Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Contents

Book Plot Moves

I might get slammed here for saying this, but I'd like to get some input from the HP Wikipedia community regarding inter-project cooperation. We're all very excited over the new book I'm sure, and I for one started my Wiki work here before I moved to Wikibooks to develop the b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. Something I've always seen here is that there's so much development of articles related to pieces of the books, and I personally feel this goes beyond the goals of Wikipedia and should go into more dedicated works, such as that at Wikibooks. I'd love to hear contrary opinions and you can contact me via e-mail if you prefer, because I'm not really looking for a battle but want to help all Wikimedia projects which is why I'm writing here.

Anyway, I notice that the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows plot is becoming larger and larger by the minute practically. Sections such as this have been AfDed before and so I want to mention that Wikibooks would love to take any plot summary content that Wikipedia would like to offer should its existence be questioned. About two years ago I added to the Muggles' Guide to the to-do list and we have an amazing project over there. Therefore, if there's any way you'd like to help, we'd love to have you. I'm the same username over there and would like to hear from anyone interested. Once we wrap up this last book in the series, the Wikibook will be in a nearly printable state and I think the HP community will really benefit from the literary guide we've developed. The Guide is not like the Harry Potter wiki however, something that I see is dying, and focuses on literary aspects, much like a "Cliff's Notes" for the books. I don't want to write too much, but I hope our projects can work together as they have somewhat before (but not enough in my opinion) to create some great pages about the Harry Potter series. Thanks. -withinfocus 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have a ton of time for work on multiple projects, but you should get out there now as soon as possible and capture articles that are current AfD'd (like Teddy Lupin, Malfoy Manor, etc.) that would be more appropriate to have on WikiBooks, much more so than on Wikipedia. Certainly there are a ton of articles overloaded with OR from new and inexperienced editors that just want to help out, so now is the time to grab it before we weed it out in the next week or so. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to check those out. -withinfocus 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor character lists need massive cleaning

In my view: a lot of fancruft, fiction cruft and just plain old.. Harry Potter cruft is going on here. 8 pages (at least, there could be more minor lists).

I'm a big fan of the series, but I certainly know Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to each and every character. Also it should be noted: several of the minor lists have an others section which seems to be a dumping area for people that have even less of a role than the minor characters themselves! There is a Harry Potter wiki for a reason, I think it should be used more instead of people just filling Wikipedia with this cruft. I'm not saying this project is doing it (completely at least), but people in general are. Then at every AFD debate for it: lots of keep votes, many of which fall under the "I like it" terms. Popular subject or not, something needs to be done (and should've been done a while ago in my opinion). RobJ1981 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

hmm, why shouldn't it? Supposed to be the sum of human knowledge? Don't you mean that you feel this is trivial information not worth including....but others, who are the ones spending their time adding it, disagree? Sandpiper 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's trivial, and crufty. Wikipedia isn't the place for everything. I can see this problem getting worse when the last 2 movies are close to coming to theaters (and when they come out). People will see someone in a movie: and instantly think it's notable because of one film role, so an article will be made, then put in AFD again I bet. Just because people add things: doesn't make it worth an article in all cases. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy, where there is no guidelines or policies in place. Due to the fact people either choose to ignore guidelines (or their personal view on the character or whatever influences them) to create these articles, mass cruft is getting adding that shouldn't. If you don't feel like helping out: fine. But frankly, if the problem is just ignored, it will only get worse. RobJ1981 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
One comment- I've only been to the Minor Harry Potter characters article that was mentioned, and it was full of useless people that had no part in the books such as 'Arthur the Invincible' who was a wizard found on a chocoalte frog. Stff like that definitly does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and only belong on the Harry Potter Wiki. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be rooted out and cleaned up.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 02:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet another minor list (bringing the total to 9): Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. The section called Ministry officials mentioned only in passing is very troublesome, and I've removed it. I'm hoping it will remain: but I bet the cruft will be re-added. Harry Potter is popular, but all these minor lists don't help the series much in my view. I can understand a few minor lists, but all of these are constantly filled with cruft (and it wont end until the next 2 movies come out I bet). And then #10: Minor Slug Club members. #11: Minor members of the Order of the Phoenix, #12: Minor relatives of characters in Harry Potter. The series is big and full of characters, but 12 minor lists?! I think that's going a bit too far. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a guide to nearly every HP character that is minor. From the looks of it: that's exactly what is happening with all these lists. RobJ1981 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that the issue of noteability applies to whether an article should exist or not. It does not apply to aspects of article content. It is an editorial decision whether particular facts ought to be included or not. The articles on minor this and that were created as catch-alls to discourage people creating articles on each and every one of those people mentioned. What you guys are saying is that this particular information, of interest to a number of people and which would be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia about this topic, doesn't deserve house room here. wiki is not paper. I know people complain that wiki has excessive coverage of certain minor subjects (in the grand scheme of knowledge), but this is because it is written by volunteers, who naturally write about what interests them. If you feel other topics are underrepresented, perhaps your time would be better spent developing those subjects rather than pruning these? Also recall this series is around 3500 pages. Sandpiper 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This encyclopedia isn't paper, but that doesn't mean we need a complete character guide to the series. Frankly, there is alot of fancruft going on. Just because something is popular, and a group of people find many minor lists useful: doesn't make the lists completely encyclopedic or even useful for Wikipedia. There is a Harry Potter wiki (probably more than one I would bet), where people can go wild with these character lists. The lists should be pruned a bit in my view, and I think it's a bit wrong that people just refuse to ignore clear problems. Lists shouldn't be used as "catch-alls" in the first place. It helps to a point I suppose: but look at all the articles that poppped up because of the new book. Then the deletion debates are alot of people wanting it to be kept and not merged. What do you suggest about those problems? These catch-alls don't need to be so extensive. Not every minor is important enough to even be listed on the minor characters list. Don't suggest that I should edit other articles. I'm not going to ignore the problem. RobJ1981 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You perceive a problem where I don't. Why is is it a problem? Sandpiper 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before: Wikipedia isn't a guide to every character. People that want to make a complete character guide should go to a Harry Potter wiki. Very common characters I see that certainly don't belong: wizards briefly mentioned with no signs of importance, wizards that appear on cards with no importance and so on. Being a popular series doesn't justify all of these characters are notable and/or popular themselves. RobJ1981 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If you'll allow me to comment; I agree that not every wizard or character mentioned "in passing" should be included in the Wikipedia coverage of Harry Potter. I think that, in creating lists of these sorts, we should consider - if JKR were to remove the character from the events of the story, would she have to rewrite the section in which they appear? For instance, she would have to rewrite the section on Arabella Figg, as she is instrumental in Harry's reinstatement to Hogwarts in book five. However, she would not have to rewrite the section on many of the Wizards of the Month, as several of them do not appear in the series at all. Thank you for your time. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact, that some people think Wikipedia should be a complete guide, is disrupting the cleanup process. The "others" section is being re-added at Minor Hufflepuffs, because they claim Wikipedia should be complete when it comes to characters. Frankly, it's just opinion in a way, as well as editors not understanding policies on notability. Notable/popular series doesn't mean every character is notable enough to be listed. RobJ1981 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleur Delacour

Can someone who knows how to leave one of those messages hidden in the text, for potential editors on Fleur Delacour. People keep editing that Victoire is Fleur and Bill's child when there is no source for this or even the suggestion that that might be the case. Amo 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it and removed the section in the article.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Amo 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling hasn't explicitly said so that I know of, but there's ample "suggestion" to justify some mention: "Victoire" is a French name, meaning 'victory', Victoire is a cousin of the Potter kids, still a student at Hogwarts, but not too much younger than Teddy Lupin. We just need to include some word like 'presumably' or 'evidently'.
—wwoods 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, but until JKR verifies it, it's still original research. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Happily she has. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's quite an article! Solves plenty of OR battles, there...=David(talk)(contribs) 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excellent article. Since the last book (and the last of the great secrets) is now released, Rowling won't keep things close to the vest. Let's hope she gives more details in future interviews and articles so we can flesh out our articles. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:HP School

Is there any point in keeping this template? Besides the fact that infoboxes are to be avoided in articles about fiction, there are basically only three schools in the HP universe. We actually visit only one, and the information is entirely in-universe. I'd like to propose its deletion here first before taking it to WP:TFD. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A template for only three articles? I agree, that's unnecessary. Maybe if JKR had brought up another school or ten in the seventh book...but the information is pretty simple to find without the aid of a template or an infobox. Good catch. =David(talk)(contribs) 19:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nurmengard

Currently this redirects to Gellert Grindelwald. While I don't think there's a place for an article about it, as there's not much information about it in the books, I feel it is deserving of a paragraph in some article. Is there an article on minor locations in Harry Potter or would the paragraph have to be in the Gellert Grindewald entry? Also, is anyone up to the task of writing about it? Yonatan talk 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In-universe articles

I've noticed that there are 25 Harry Potter articles that have been flagged, usually justly, as in-universe. Should fixing this be added to the to-do list? -Phi*n!x 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely this needs to be priority, and through that we will see the necessity to cut down on the number of distinct articles we have, because they can't stand alone as out-of-universe. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I added it to the "merge articles" entry of the to-do list. Honestly, however,I don't even know that merging and rewriting will be able to make some of the articles out-of-universe. -Phi*n!x 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs of Differences articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences: an AfD of all five of the differences articles, something we never really came to a consensus on here, has been made. Please assess the articles neutrally before going over to make your say. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous roles and new characters section

At Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), there used to be two subsections of the "Cast" section. One was called "Previous roles" and was a list of characters that appear in the source material (i.e. the book), and the actor to play him or her in the most recent film adaptation (as the actors who have played a few characters have changed over the films). Another was "New characters" and was a list of characters who appear in the book and have not appeared in a previous film adaptation. Here is an example of what the articles used to look like. The two sections in both articles have been removed and a discussion whether they belong is taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:HP character

I've proposed some major changes to this template at Template talk:HP character#Proposed changes. Your input would be appreciated. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts articles

Resolved.

Are there any articles relating to the Battle of Hogwarts at all? I've tried searching and have found that they've all been deleted. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they probably have been deleted because Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete Harry Potter guide, and therfore cannot have an article about everything in the Harry Potter universe. Therefore the article was most likely deemed not important enough to have an article to itself in Wikipedia. If you would like a summary of the book which includes the Battle of Hogwarts, you could obviously look at the actual 7th Harry Potter book article.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Character colors

Note: moved from Talk:Harry Potter because this concerns all HP-related articles, not just the article Harry Potter. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

after Arcayne removed all (i think) the characters colors in the infobox, and ppl reverted it. But, he does a point that many characters just seem to have random colors in their infobox. I think that the characters with known Hogwarts houses should have their colors. But maybe some "global" colors should be used for all muggles, all ministry employee's, all death eaters, all order of the phoenix members and so on. Though than you'll have to decide what goes on top, so to say a Order member who went to Hogwarts in Hufflepuff but works at the ministry. Ofc you have to choose in what instance of the timeline you choose to write the articles from, right now its pretty mixed. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There were some with seemingly random colors, such as Umbridge and Filch. I didn't revert those. I agree, there should be some standard colors for those that did not attend Hogwarts or if the house is not known. V-train 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You folks are aware how images and the like are being removed as being "decorative." The coloring in the name is not encyclopedic and isn't really necessary or notable. I removed it for those reasons, as well as the fact that it wasn't applied consistently. Muggles do not belong to any "house" and have no school colors, and the coloring of House Slitherin would almost guarantee that someone who is color-blind will see a nice, solid block of gray. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As well, i will wait a few days, so that folk can absorb this info, then I will remove again any coloring I find. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with you. Whilst I think that the colours are nice and do no harm, they are not really encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedia articles are supposed to be informative, not to be "decorated" with nice colours, images and text layouts. By the way, seeing how many articles this involves, please do not revert until consensus is clear, then it can be performed perhaps semiautomatically (with AWB or something similar). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I had already reverted a lot of them before posting. I think they should be left as is until we come to the consensus. Btw, as I use a Mac, AWB doesn't really work with my machine. I was doing it by hand (gah! - 30+ characters!) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am noting the conventions that were proposed in the beginning of the HPProject here, and the prior discussions of the topic in archive 4 (Edit War - Info Box Colours, Infobox colour proposal], none of which had any solid consensus, despite the very pretty colors (or colours, if ye be of ye olde Englishe mindsette). The point is, while it is indeed purty enough, it is inno way encyclopedic. This is not a fan site for Harry Potter fans,a nd while they are a great bunch, they don't get different rules than other articles. I pointed out the links to the background on the topic, so people don;t think I just wandered into the subject like a bull in a china shop (or shoppe - grn). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I also think that worring about the colors of the infobox is a waste of time and grey is fine.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wont go reverting everything to colors, even though I liked it more with the colors ;) But there are still many pages with colors left. Minor Harry Potter characters Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter List of minor Slytherin characters Minor Slug Club members Minor Hogwarts teachers List of minor Hufflepuff characters etc. etc. Most of the minor characters also, like Snapes parents still have colors. And some (if you check the articles) have very bad and random colors ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Which is why there shouldn't be any colors. Keep things uniform. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and erased more colors on many articles now, and there are so many articles for "minor student" "Minor characters associated with Quidditch", why arent all the minor characters all in one big Minor Harry Potter Characters or something like that, with everything from former teachers to Muggle children only mentioned once. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 03:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What about organizations (and places)? S.P.E.W. Order of the Phoenix Death Eaters International Confederation of Wizards The Ministry of Magic they all have colors, should they stay? ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they should go. Most of the color choices are subjective anyway, and not at all encyclopedic. I am glad you thought of those groups, though - I would have missed them. Good on you, Mister Thorough. :)_ - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've gotten most of the articles. Though i personally think that the bg/fg colors on the book articles should be left as they are (after the Bloomsbury covers) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 04:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If everyone agrees that the colours need to go, changes should be made to the standard infobox templates. PeaceNT 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What Wendy-the-Good-Witch magic do we need to wield to make that happen? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it is a pity that we have to delete this colours as they look nice, but looking nice is not why we include something in an article. One could argue that the colours are informative because they make it easier to see to which house a character belongs, but this is "in-universe" style. This wouldn't be informative for people unfamiliar with Harry Potter, so a Harry Potter wiki can use these colours, we can't. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson, GAC

Resolved.

Hi there WP:Potter people, Emma Watson is a GAC now. Feel free to improve. —Onomatopoeia 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is done now, Emma is a good article now! Thanks to all who contributed, you were great! —Onomatopoeia 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Onomatopoeia, the article was really well-written and interesting to read. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! —Onomatopoeia 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probable need for massive re-writes of most of the children character articles

Well, its all about the "nineteen years later" and what happened to everyone after. All characters from the school when "Harry & co." was there are out of school now. And should the articles be written in form as after the last sentence in the last book? Colin Creevey for example should he be "is" or "was". the same for Voldemort and all who died. Well the question is really, should all articles change so they're "written after 2017"? CHANDLERtalk 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction articles are typically written in the "fictional present tense", so they should all use the word "is". The rationale behind this is that we are not living their lives, they are not real, they will always exist on the paper upon which they are written (that's the best way I can explain it), so they will go on forever, even if they die on the paper. So "Colin Creevey is a fictional character in the Harry Potter series…" and "Colin Creevey is a year below Harry…" and "Colin Creevey dies at the end of Deathly Hallows…". --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've always figured they should now be written in past tense, since the series is complete. For example, "[character name] was a fictional character from the Harry Potter series, or "[character] died at the end of Deathly Hallows." Adding any information on the storyline/characters now would be almost akin to recording a historical event, if that makes sense. Beemer69 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, no, fictional characters are not real, their lives never happened, so present tense is always necessary. Alientraveller 09:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes but do you still have "[character name] is a student" CHANDLERtalk 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say no, unless they were still a student by the end of the series. They are a fictional character – forever – but they were a student, until they finished their schooling, or died, or something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that you should say is a student, even if the character isn't at the end of the series– say "[character] is a student from book [#] to book [#]." -Phi*n!x 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that makes sense. I agree. For somebody whose future beyond Hogwarts is known, you would say (for example) Percy is a student through Prisoner of Azkaban. He works at the Ministry of Magic through Deathly Hallows, until he realizes the error of his ways and returns to his family (or whatever). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. But the thing is Nineteen years later. So no one from the first books are students, but some are students in the beginning, maybe put out it in the HP timeline instead, "x was a student at Hogwarts from 1991 to 1998. In 2010 she joined Gringotts Wizarding Bank as a dragonkeeper" or what ever :) CHANDLERtalk 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, except joins. -Phi*n!x 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only correct answer

Present tense all the way, folks, as of WP:WAF. Harry and Co. WERE characters in a book series from 1997-2007, and ARE ex-students of Hogwarts or HAVE BEEN students. Anything else is wrong. —Onomatopoeia 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)