate to use the Wikipedia to refresh one's mind about characters and events in previous books before reading a new one? That really surprises me. In any case, my question in #1 stands, as does my suggestion in #3. --Reagle 15:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"T" for Terrible or Troll

Hi folks, just thought I'd leave a quick note here so it's easier for you guys to revert if you disagree. I've seen the description for the "T" grade described as "Troll, or terrible, which is the proper name." I've changed it to read "Terrible (also known colloquially as Troll)" in the O.W.L. and N.E.W.T. articles, and stated that George and Fred calls it Troll in the Hogwarts article. I think that Troll is the colloquial name for the "T" grade, and would rather see the official name stated first. Please discuss here if you disagree with my change in wording. --Death phoenix 14:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If indeed it is the colloquial term, then referring is only after the appropriate one seems, of course, good. Anyway, where does it say the T stands for Terrible? I don't seem to recall it from the books or as info J. K. Rowling gave us. --Jotomicron | talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I just changed the wording based on the original sentence stating that "terrible" was the proper name. I'll have to dig out my copy of the Harry Potter books and verify this information. --Death phoenix 01:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: Confirmed from Book 6, Troll is the proper name for 'T' --takagawa-kun 18:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's general knowledge now. :-) --Death phoenix 11:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I'm just being Captain Obvious for people slow on the take up :p --takagawa-kun 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Brace yourselves

Here we go! By my count, we're currently at H-3 hours. Thanks to everyone for the work so far. Time to submit those edits (which I would have done had Sis not closed the browser on me) and finish those linkfixes. My two cents are that we're guaranteed to get a torrent of activity. New contributors with more enthusiasm than sense are not a problem - the Potter coverage didn't have particularily noble beginnings - but vandals will be riding the crest with their cries of DOBBY IS THE HALF-BLOOD PIRNCE!!1 Everyone geek enough to be present, please stay on your toes. Temporary protection of pages might become feasible. And for the sake of all that is good and holy, stay out until you've finished the book! --Kizor 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Request?

I'd like to request an article called "List of people killed in the Harry Potter books". It could sort the people into "killed during the story timeline" and "killed before the first book" (or "killed off-screen"), and add information whether the killed person was a pupil, etc (or simply link to an existing Wikipedia-Article)

Have added it to the To-Do List--drak2 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I object, I don't think that is really needed. EvilPhoenix talk 03:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Horcrux ~ Phylactery

CC to Talk:Horcrux

I'm glad that I wasn't the only person to think that the Horcrux is like a lich's phylactery. What do you think about possibly expanding this mention to other articles? I find it interesting that what Voldemort does to himself (and its subsequent results on the soul and the wizard's physical body) seems very similar to what a wizard does to attain lichhood in the D&D universe. --Death phoenix 15:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I found this intresting while reading HBP myself. Very similar ideas you have to be a highe level wizard or sorcer to become a lich (12th level or higher I Think?), your body can e destoryed and you keep living and caan get a new body. But, their are pretty significant diffrences as well. The lich if I am not mistaken can only have one phylactery (though it seems Voldemort is the first ot have multiple Horcruxes and cannot be very far from it for an extended period of time. Also the phylactery seems to contain the lich's entire soul not just part of it. Most importantly (and I may be mistaken) I think a lich cna regenerate a body when its body has been ddestoryed automaticlly after the right amoutn of time (years?) has passed. My DnD is a bit rusty though so I coudl be wrong. Dalf | Talk 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lily Potter a Witch?

I am confused at how Lily Potter a muggle-born knew she was a witch and proceeded to go to Hogwarts? I didn't think most muggles even knew hogwarts existed

Well, if you read the first book, it's explained that a special representative of the school is sent to the homes of children born in a Muggle home, to explain the magical world and Hogwarts to them. Also, if you'd like to sign your comments by using four tildes, ~~~~, that will allow us to know who made the comment. EvilPhoenix talk 18:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a watchlist

(I'll copy this to Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince due to its popularity)

Hi all. To help deal with the many edits we are getting, I created a Harry-Potter related Watchlist at User:Deathphoenix/HarryPotterWatchlist. You can see the list here, though you should probably tweak some of the settings to get an ideal watchlist.

This watchlist is VERY sparse, so please add more articles to the list for all to use. Thanks! --Death phoenix 15:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added *some* articles to the page; actually, all I had in my watchlist itself, which will now, I think be rather tiny winy!... Good work! --Jotomicron | talk 17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear God, witchcraft and wizardry certainly does bring the vandals out of the woodworks, hmm? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The vandals are easy to deal with. It's the well-intentioned edits that are the problem... the S, P, E, C, U, L, A, T, I, O, and N keys on my keyboard are beginning to wear down. --Death phoenix 17:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey DP, good work with all the reverting here- just a note (if you have time in-between removing speculation of a dobby/draco romance in book seven) can you tag the offending users' talk pages with {{subst:test}}? Whether or not they deter repeat vandals is dubious, but they're useful to admins, as if they see an anon who's collected all four warnings (particularly in a short time period), it makes the decision to impose a block a little easier. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I've only been doing that sporadically. I must be going nuts. I only did that for a couple of the persistent "spoiler" vandals. I think {{subst:test2a}} is appropriate for the "spoiler" vandals, because thse vandals also blanked the entire article before putting up the spoiler. --Death phoenix 20:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I took a closer look at some of my reverts, and I believe most of my reverts were to get rid of speculation (though I've thrown up my hands on Book 7). I've left test messages for most of the vandals, but thanks for the reminder, I probably missed a few anons. Who did I miss? --Death phoenix 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, just a general comment in general- I've been putting some of the test warnings on myself. I didn't mean to single you out either, it's a good idea for people who are doing big revert jobs to use test messages anyway. You're doing good work. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

(indent left) That's fine, I needed a reminder anyway. :-) --Death phoenix 02:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I'm thinking we need a Wikipedia:Harry Potter notice board along the lines of the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. In particular, it would be useful to have a list of articles that need attention.

For example, there's a revert war going on with an anon, new user over whether to include certain information in Errors section of the newest Harry Potter article. Please see [1]. Exploding Boy 19:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

well, there is the tasks template that I made thats at the top of the project page, which might serve some of your purposes, but if you decide to make the page, Id suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/noticeboard. EvilPhoenix talk 21:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

James and Lily Potter

Why are James and Lily Potter currently being given only a single article? They deserve independant articles, as key (albeit dead) background characters. Superm401 | Talk 05:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't with Wikipedia yet when the first few books (well, pretty much all the books up to HBP) were out, but I'd guess that the original James Potter (history · watch) and Lily Potter (history · watch) articles were made when not too much was known about their background (James was created in 3 August 2003, Lily in 17 July 2003), but they were still background figures with very little known about them, and therefore they were merged together. Now that the latest book has established more of their backgrounds, I wouldn't object to these articles being split again (though which should we redirect this to? James, or Lily?). --Death phoenix 05:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

James. Men are more important than women(_kidding). Superm401 | Talk 21:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can just delete it (of course, we'll make sure that all the articles links are changed to James and Lily Potter. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think they deserve seperate articles, there's really not that much information available about them, and they're usually strongly associated together. EvilPhoenix talk 21:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is enough to warrant distinct articles. In the more recent books, they are developing distinct enough storylines and details that I think that two articles is warranted. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Question

I hope this isn't too off-topic. While I'm here, I have a question/comment about HPB. It does give away the ending so avert your eyes if you haven't finished (though if not why are you here instead of reading the book :) ) Anyway, when Harry checks the publication date of Advanced Potions, it is nearly 50 years old. If you generously define nearly as 5 years less then, he is saying it was published in 1951(using Birthday Cake dating). He decides based on this that neither his parents nor their friends could have used the book. This is logical because they entered Hogwarts in 1971 and would have taken potions in 1976. That means if they used the HPB copy, it would have been 25 years old. The problem is the resolution of the mystery. Snape turns out to be the Half-Blood Prince. However, he entered Hogwarts the same year. I understand he is poor but isn't it still really unlikely that he'd be using a 25-30 year old book? Are we to understand it to be inherited from his mother? Even if that's the case, wouldn't that old a book be a hardship? Superm401 | Talk 05:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

He could have easily inherited the book from his mother. The evidence seems to indicate it. EvilPhoenix talk 21:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Would a potions expert like Snape really tolerate a 25-year old book? Superm401 | Talk 01:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some folks prefer an old book. --Death phoenix 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The old textbook clearly didn't hamper Snape. Who needs a new textbook when you are doing your own experimentation and virtually writing your own? - Violet Evans 03:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, my thinking was as follows. The book Snape has is bad enough. He wouldn't want to have one that is even more inaccurate(because older). However, I have since found a confirmation that the potion-making book belonged to Eileen Prince near the end of HBP. So, he definitely inherited. Superm401 | Talk 05:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did you? What? Having been reading up on this where they are even more obsessive about it than here, I don't recall anyone posting such evidence, which would have been rather a useful piece to the general debate about snape. In general, both Lilly and Snape would have been poor and likely have been buying second hand textbooks. Didn't the weasleys do this in an earlier book? I think the implication must be that the 40 year old book is still exactly the same text as the one currently recommended for the class. Which I thought odd as I was reading HBP, especially since at least one person already had a lot of suggestions on how to improve it. Perhaps there were copyright problems.Sandpiper 21:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Grindylows and Hinkypunks

Since both grindylows and hinkypunks are creatures from genuine folklore, and not created by JK Rowling, shouldn't they be removed from the Potter beasts lists and given pages of their own?82.45.244.104 09:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of Rowling's beasts and creatures come from traditional folklore and mythology, but she modifies them to fit with her stories, so passing her folklore creatures off as if they were exactly the same as the traditional ones would actually be doing people a disservice, IMO. Her Boggarts, which are a hybrid of the classic folklore boggart (a destructive household spirit) and the bogeyman (a creature that takes the form of one's worst fear), are a perfect example. In fact, in the case of boggarts there are two separate articles on Wiki, one for the classic boggart and one for JKR's boggarts. --Zequist 03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, but the problem is, when you type "hinkypunk" or "grindylow" into the Wiki search engine, all you get are Harry Potter references. Indeed, the grindylow reference claimed that they had been created by JK Rowling. I've been thinking of doing seperate pages for them, but I've been having registration problems.

82.45.244.104 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename?

So anyone up for renaming this WikiProject? I was thinking something along the lines of WikiProject Lord Voldemort. Sound good? Okay then, we'll prepare the move. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know.... Harry has power you know not. I think we'll have it resolved at the end of the next book. Superm401 | Talk 16:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Say that again and I may have the Death Eaters put the Dark Mark over your computer. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am back, Voldemort! Flee! I will destroy your puny little group before the next book is over! H.J.Potter 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Alastor Moody

I moved Alastor Moody to Mad-Eye Moody. I think we should title articles by their better-known name. I hope I wasn't wrong in doing so. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real style for this; though Mrs Figg is the only other article I see that uses a nickname instead of a proper name. Although Ron Weasley is also a "popular" name, it at least uses a first_name last_name format as opposed to nickname last_name. I'd be inclined to keep it as Alastor Moody, though I won't undo what you did without consensus. Personally, I'd rather see Mad-Eye Moody redirect to Alastor Moody. --Death phoenix 16:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiPedia:Naming conventions (common names) is all I could come up with. You wouldn't want the article to be William Clinton or James Carter, you would want Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Just something to keep in mind. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That covers Ron Weasley, but I'm not sure if it covers Mad-Eye. I think (but can be mistaken) that common names are somewhat different to nicknames. See Peewee Herman, which redirects to Paul Reubens. --Death phoenix 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mark Twain, etc.? Or what about even the best ever??? I'm not sure it matters for something like this since it's only a book character. I think it should stand at Mad-Eye Moody. It would be nice to hear other people's opinions though. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we can continue citing examples until the cows come home, but yeah, since your edit is fine (my own opinion notwithstanding), there's no harm in waiting for other voices in this discussion. --Death phoenix 18:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They both have justifications, and thanks to redirects, it doesn't really matter. I say we keep it however it is now. Superm401 | Talk 21:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay at Alastor Moody, with a redirect from Mad Eye. EvilPhoenix talk 03:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Evilphoenix --drak2 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again I must point you to WikiPedia:Naming conventions (common names). I think following this it should stay at Mad-Eye Moody, not Alastor "No-one-outside-the-books-calls-me-by-this-name" Moody. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Romilda Vane

I wasn't quite sure what to do with Romilda, because she didn't fit with any of our past minor Gryffindor groupings. We can't put her in "Minor Characters Associated With Quidditch," nor in "Gryffindors in Harry's year," which are the two groups where we've always stuck the minor Gryffindors like Parvati and Oliver. So I simply went ahead and wrote up a separate article for her, even though her character really isn't that significant (we did the same thing with the Creevey brothers, who are also minor but don't fit in the other two groups). But if anyone has any better ideas for where to put her or what to do with her, I'm all ears. --Zequist 19:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it is better to remain an individual page. That will save some trouble for billlund, too. ----Mozart2005 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

Doesn't the List of places in the Harry Potter books duplicate the Category:Harry Potter places?

Prongs

Would someone mind adding some info about "Prongs" to James and Lily Potter? I don't think there is anything about James/Prongs in the article. I don't think I will be able to do it, but I thought someone might give it a go. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried. Somebody can correct my corrections if necessary --Mozart2005 20:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Name

What is the correct name of the shop? Is it Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes or Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes? Both are mentioned in the article, and I don't have a book handy to check. If it's the second one, the article needs moved. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Latter. Superm401 | Talk 16:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Links to Tom Riddle

Back when we thought we were just going to have Tom Riddle as a redirect page to Lord Voldemort, I changed a ton of links throughout WP from Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort to avoid the redirect. Now that it seems clear we will have both pages, we need to have people change them back. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be separate articles. They are the same person, with the same background, goals, desires, and personality. Any distinction is arbitrary. Superm401 | Talk 18:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well I had thought so too, but after this last book, one could argue that they were truely two distinct characters. Also, some people didn't want a link to Tom Riddle to go to Lord Voldemort, because they thought it was too much of a spoiler. Your thoughts? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can write an article about a particular book without mentioning later books, but I don't see how you can about characters. 7 versions of each character?Sandpiper 21:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that we can put this back up for discussion? I think it would be appropriate to have a Vote to merge the two articles with Tom Riddle as a Redirect. Unless of course i missed such a discussion already. TonyJoe 12:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the litmus test should be whether the setup and the payoff occur in the same book. That is to say, the character known as Tom Riddle is introduced in "Chamber of Secrets," but it is revealed later in the same book that he is Lord Voldemort. Similarly, the character knows as The Half-Blood Prince is introduced in the book of the same name, but it is revealed later in the same book that he is Severus Snape. On the other hand, Scabbers is introduced in "Philosopher's Stone" but it isn't revealed that he is Peter Pettigrew until "Prisoner of Azkaban." I would argue therefore that Riddle/Voldemort and HBP/Snape should be merged, but Scabbers/Pettigrew should be separate. --Dmleach 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The Voldemort article contains most of the Riddle article anyway. --βjweþþ (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikicity

How does the Harry Potter Wiki differ from this Wikiproject? H.J.Potter 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the Wikicity will allow original research; i.e. speculation. Superm401 | Talk 18:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a contributor over there, but it's still in "early developmental stages" at the moment; perhaps you could go over there and contact User:Vostok, who, I think, started the wiki, and ask. I do know that directly copying articles from Wikipedia is discouraged. Hermione1980 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

They copied the HBP article directly out of Wikipedia ([2]) - you can tell because some of the images are missing and the links halfway down don't exist. --Whiteheadj 09:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Mark Evans

We need to move out Mark Evans from Relatives of Harry Potter. He has NO relationships with Harry and there is no point to keep him there. Maybe we should create a "Miscellaneous Characters from Harry Potter" since there isn't enough infomation to create a seperate article. --Mozart2005 20:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

We've already got a massive List of characters in the Harry Potter books. I think that's more than sufficient for nobodies like Mark Evans or Piers Polkiss; I don't see any need to make yet another article or "list of characters" page just for them.--Zequist 00:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Kittens

Somewhere in Wikipedia it is suggested that the kittens in the plates in Umbridge's office may be capable of movement. Well I've just checked in OotP and in one scene they are the only thing (apart from Harry) in the office that moves. But can I find that original paragraph? Of course not...

One presumes that, like photographs, the kittens move magically but aren't really alive. Exploding Boy 23:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but copying the paragraph doesn't really help me... would you mind linking to it next time? Thanks.

Update: Found in Hogwarts and moved to Photographs.

Andromeda and Ted Tonks

1. I am not clear if Andromeda Tonks is in the Order. She is put in "Category:Order of the Phoenix".

2. Should Andromeda and Ted Tonks be together, just like James and Lily Potter? Both articles have similar information and they both appear together.

--Mozart2005 00:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Is there a template for the first book?

Lapifors and Snuffiflors (sp?)

Does anyone know if there is there a British version of the Prisoner of Azkaban game? I am pretty sure "Snuffiflors" (sp) turns flying books into mice in the U.S. version of the Prisoner of Azkaban game. And although listed on Wikipedia multiple times, I don't recall a "Lapifors" spell at all. Can anyone confirm? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about any versions other than the PC version in the U.S., but there's a "Lapifors" spell to transfigure a rabbit statue into a rabbit and a "Draconifors" spell to transfigure a dragon statue into a dragon. I don't remember a "Snuffiflors" spell or anything like it, but it may be in another platform's version. Hermione1980 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I should have been more specific... I meant on the PlayStation2 version of the game. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The differences are between the PC and Console (PS2/XBox/GCN) versions of the game, not between US and international. The PC versions of SS, COS, and POA each have spells, levels, and challenges that the console versions don't, and vice-versa. I did a big rewrite of the article for the Chamber of Secrets video game a couple of weeks ago and added all the important information for the console versions of that game, because the earlier article only covered the PC version. I'm planning to do the same for the POA Game article (which is also currently in a PC version only state) when I can find the time.--Zequist 06:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Zequist. I knew something seemed fishy. Wow, for a Dark Lord, I sure sound like a weenie. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter (Plot)

Considering the fate of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, I think Harry Potter (plot) needs to be split and merged into the book articles. If no one objects, I'd like to add the project to the to-do list. James 05:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think making more pages is bad! I think we cause the pages that we currently have incomplete and fragmented when we do that. The plot summaary can go in a sub-heading of the books article. It does not need ot have a chapter by chapter breakdown. People can get cliffs notes for that. Links to places wehre the chapters are discussed chapter by chapter woucl be better. Dalf | Talk 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Um... I know, that's why I'm saying Harry Potter (plot) needs to be split and merged into the books' pages, i.e. the summary at HP (plot) needs to be merged with the one at Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone, etc.

The user Kappa seems to be going out of his way to change around some new HP pages, specifically trying to keep the CoS full plot summary page, now requested for deletion, and trying the get the new HP Wikibook deleted. Can anyone vote over at Wikibooks? The Wikibook is incredibly helpful and useful for all the new plot pages and summaries and I don't want it getting deleted due to his ridiculous claim. He wants to keep a plot page saying plots should be split like that, then wants to delete a whole plot set because it supposedly doesn't have value. Hopefully the votes will block it. -Matt 13:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be it's own wiki?

Much like "Memory Alpha"? Let's face it, the only people likely to want information of this depth are HP fans, and some non-HP fans in Wikipedia are removing posted information they deem "not of enyclopedic value" on the assumption that the books are "not deep enough" for that kind analysis.82.45.244.104 16:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think an HP wiki is a great idea, though I have to say I haven't run into anyone saying that the books themselves are not deep enough for analysis, but that analysis proper is largely missing from HP articles. Recounting details is not the same as analysis. James 17:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There is an HP wiki, over at WikiCities, but that is seperate from Wikipedia (and has ads, which I dislike). You're more than welcome to propose changes, theres quite a bit of stuff in here thats probably too in depth for a general encyclopedia, sure. Feel free to make redirects, or if you see an article that you think doesnt belong, go ahead and propose it for deletion. I'm not personally averse to trimming some of it down. But Harry Potter is popular, and as such it will probably be popular on the Wiki too. So, yes, there is an HP wiki, but this one exists too. This is simply Wikipedia's coverage of HP, for good or for ill. EvilPhoenix talk 18:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You can check out the fledgling Harry Potter Wiki here. Enjoy. Although it should be the Lord Voldemort Wiki. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

For people who want copious amounts of analysis to go with their detail there's also the Harry Potter Lexicon project over on the Floo Network site cluster, which has been a work-in-progress for the last five or six years and is pretty massive at this point.

Anyway, there are a LOT of topics on wikipedia that have this kind of depth/sprawl, and in some cases far more. In fact, compared to some corners of wikipedia, our little HP area is a model of restraint. Take a look at this writeup for a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, for instance. That's a massive amount of information even for hardcore fans, never mind someone like me who barely watched the show. And there are quite a few episodes that have writeups which are just as detailed as this one.--Zequist 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The existence of such things is not self-justifying. You're right, the article is too detailed and definitely needs to be cut down. James 18:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't. My point was simply that wikipedia by its very nature lends itself to a certain amount of bloat, because articles are mostly written and edited by people who love a subject and want to share their enthusiasm with others. I was just saying that compared to some topic areas, I think we in the HP corner have been pretty good so far at trimming the fat off. Of course, keeping it off requires CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!! <g> --Zequist 07:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Labeling WikiProject Pages

Are there any rules on what pages are included as a part of the WikiProject? I'm new to Wikipedia altogether and am the type that likes to comb through things and make them uniform. Would it be all right if I went through and tagged HP pages with the WikiProject header box and made general clean-up edits? -Matt 00:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui! Tag the talk pages of any HP-related articles with {{HP-project}}. Clean up, by all means! And pardon my editing of your comment above: I cannot stand to see "all right" as one word, be it right or wrong. :-) Happy editing, Hermione1980 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Shew, I wouldn't even have noticed. Any styles anyone uses on edit summaries? What do you guys like regarding use of "minor edit?" Matt 00:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If you see any new pages, please add them to the Harry Potter watchlist. Thanks! --Death phoenix 02:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Books Merging

It seems the plot page is duplicating what now exists as the HP Wikibook. Does anyone have objections to:

Marking the plot page for deletion since all plots have been merged into the book pages or brought into the Wikibook.
Rewriting the synopsis sections for each of the book pages so that they are mainly shorter
Removing the merge notices on the book pages
Linking each book page to the new Wikibook for further reading

I'd say I'm up to the task if people don't have a problem with it. -Matt 01:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly approve. James 05:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

The plot page is linked to by a lot of other HP pages. I will place the concise descriptions made for the book pages on the plot page instead of a full deletion. -Matt 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is a single page with all of the books' summaries necessary? James 23:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it should be there mainly to accomodate all the pages pointing to it. Where should the pages point to after the plot page deletion? I guess a redirect could be set up but where would it point to? Directly to the Wikibook? -Matt 00:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of making these changes. The Chamber of Secrets full plot summary is now requested for deletion. -Matt 19:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like things are mostly taken care of. I have updated the todos and such to reflect what still needs to be done. The CoS full plot summary seems well on its way to deletion. Once it becomes deleted, will it turn into something like the HBP page? I don't want to edit until the article is finished voting. -Matt 01:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a good idea. Could you do a simple redirect to Wikibooks though? Seems like it'd be much cleaner. James 13:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm too new to set up a redirect. Let's hope the Wikibook stays alive to redirect to in the first place. Go vote! -Matt 22:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what I was talking about. I put in a redirect (not a move) and the page doesn't seem to want to move across namespaces. I think it's fine for now. -Matt 01:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikibook

The Harry Potter Plots Wikibook is now on books for deletion! --?jwe?? (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Posted above, but here it is again: The user Kappa seems to be going out of his way to change around some new HP pages, specifically trying to keep the CoS full plot summary page, now requested for deletion, and trying the get the new HP Wikibook deleted. Can anyone vote over at Wikibooks? The Wikibook is incredibly helpful and useful for all the new plot pages and summaries and I don't want it getting deleted due to his ridiculous claim. He wants to keep a plot page saying plots should be split like that, then wants to delete a whole plot set because it supposedly doesn't have value. Hopefully the votes will block it. -Matt 14:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikibook seems like it will survive; however, a new, more useful Wikibook is being created which will hopefully remove the need for the current one. Come check out the Muggles' Guide and tell me if you can help! -Matt 01:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter at Wikibooks

Wikibooks Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter has a page on the topic of

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince chapter 1

As just mentioned by User:Withinfocus, please note the existence of the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter at Wikibooks, where detailed analyses of the books are permitted as long as they remain educational and instructional. The first five books are in need of editors to break them down into chapter-by-chapter analyses as the sixth already has been. Available commentary from the author and textual analyses are encouraged. See the chapter linked to for an example. Uncle G 04:44:54, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone active here to consider a Transwiki of Harry Potter articles over to the new Muggles' Guide. Quite a bit of discussion has come up at Wikibooks and the idea is that Wikipedia is not the place for many of the in-depth articles on Harry Potter. There may even be an eventual requesting of VFDs of articles if the ideas discussed at Wikibooks get over here to Wikipedia. Can we discuss this below on who supports and opposes a Transwiki of Harry Potter content to Wikibooks? Pages would be marked after a concensus is reached. -Matt 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There remains an ongoing debate whether the wikibook on harry Potter should be deleted there and they seem to have several reasons why it should. If wikibooks was as quick to apply policy and delete things as is pedia, then I think the stuff would have been deleted within a week of its arrival. It is only still there because User:Withinfocus has writen 15K of replies begging for it to be allowed to stay.

They have a policy that they do not host items which are really part of articles here. A number of people do not see why articles here are being pruned in length with regard to their plot content and the descriptions being dumped there. They seem very reasonably to believe that such stuff is totally encyclopaedic and should be here. I have to agree. What is the justification for removing purely factual detail from the HP articles here? It strikes me as vandalism.

Then there is the issue of analysis. I have seen a number of posts saying 'no original research', and 'no unverified claims' should be included on this site. These arguments are being apllied totally inappropriately to this subject. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to give the reader information which the reader wants. That information should indeed be the best available, and there is a policy that it should be information which is accepted in the wider world. Fine. But this is a work of fiction being discussed. Hard facts about certain aspects which most interest readers do not exist. The only information is either in JKRs head, or it comes from careful analysis of the books and her pronouncements. This is something which wikipedia can address. It is perfectly possible for articles here to report both sides of a debate where the reality is that two or more schools of thought exist in the wider world. It is done all the time in politics articles. There are already majority views out there on the meaning of things in the books. So why are they being removed here? Once again this feels more like people censoring information. People on wikibooks argue that they have the same quality standards as pedia, yet here information is being rejected which they regard as being 'encyclopedic', and they do not see why it belongs on wikibooks. People here are deliberately resisting extended explanations and I do not see why. Have we run out of paper again?

It seems rather stupid for HP information to be split over two wikis. There is absolutely no prospect of eradicating it from pedia. Why does this project have a policy of doing only half a job? Sandpiper 07:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I caught ALL of your drift there, but it seems to me that extensive details belong to the WikiBook, and more summative articles belong here. What I don't understand is why anyone wants to delete the HP WikiBook at all - it's so good! Can someone explain to me please. --alfakim 09:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Only one editor has vocally objected to the Wikibook (It may seem like, more, with the amount that that editor has written.), and that is apparently a reaction to the previous deletion of a biography of Nikolai Tesla, that is nothing to do with Harry Potter. Uncle G 17:10:41, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
- That I don't get. I think Wikibooks is the perfect place for all this information, and I have no objections to storing detailed information there (in fact, I love it). I'd vote for keeping it, but I haven't done anything on Wikibooks so my vote wouldn't count for anything. --Deathphoenix 12:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  - The Muggles' Guide has been kept. There was a strong consensus pretty much from the start of the discussion. Please come to the Muggles' Guide and contribute. The VFD and VFU dust at Wikipedia and Wikibooks has settled, with a compromise that many apparently accept. It's time for editors familiar with Harry Potter to now do the work. ☺ Uncle G 17:10:41, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
  - The POV of wikibooks seems to be that they host books which help you understand something. They are thinking in terms of textbooks which might be part of a course. A synopsis of a plot does not really fit this category. Especially if it is being viewed as only part of a whole book, the remainder of which is somewhere else. That is two of their rules violated right there, and remains grounds for deletion even though the VFD has been concluded with a vote to remain.
    The debate was very long and included a good element of allowing the new project time to demonstrate how it might develop. Also a lot of frantic reorganisation to try and re-cast it into a framework which might be acceptable. So I for one am not convinced it has a permanent home there. I am quite sure that simply as a long plot synopsis referenced from here, it will be deleted. There were several posts questioning exactly why detailed content was considered excessive for wikipedia, when to the people over there it appeared to be precisely encyclopedic and not their business at all. Sandpiper 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    - Again, you are taking the opinion of exactly one editor to be Wikibooks' policy. To see the actual Wikibooks' policy, read the Wikibooks:annotated texts policy instead. A guide that "facilitate[s] reading and comprehension of [Harry Potter novels], whether in a classroom environment or for private study" (which would include plot summaries and analyses, analyses of character development, topical indexes that link characters to the chapters in which they appear, and so forth) is very much in line with stated Wikibooks policy. The problem, ironically, is that the original Wikipedia "full plot summaries" were in fact far too small. The Muggles' Guide needs a lot of expansion. Uncle G 17:10:41, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
    - Uncle G above hopefully cleared this issue up. I'm not sure Sandpiper fully understands what the VFD was discussing. Some of the discussion came down to misinterpretation (or vagueness) of policy. The goals of the Guide were discussed and the admins saw that it had quite a bit of potential. I strongly believe the Guide will have a permanent home at Wikibooks. New Wikibooks policy is being created right now to allow a building period of a month or so before books can get put on VFD. Everyone also agreed that putting the Guide on VFD in the first place was practically vandalism caused by Kappa. I see things as falling in the right places now. The Guide should be a place to expand the ideas of HP that go beyond what an encyclopedia should cover. I think Sandpiper is pushing the boundaries of what an encyclopedia (and what the community here has decided Wikipedia) should contain. -Matt 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

New Hpwiki

There is a new Hpwiki over at www.harrypotterwiki.org. It is sponsered by FictionAlley.org. If you are active in this Wikiproject I strongly suggest that you help out over there. At the current time they are not allowing registration for some reason or another. I do have one question about this though. Could we transfer material from the HP pages here at Wikipedia over to the Hpwiki. -Hoekenheef 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Bah. That is why the Muggles' Guide was created. The Guide seems to be part of a large movement (and boy have we been arguing over it) to Transwiki HP articles on Wikipedia to Wikibooks. Since it is a sister site of Wikipedia I hope people will work there and not at these others. -Matt 01:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeez man. Why so nagative? So, yeah, it's not a sister project to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't help it out. That's like seeing a person about to get injured or die and not doing anything to possibly help them just because you don't know them. -Hoekenheef 02:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No no no! Totally incorrect! What I am getting at is what many Wiki users see as a helpful integration tool. The Wikimedia Foundation and all that has a whole set of projects that work excellent together. I just don't want too many projects to derail efforts. If one place can be established, that will make the end result so much better. Wikibooks is seen as the appropriate place for that general sort of information. Why should Fiction Alley try to run their own MediaWiki install when there is an incredibly strong one already existing? Also, a Transwiki would bring articles to a sister project normally. Taking articles from Wikipedia over to the site you mentioned may be more complicated. -Matt 02:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My misunderstanding. -Hoekenheef 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No harm done. I see you started editing over there already. Hopefully I can persuade you to come to the Muggles' Guide. -Matt 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also... there is already a Harry Potter Wiki over at Wikicities. It's still in its beginnings, but already much more advanced than the one you suggested. Just in case anyone cares. (AND you can actually sign up and edit at this one, so that's a plus.) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope to convince them to try out the Muggles' Guide, too. However, I hear they just copy Wikipedia content, which shouldn't be allowed. I'm not sure if Wikicities is really considered a project in the WikiMedia group either. I'm going for some integration, especially since people are talking a lot (especially over at Wikibooks, check out the VFD page) over what HP content should stay and go at the various WikiMedia projects. Some new VFDs here at Wikipedia may be coming soon to the Harry Potter pages and I'd like to Transwiki them over to Wikibooks after some modification. -Matt 00:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives