Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 4

message: Hi folks, I've added a new section titled "Real-life topics" to the HP Watchlist, and added Rowling and the three main cast members to this list. I'm a little busy at the moment, but if you guys could take the time to add more actors to this list, that would be greatly appreciated. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added quite a few more, I've only added those actors who are very notable or if they play a major character, there are dozens more minor actors/charcters and I'm not sure they should be included. What do you think?  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 17:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appeciated, that's exactly the level of notability (of the actor or the character) that I was looking for, thanks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of "Real-life topics" to the HP Watchlist 

message: I have to say I tire of the constant edit warring with the colours of the info boxes used throughout the Harry Potter articles. Can we gain some consensus please on this talk page to bring it to a long overdue end.
I am not going to talk about the trolling thats going on changing the colours just to enflame the situation, what does need sorting out however is that there are two view points here - one which is pushing for a standardised colour for all info boxes and the other that is using the colour categorisation set out in the templates page of this wikiproject which has been in place for over 9 months now.
So can we decide on here which to stick to, or reformulate the colours into categories everyone can agree on. 
I would also like to remind everyone that civility should be maintained and try not to use so many brow beating edit summaries. Thank you.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a guideline on infobox colors here. Point anyone who reverts away from versions of that to this page to discuss it, and also let us know specifically where you're having issues and we can help you out. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Evilphoenix, the link you have provided is the same as I have included in my opening comment, the problem has been prolific on many of the Harry Potter pages(example). I personally have not envolved my self in this edit war, but I brought it here in the hope of resolving it.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 00:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: just busy elsewhere, but nice to be missed. Using colours seems to be going a bit far to me. What about the oddities, like it says filch is loyal to his cat? No, absolutely not a different colour for each. Shouldn't the loyalty line instead say something like neutral? Sandpiper 06:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey buddy, good to see you back. Take a look at Argus Filch. I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised. I agree, though. These infoboxes are very subjective. Either keep them all the same colour, or I have a different proposal: Only have three colours: One for those with allegiance to the Order of the Phoenix, one for Voldemort, and one for everyone else, regardless of allegiance. Having different colours for being loyal to Draco Malfoy, one for unknown, one for none, seems kind of superfluous to me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War - Info Box Colours 

message: As pointed out here, the "Loyalty field" in the infobox Harry Potter (character) has six entries, only two of which are for actual organisations. I think we need to be more ruthless in how this field is used. I think organisations should be given precedence, and only if the person in question has no loyalty to any organisations should individuals be used. This looks like a great case for an entry in the Conventions section of the Templates page, once we come to a consensus on how this horribly-abused field should be used. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these should be probably be trimmed down for all HP articles. The point of the infobox is to make a clear, concise point, and the original intent of the loyalty part was likely to indicate which side of the war each character is on. For example, the info that Harry Potter is loyal to Sirius Black or Albus Dumbledore, while true, isn't significantly different than saying he's loyal to the OotP. Any other information about relationships Harry has with those characters can be explored in detail in the article. (Note: I use Harry as an example; I think whatever the consensus turns out to be, it should be applicable to all characters, as characters such as Ron Weasley have similar issues.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.- I just wanted to add that there may be some cases in which adding loyalty to individuals might be completely appropriate, particularly where Rowling takes the time to make the specific point about that loyalty. However, in many cases it is likely unnecessary. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, to expand upon having an individual in the Loyalty field if there are no groups, there are a couple of people where this would be appropriate: Lord Voldemort and Professor Quirrell (since he was never proven to be a Death Eater). --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I'm proposing, yes, though we should probably wait until we get a fairly clear consensus before doing so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Once we come to a consensus, we can add it to the Conventions section and cite that any time some other user wishes to keep reverting our changes a la infobox colours. Conventions and consensus give us weight. --Deathphoenix ON WHEELS ʕ 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: One way around this would be to use the plural form. There's nothing wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters" (or the Death Eaters), right? --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are a few people who would qualify as being loyal to Voldemort but not the Death Eaters, as shown in my examples in the new Conventions section: Professor Quirrell (loyal to Voldemort, but not proven to be a Death Eater) and Voldemort himself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but what about people being loyal to "Death Eaters"? I understand that there are multiple reasons not to say that any given Death Eater is loyal to Voldemort- one being the fact that people like Quirrel would have no distinction, another being that it would take away the useful link and their important Death Eater status- but doesn't it seem like, by saying "Loyalty: Death Eater(s)" they're then loyal TO Death Eaters, like Narcissa? I quote you here: "There's nothing wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters" (or the Death Eaters), right?". This is what I see wrong with it. There is something wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters"- they're not. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text to Allegiance, so that's a moot point. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that's kind of true... see my comments below in the next section... about it being changed to "allegiance". I mentioned that already. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think grammatically, the plural "Death Eaters" is better. It's like saying "I am allied with the Order of the Phoenix"; "I am allied with the Death Eaters"; "I am allied with Draco Malfoy". "I am allied with the Death Eater" or "I am allied with Death Eater" doesn't make as much sense, grammatically. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Renaming "loyalty" to "allegiance" sounds great to me, and I'd fully support it. I think that would clear up a lot of the confusion. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That's a great idea. I'll officially endorse it by being bold and changing it to Allegiance. Oh, but I must note that the attribute will still be "loyalty", it's only the text that will show up as "Allegiance", so some of the confusion will remain. I might clear up some of it by also allowing the use of "allegiance" in the template, if I remember how. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. The template works for "allegiance=The Grand Poobah" and "loyalty=The Grand Poobah" as legacy. Basically, whether you want the text to be Loyalty or Allegiance is still up for discussion; however, I implemented the template so that the calling attribute names themselves will work with either. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the template discussion here. This is not supposed to convey unwavering devotion, but merely what side of the fight the character is on. Affiliation means they're a member, which doesn't really apply to certain cases. Allegiance is much better as a moderate description. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "allegiance" conveys that meaning "which side one is on", without going into the degree of devotion, so it seems to be what we want here. "Affiliation" can be a synonym but mostly it emphasizes membership - Fred & George are affiliated with Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (same for all the shop owners to their businesses) and the Gryffindor Quidditch team; Rita Skeeter is affiliated with the Daily Prophet, the Quibbler and Witch Weekly.  So a person who does not know what's been discussed here and sees "Affiliation" in the infobox might be tempted to add something like Dumbledore's resume with the Wizengamot and the International Confederation of Wizards. Harry is affiliated with S.P.E.W. and the Slug Club, but his allegiance (or loyalty) is not to these. "Allegiance" is closer to "loyalty", but the former emphasizes causes and sides (which tend to be groups), while the latter is more general (not just causes, but also friends and family). --Mercurio 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loyalty" field needs standardisation 

message: Since there were no objections, I created a section on conventions for Loyalty here. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I'll take off the "Proposed" text when we come to an agreement. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way around this would be to use the plural form. There's nothing wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters" (or the Death Eaters), right? --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are a few people who would qualify as being loyal to Voldemort but not the Death Eaters, as shown in my examples in the new Conventions section: Professor Quirrell (loyal to Voldemort, but not proven to be a Death Eater) and Voldemort himself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but what about people being loyal to "Death Eaters"? I understand that there are multiple reasons not to say that any given Death Eater is loyal to Voldemort- one being the fact that people like Quirrel would have no distinction, another being that it would take away the useful link and their important Death Eater status- but doesn't it seem like, by saying "Loyalty: Death Eater(s)" they're then loyal TO Death Eaters, like Narcissa? I quote you here: "There's nothing wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters" (or the Death Eaters), right?". This is what I see wrong with it. There is something wrong with saying "they are loyal to Death Eaters"- they're not. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text to Allegiance, so that's a moot point. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that's kind of true... see my comments below in the next section... about it being changed to "allegiance". I mentioned that already. Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think grammatically, the plural "Death Eaters" is better. It's like saying "I am allied with the Order of the Phoenix"; "I am allied with the Death Eaters"; "I am allied with Draco Malfoy". "I am allied with the Death Eater" or "I am allied with Death Eater" doesn't make as much sense, grammatically. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created the Loyalty conventions

message: Hi. Um, is this a good time to revive the discussion about renaming the Loyalty field in the character infobox?  I think part of the reason why the Loyalty field invited a lot of additions is because of its name.  People who are unaware of the infobox's usage guidelines might be applying a common-sense or dictionary definition to "Loyalty", which would be fairly broad. Hermione Granger is unquestionably "loyal" to Harry Potter, Marge Dursley is "loyal" to Ripper, the Malfoys are "loyal" to their family members, and so on.
If loyalty to organizations is what's to be emphasized, a word with more specific senses that suggests groups or institutions could be used instead.  For example, "Allegiance" is loyalty or devotion to a cause, organization, as well as persons.  "Affiliation" refers to membership in or association with a group.  
I personally prefer "Allegiance" over "Loyalty" and "Affiliation".  As I've said, "loyalty" seems too broad for the purpose; a character could easily be said to have many loyalties.  "Affiliation" emphasizes membership rather than true loyalty; this could invite things like Cho Chang is "affiliated with (member of)" the Ravenclaw Quidditch Team, Vernon Dursley is affiliated with Grunnings, Stan Shunpike with the Knight Bus, etc.  I think "Allegiance" has the deeper meaning of loyalty to higher, larger things that unites a person with people of similar loyalties (on the same "side").
"Allegiance" is both semantically adequate for the purpose, as well as a word Rowling herself has used (e.g., in the Harry Potter & Me BBC special) to refer to the Death Eaters and such loyalties that drive her characters. --Mercurio 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming "loyalty" to "allegiance" sounds great to me, and I'd fully support it. I think that would clear up a lot of the confusion. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That's a great idea. I'll officially endorse it by being bold and changing it to Allegiance. Oh, but I must note that the attribute will still be "loyalty", it's only the text that will show up as "Allegiance", so some of the confusion will remain. I might clear up some of it by also allowing the use of "allegiance" in the template, if I remember how. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. The template works for "allegiance=The Grand Poobah" and "loyalty=The Grand Poobah" as legacy. Basically, whether you want the text to be Loyalty or Allegiance is still up for discussion; however, I implemented the template so that the calling attribute names themselves will work with either. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the template discussion here. This is not supposed to convey unwavering devotion, but merely what side of the fight the character is on. Affiliation means they're a member, which doesn't really apply to certain cases. Allegiance is much better as a moderate description. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "allegiance" conveys that meaning "which side one is on", without going into the degree of devotion, so it seems to be what we want here. "Affiliation" can be a synonym but mostly it emphasizes membership - Fred & George are affiliated with Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (same for all the shop owners to their businesses) and the Gryffindor Quidditch team; Rita Skeeter is affiliated with the Daily Prophet, the Quibbler and Witch Weekly.  So a person who does not know what's been discussed here and sees "Affiliation" in the infobox might be tempted to add something like Dumbledore's resume with the Wizengamot and the International Confederation of Wizards. Harry is affiliated with S.P.E.W. and the Slug Club, but his allegiance (or loyalty) is not to these. "Allegiance" is closer to "loyalty", but the former emphasizes causes and sides (which tend to be groups), while the latter is more general (not just causes, but also friends and family). --Mercurio 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Loyalty to Allegiance

message: I've closed the "proposal" part of these conventions, so we can now start changing the Loyalty/Allegiance entries for the various characters. I'd suggest that we do the following:
#Change the attribute name from loyalty to allegiance. Even though I edited the template so that both attributes work, using "allegiance" will emphasise to future editors what this field is supposed to entail.
#Reduce or fix the entries to match these conventions (two entries, precedence given to organisations as opposed to individuals).
#Use the following edit summary to prevent edit-warring similar to what we saw for the infobox colours (you can simply cut and paste the code if you wish):
#:Changed loyalty/allegiance field according to established conventions
I'll mark this down as an open task in the Wikiproject. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventions completed: feel free to use

message: I've noticed that in the past few days, User:Rhindle the Red has added a picture of the French cover to each of the Harry Potter books. (For an example, you can see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone). While I don't have a problem with this, I think we should get a consensus on whether we should have foreign language book covers (at least as far as it concerns HP articles) on the English Wikipedia. Keep in mind, there are quite a few. So I guess our options are:
#Only have English covers
#Only have a few covers representative of major languages
#Have as many foreign language covers as we can get our hands on
I don't have a personal opinion, but I figured I'd put it up here to try and get comments/consensus on it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue of overloading the individual pages is a valid one.  I think there should certainly be a selection of foreign covers, just to show the variety, but too many will make the pages look cluttered.  However, I also think it would be worthwhile to establish a new page (not unlike the one linked to above) that collects as many covers as can possibly be found for the sake of completeness.Rhindle The Red 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that might be interesting, we also have to remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of images, so a single page just for that purpose would probably not be encouraged. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If the consensus eventually becomes to be exclusive rather than inclusive, I would still argue to include the American editions as well, simply because this is the English Wikipedia and these editions were published in English. Personally, I think the inclusion of only American and British editions makes the most sense, but I also don't have a problem with #2 above, with major languages such as Spanish and French being represented. (So, to summarize, I don't have a strong opinion, but I would support #1 above, with acceptance of #2.) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're point, but what about the Canadian, Australian & New Zealand editions? they were all printed in English too. Also I think we are getting into dodgy ground by limiting it to major languages, as who is to say which are the major languages? which is more worthy of inclusion than another? it leaves us wide open to POV. I admit that if the consensus is to include one other, in addition to the British, then common sense would dictate that the American edition would be the one simply because of the size of the American publication. So I agree with you in that I would go for #1 but would acceot the U.S. if consensus dictated.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I think it would be a good idea to do a whole page that shows all the covers we can find.  I am willing to spearhead this endeavor (since it was my fascination with the French covers that brought about this discussion), but I don't mind if someone else wants to get a head start.  I think a comprehensive guide is a nice idea because it shows what common elements are used and how different culture interpret the characters.Rhindle The Red 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I hinted at before, this should only be done if you can make the page more than just a collection of images. It would have to contain verifiable text descriptions and comparisons. If you feel you can do this, I say go for it. Otherwise, I don't doubt that someone out there would send it to Articles for deletion under WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of images or a web-host. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that the List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages survives the attempt to delete it, I could add images to it to make it more useful rather than start a new page.  Regardless, I still like the idea of a few foreign covers on the main page, just to give an idea how Harry has been viewed in other countries.Rhindle The Red 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does it mean for someone to "close the discussion"?  On the question of foreign book covers, my opinion is that illustrations should only be present to complement the text.  So, foreign book covers would go with text describing foreign/international aspects of the topic.  If Rhindle The Red wants to include a collection of book covers, he should first write an article for which they would be suitable illustrations.--SmokeyJoe 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't know, but I do think you've reached a consensus actually. The British version appears supported, as does Rhindle The Red's interest in the international aspect. I believe your conclusion leads to the creation of a separate entry on Harry Potter in International circles. CMacMillan 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the discussion concerning the potential deletion of the List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages that has not reached consensus.  (Votes were pretty evenly split, with I think "keep" up by one).  This means the page survives for now.  I will focus any energy I expend on foreign book covers in that direction.Rhindle The Red 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages seems perfectly suited for what you want to do, and I think the images will fit nicely. Good find, and best of luck in your efforts! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well i just spent the best part of an hour researching your last post, and the firmest conclusion I found was a number of people moaning that people uploading images do not understand the rules. Well i do not find that surprising in view of the time it takes to read them, never mind try to understand them. however, i did not notice one word about galleries in the fair use article you mention.  There is an unexplained comment that use of a fair use image is unacceptable to identify something unless accompanied by critical commentary. What the hell does that mean? I suspect not what it actually says. The basic statements of law would appear to indicate that a collection of cover pictures would be quite acceptable for the purpose of showing what we are talking about. However, stylistically, it really isn't acceptable. I don't want to see a gallery of cover pictures unless it is making a point in itself about the differing ways the books are portrayed/marketed, or some such. A few examples seems good enough for that. Sandpiper 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument was presented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images by someone whose judgement I trust a great deal. There's nothing in WP:FU explicitly against the use of galleries of images, but it's what a gallery represents: a whole swack of fair use images transcluded into an article. In the above MfD, people were about ready to delete what was a valuable workshop for us because there were a whole bunch of transcluded fair use images in that page. That a gallery was used to display the images was immaterial: even if I had removed the gallery and simply presented the images differently, the page would still have been deleted as violating Wikipedia's fair use policies. I had to remove the images from the articles themselves and replace them with links to each image. Using a gallery full of fair use images (regardless of whether you use <gallery> to present them or not) requires excellent justification as to why so many fair use images are being presented in this manner. Also, each image in the gallery needs some justification about why it needs to be used. It's hard enough to justify a few fair use images, let alone a whole gallery of them. People were already getting into edit wars over using Time Magazine covers in articles about what the covers are illustrating, which is totally against fair use rules (this argument is disputed, suffice it to say, I agree with TBSDY on this one). We have to be careful about copyright and fair use. If we're using one or two foreign book covers to illustrate how the foreign books look (for example, to compare the different versions of HBP), that's fine, but I find it difficult to justify the use of a whole gallery of fair use images simply to display foreign book covers. If such a fallery exists in a place external to Wikipedia, I'd much rather link to such a site (and let that site get sued if it violates copyright laws) than expose WIkipedia to this problem. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made no recent study of "fair use", but to my understanding, if you are simply "illustrating", that is not good enough.  Make you own illustration.  Fair use of an image means that you are discussing the actual image that you are showing.  Therefore, if you want to show all the book cover images, you are going to have to make it quite a detailed article. --SmokeyJoe 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign book covers?

message: I have tried to change all the links from the old "List of spells in Harry Potter" to the new Canonical spells in the world of Harry Potter as per the things to do list on the project page. I've done all the ones I can and the ones remaining are either archive material which cannot be changed or contain the "to do list" which has the old link. I hope I've done it properly, I'm new. Kelly elf 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up of "List of Spells" Pages

message: Out of all the Harry Potter articles, it seems that Dumbledore's is in a constant edit war, people are especially adamant about putting forth their own theories under the speculation section. There is a section on this in Talk:Albus Dumbledore. I think its time to vote on whether to protect that page or not, at least until book 7 comes out? I also think that if protected the page should undergo peer evaluation; to fix the mess.--Phnx2ashes 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Both types of protection are for pretty drastic circumstances. Some Harry Potter fans wanting to insert some fan speculation hardly qualifies, IMO. Just some good ol' fashioned mediation should do the trick. If the editor in question continues to edit war, a WP:3RR block may be appropriate under these extreme circumstances, but protecting the article until book seven comes out is overkill. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deathphoenix that I don't think you would find an administrator willing to protect this kind of situation. However, I DO think a peer review would be a good idea and worthy of pursuing, with or without protection. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK protecting the page is overkill. Im relitively new to wikipedia, don't know the exact policies, but ill read them now that i have the links. How would we start a peer reviewed article?--Phnx2ashes 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems. A formal peer review might also be overkill, as it's usually a general start to getting an article up to featured article status. In any case, you could do it by posting it to WP:PR. Barring more formal procedures, a group of us in this Wikiproject have generally been editing it on a more informal basis, though it's been a while since I last took a real stab at it. I already see some things that should be pruned. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting Dumbledore article 

message: Hi guys, I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd have on a proposed change to the infobox colours here, originally started due to the oddity of having Draco as a possibly entry for Loyalty. Conversation has stagnated somewhat, though it's probably due to lack of advertising on my part. If there's no objections, I plan to replace the current conventions with these new conventions and (sigh) go through all the character infoboxes and replace the colours with these new ones where necessary. I'd also welcome any colour tweaks as well as the main categories. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Removed yesterday's fully expanded sandbox edition, which included Hogwarts house colors, replaced it with this updated proposal - -  which includes a general "Hogwarts" box as a "maybe"...) --T-dot 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm in favour of simplicity here. It'll confuse folks why characters are in Gryffindor colours rather than Order of the Phoenix colours, or such similar things. I'm strongly in favour of not confusing the reader, and I think the best way to accomplish that is to have as few colours and classifications as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As a matter of a fact I was also thinking about suggesting the Tan background I selected for Ravenclaw, to use for "other" instead of Pink.  Pink does seem a little - I don't know - off target... --T-dot 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tan would be good. I'd like that. Let's hear what other people have to say! Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The black on brown proposed for Hogwarts  is not very easy to read. Black on Blue is not good either, Black on red is just about ok. I guess there will not be very much of it, but in general I HATE websites that use non-contrasting foreground and background colours. Sandpiper 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox color coding is a prime example of going way too far into the universe of Harry Potter.  (See below: this-universe perspective).  It seems unashameably an orignal research analysis of characters.--SmokeyJoe 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well it was really just an attempt to classify and group the characters by their canonical loyalty or affiliation as defined in the books (to date), not by any means "original research", but you raise a good point - they could all be color coded the same as "Harry Potter Characters" and be done with it.  --T-dot 01:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing better than my proposal for just four colours is SmokeyJoe's proposal for just one colour. I would much favour the use of just one colour. That keeps the infoboxes consistent, and it keeps edit-warring to a minimum ("No, he's loyal to the Inquisitorial Squad!" "No, he's loyal to Draco Malfoy!" "No, he'a loyal to the Death Eaters!"). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all sure I could agree that there is such  a thing as getting too much into the subject of an article, but I think this discussion is beginning to demonstrate that loads of colour combinations is a bad idea. It also smacks of creating a complex code which only insiders understand, and which does not help a casual reader of pages one single bit. (rather the reverse, distracts them with the puzzle of why colours differ on different pages) Sandpiper 15:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any objections to converting all the coloured bars to the one colour?  What colour?  Even though it currently looks like original research, maybe the above work could be converted to a section or page called "Allegiances in the Harry Potter Series"SmokeyJoe 13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is the yellow background with black letters with no borders. I don't think "Allegiances in the Harry Potter Series" is necessary as a seperate article. It would be too crufty and a very likely candidate for AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be complete, I added this proposal to the workshop page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox colour proposal 

message: I would appreciate members views on a discussion going on in the Harry Potter template talk page. There is a bit of pulling and tugging going on so I would appreciate it if you could comment, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree on there, but hey I'll go with the flow of consensus.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put my grumpiness in there even before reading your note above, but yes, I think some of the edit warriors need to see some more discussion on the talk page, since we've already hashed out (a long time ago) that B.E. spelling and titles are the way to go. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments there. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments on the US alternative ended up shorter than your comments in this section. ;-) God, I'm just getting more and more crotchety these days. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If I could draw you're attention

message: I am beginning to find this a little tiresome. All these adverts for the muggles guide suggesting it is 'in-depth'. It has some rejected content from here and much less about just about everything than is on wikipedia. I can stand for people to mention it, but claiming it has more to offer than wikipedia is simply untrue. These are encyclopedic entries, not a text book teaching someone how to build their very own HP universe, that is why they belong here on wiki, not on wiki books. Now how about we reign back some of those inaccurate claims? Sandpiper 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, especially since Muggle's Guide will probably be deleted soon. But don't worry, it will probably be moved somewhere else. Just letting you all know. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muggles Guide 

message: I think Harry Potter podcast should be merged to Harry Potter fandom. I'd appreciate any feedback on this subject here. Thanks, --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on merging [[Harry Potter podcast]] to [[Harry Potter fandom]] 

message: Template:Book Series infobox can be used in each of the HP books. This has a chronology beneath it so it'll be helpful. The articles are protected and hence can't be modified. If you wish to see how it looks. Please visit some Tintin comics say, Tintin in Tibet. Any member who has permissions to change can do that. Regards --54UV1K 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like just about everything in the existing box but I also like the chronology in yours. Could you add the chronology section to the existing box ? In my opinion, that would be the better edit.TonyJoe 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a template that might be useful. 

message: I moved this comment from the main page to this talk page --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People working

message: But someone in Professor Flitwick has started using  which I don't mind. Can we agree on the best way?
The citations are everywhere in the wikiproject Harry Potter, and nowhere consistent. [User: Lgriot]
:Well, I agree we should sort this out. The difficulty is that I really don't known which scheme I prefer. I am also not sure how far we should go with inserting inline references. The articles would become an utter mess if every new fact has a specific reference against it. On the other hand, it is used effectively in the flitwik article to show where facts have been drawn from JKR's website, rather than from the books as might generally be expected. 
:The inline chapter referencing has been used twice in one sentence to indicate where the location info for Flitwicks office has been drawn from. What do people feel about this? Inserting references every other word is likely to make the articles rather unreadable and will be providing a level of information that few readers will be interested in. It no doubt makes fact checking easier, but that is a technical issue which ought to be invisible to readers. Sandpiper 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: You may find this image useful. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An image 

message: I've been working toward merging the several templates for HP character, HP Character Foreign, HP Elf Character, HP Forest Character, and maybe HP Animal. This would be the complete list of combined parameters:
 Harry Potter character
 
 
  
 
 Gender           : gender 
 Sex              : sex        [from Forest]
 Hair colour      : hair 
 Eye colour       : eyes 
 Residence        : residence  [from Forest]
 School           : school     [from Foreign]
 House            : house 
 Family           : family     [from Elf]
 Species          : species    [from Elf, Forest, Animal]
 Owner            : owner      [from Animal]
 Special powers   : powers     [from Animal]
 Blood purity     : blood 
 Allegiance       : allegiance 
 Allegiance       : loyalty 
 Film portrayer   : portrayer 
 Voice Actor      : voice      [from Elf, Forest]
 First appearance : appearance
# Sex is redundant, but there's only four articles, which could be changed easily enough.
# Currently only the centaurs have residences, but it could be worth using elsewhere. I suggest it only be used for adults of settled address.
# Currently school is only for non-Hogwarts characters. I suggest that there's no need to specify Hogwarts if a character's house is given.
# Family is the family to which a house-elf belongs. Maybe merge with owner?
# Humans and part-humans are described in blood; species is strictly for non-human characters.
# Only pets (and maybe house-elves) should have owners. It seems to me it'd be rather dangerous to tell Aragog differently.
# Currently, only animals have special powers. 
# Loyalty is redundant. Are there any articles still using it? If not, we can just delete this.
# Obviously, CGIed characters have voice actors, the rest have protrayers.
# I'd like to suggest a policy of abbreviating the book titles in appearance, or failing that, of forcing the linebreak after "Harry Potter and"; e.g. The Philospher's Stone or Harry Potter and  the Philospher's Stone.
I don't have an opinion on the colour-coding issue; is there a concensus?
The way I've rewritten the HP character template, parameters without specified values simply don't show up in the infobox, so it's not necessary to put in placeholders like "Unknown" or "None"—just skip them.
Comments?
—wwoods 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes made. See Template:HP character and Template talk:HP character. —wwoods 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising templates 

message: Does one exist?  I'd like to create one if not, or look at it if so.  Exploding Boy 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see one on the list, so I'm creating one: Wikipedia:Manual of style (Harry Potter-related articles).  Exploding Boy 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of style of Harry Potter-related articles

message: This fellow (rather mature middle aged) fan of Harry has been buried in another favorite series, and it was suggested that I resurect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series project as one means of developing standards. My 1632 series articles have potentially far more characters, places, and historical matters (it's an alternate history set back in the 1630's, which makes it another sort parallel universe like Harry's and Honorverse (not to mention most speculative fiction genre that become series), another series I contribute some.) than Harry Potter books, assuming she stops after seven novels.
I'm just getting started on 'blowing off the dust' on the Project page, so can use some help, and I'm sure as mature as this project looks, you will have some interesting input and experience on how to juggle, arrange, and format the myriad details that go into a deeply developed complex milieu such as these have become. 
1632 series has some unique issues in that it is currently about 75:25 short fiction to Novels, but that will change rapidly as it is also a collaborative fiction experiment that involves literally dozens of authors, most of whom have been active participants helping the principle author and editor define the canon for the series... essentially research and development in matters historical and technical, as the works are making a serious attempt to keep realistic assumptions given the series premises—a small town of about 3,000 souls, Grantville, WV finds itself confronted with the religion based Thirty Year's War, Machievellian politics, and large armies. At the moment, five hardcover book releases are planned to my knowledge in the coming year—which is saying a lot at at least 400pp per book. 
To add insult to injury, the works (by design) aren't published in the order of any particular timeline outside the 'main storyline threads', of which there are five... so this makes it like five sub-series, but one's in which the short fiction anthologies are canonical, a very unusual feature in a shared universe setting. But that's part of the great scope of the milieu, which is fascinating if you are at all interested in history and how the modern world came about—the effect of all that research and pre-planning via the internet. (It's not too great a stretch to think of it as a wikiproject, save the issues are the talk forums, and the article outputs are generated by individual or teams of writers working their own sub-projects.)
Enough of my problem, what I need is help defining standards from others involved in similar wikipedia tasks like yourselves (WikiProject Novels in general) for such a mixed series. So watchlist the talk page, and WP:WFs, sign on, and integrate your project cats, templates, etc. into :Category:WikiProject Fictional series, list your Project on the see also there, along with it's cats (Being a project cat, the navigation from project to project is for us editors to use, not the general public, so WP:Btw!) so other fiction related editors can find your stuff, secrets, and vice versa. 
I'd also like to point out an oxymoron of sorts. The WPP:Books is parent to all these heirarchially lower projects (Novels, series, etc.), yet has the smallest membership list of the lot. Makes no sense! Please sign up and ditto WPP:Novels, and WPP:series for news and contributions. Best regards to all! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurection of [[WP:WFs]] 

message: Hi there, I'm new to this so I didn't want to make the changes myself (and potentially ruin something important), but I noticed that the Sirius Black page doesn't have any of the usual Harry Potter associated templates on it. Could someone with more experience please put them in? Thanks.--Shinku Hisaki 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sirius Black

message: E946 has suggested a complete rewrite of the Hogwarts article and has created a draft.  I just thought it was appropriate to mention this in the WikiProject discussion.  Indeed, it might be a good idea to do this for some of the other HP articles.  This change can be discussed on the Hogwarts talk page. -Phi*n!x 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hogwarts Article Is Getting Rewritten

message: Hello, I am Wikiuser98 and I feel like joining in the WikiProject. What do I have to do to join?
:Nothing. Just add your name to the praticipants page. ForestH2 t/c 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New User

message: There doesn't seem to be anything going on in Wikiproject HP. The to-do list hasn't changed in ages. Demonblade  12:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's up?

message: There are some inconsistencies with the hogwarts professors' pages. Some, like Albus Dumbledore, Remus Lupin and Severus Snape do not have "Professor" in front of their name, while others like  Minerva McGonagall and Horace Slughorn do? Should  all hogwarts professors have the title in their name or should there not, because their job discription is in their articule?Phnx2ashes 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professors 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory