Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 10

message: Join now. Like the Death Eaters, but relatively nice fellows, except where cruft is concerned. Cruft must die for the Greater Good. This would be a Cabal-like group, trawling the Potter pages, killing cruft and OR without remorse, until the pages all make it to GA or better. Sign below if you want the voluntary tattoo/signal device (in the shape of a skelly barnstar) and 8-track tape on how to laugh evilly at the quailing of cruft-makers everywhere. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the mark on my forearm! CHANDLERtalk 07:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Count me in, but just keep in mind I am not that often online, being a bona fide WikiOgre. —Onomatopoeia 11:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does one make a barnstar? I've the design idea in my head, but not the knowledge of protocol to make it happen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, just call the Wikipedia help desk or village pump... —Onomatopoeia 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation of the Cruft-Eaters 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:HP School}}]] 

message: Would people please keep a watch on the Ryan Nelson article for the next couple of days? I've prod'd it, but I'm going on vacation for about 11 days starting tomorrow morning, so I just want to make sure that the user who seems to be obsessed with this person doesn't remove the prod tag. If they do, I hope somebody can nominate it for AfD. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan Nelson 

message: Doesn't this warrant as a separate article? All other settlements are mentioned, with their own separate articles.
Things known about Ottery St Catchpole:
*It is one of three known villages in the Wizarding world with both wizards and muggles
*It is the residence of the Lovegoods and the Weasleys
*It has a nearby location called Stoatshead Hill
And basically quite a lot of the seies is spent around there. Simply south 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, not original research...not that I can see.  But with only three real information points (not counting the numerous times they're there), it has a bit of difficulty passing a notability test. =David(talk)(contribs) 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottery St Catchpole 

message: I propose that the article structure and headings that are standard for this project be changed to be more in line with the manual for writing about fiction. I have tried to change the headings and focus of some articles, getting ride of the heading "Fictional Character biography" and I keep getting reverted. A character biography is exactly NOT what is supposed to be in a fictional character article according to current guidelines, so let's update our article structure. Judgesurreal777 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article headings 

message: Where did the primary image for Voldemort go? I can't seem to find it - some sort of speedy delete. The image in the article now, is rubbish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was uploaded as a new version of the image :/ CHANDLERtalk 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemort Image 

message: Hi there, as a bona fide Cruft Eater, I rewrote Hermione Granger from scratch, firmly enforcing WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:WIAGA hopefully, so bye bye cruft. It is a GAC now. Feedback and wikignoming are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I have not properly compared the verison you wrote and the previous version, so I am not informed enough to criticise you and won't. However I can see that you cut the article size by 26,000 kb, more than halving it; are you sure that no worthwhile information was lost in translation? asyndeton 20:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most (well, almost all) of the 26,000 kb cut was in-universe retelling of the plot, blow-by-blow style, quite blatantly violating WP:NOT, point 7 (WP is not a plot summary) and full of WP:NOR shipper info ("was Hermy in love with Ron-Ron already in moment X") or abilities full of in-universe references again. If you feel something was omitted, just re-add it, but if you look at the prior versions, I really think that the 26,000kb minus is addition by subtraction. WP:WAF is a powerful thing to make an article better. —Onomatopoeia 20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article, quite simply, is excellent, and we should hire Onomatopeia to do this to all the other fictional potter characters :) Judgesurreal777 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The exorcism of [[Hermione Granger]] (new GAC) 

message: Articles are inconsistent over whether the correct term is Department of Transport or Department of Transportation, leading in at least one case to a broken link.  Would someone with access to the books like to check this out?  Does it vary, perhaps, between the UK and US editions? Matchups 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can verify that in the US editions of the book it is refered to as 'the Department of Transportation'.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered if maybe "...Transport" were the UK version.  Lacking access to the book, I did some web searches, intersecting with UK and US terms (e.g., "Sorceror" vs "Philosopher") and found that "Transport" tends to be used more in US pages, so that's not the issue.  I am going to conclude ha "Transportation" is correct and change all "Transport"s. Matchups 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Transport(ation) 

message: I'm not sure where to put this but why don't you put name origins in the character articles?
::Voldemort13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.219.135 (talk • contribs) 
:You should add new topics to the bottom, to answer your first question.  As for the second, for the most part, they're considered original research, and as such are not allowed on Wikipedia.  If we can find a source from JKR that explains these things, we can add them with no problem, but I doubt that such a source exists yet.  Maybe as the aftermath of book 7 dies down.  (on an unrelated note, you should sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~), after you make sure you're logged in.  Hope this helped.  See you in the funny pages! =David(talk)(contribs) 15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Origins 

message: I've just finished decrufting and re-tensing Snape's article. Could a harsh bastard go and give it a once over? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severus Snape decrufted (mostly) 

message: I am getting a little confused over the consensus as to the usage of dates in the articles. Do we use them or not? Clearly, we don't use dates that are not specifically noted, as they are OR by supposition (ie, deduction). I recommend specific citation to separate the wheat from the chaff, and remove the cruft. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, OR or borderline OR always gets removed. —Onomatopoeia 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is usually my pov (or to tag with  cn and release), but I've seen it pop up more than a few times,and I don't want to rm something that actually belongs that I somehow missed in the novels themselves. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that WP:WAF prohibits the use of in-universe dates in articles for the obvious reason that to do so places the tone of the article into in-universe mode. AulaTPN 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's partially correct. If a book says that Dumbledore was born in 1852, it's OK to say that. You'd maybe begin a paragraph like this: "Rowling details Dumbledore's background throughout the series. He was born in 1852 in Wessex and went to school at Growblatt's School of Wizardry. He became the Hogwart's headmaster in 1979, replacing Fenrus Quinn. Blah blah blah." The in-universe material is OK because it is prefaced with out-of-universe "grounding" language. The use of past tense is OK because these are events that take place before the fictional present established by Philosopher's Stone, wherein Dumbledore is already the headmaster. If you want to relate Dumbledore's actions in one of the books, however, you should switch back to present tense: "In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Rowling's third book in the series, Dumbledore plays a central role. He comforts Harry about the loss of his skateboard and teaches him how to summon a gobsheit." (Of course I made that up, but you get the point. :) — Brian (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is a fabulous idea! I recently did an edit in Avengers: The Initiative wherein something very similar had happened. The states for the various Initiative teams stationed there had links to the actual states. The comparison is the same. Feel free to use it. I say linking the dates to the timeline is a great idea- Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in fact it's what editors on the project used to do back when the page was called Dates in Harry Potter, not sure why that practice stopped? AulaTPN 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peeps got lazy? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I was implementing this last night, I was surprised to discover that it was already done in many articles, perhaps most. Faithlessthewonderboy 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the Date, Mate? 

message: It has been repeatedly established that the events of the seven books should not be distilled to fit the theme of a "war" with discrete "battles", with the motif of the infobox wherein various fans argue over who "won" and "lost" and who the "commanders" were and what the "causus belli" was. I love the Harry Potter books, but I also believe that they are fine the way JK wrote them without adding this extra level of fan analysis. I think this WikiProject should come up with the appropriate style guidelines that it can discuss the events of the ends of books 5, 6, 7 and the biographies of the respective characters involved in them without having to recourse to non-canonical language like "Battle of the Astronomy Tower" and "Battle of the Department of Mysteries." I think that will be a prerequisite to being able to get some of these articles up to good or even featured article status. In particular this is a problem at Death Eaters, Dumbledore's Army, and Order of the Phoenix (organisation). The relevant policies are WP:NOR and WP:WAF. The relevant afd debates are here: Savidan 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "Battle" and "War" motif 

message: A character's gender will be obvious from the picture in the infobox, the character's name or, at the very least, from the pronoun used throughout the article. I suggest we remove 'Gender' from the infobox, considering how little it adds to the article. asyndeton 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's true. I'm fine with it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As am I. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox & gender 

message: As I've commented on the [[Talk:Emma Watson#-->Peer review --> FAC?|talk page]], I genuinely believe that Emma Watson could, with proper peer review comments, fight a featured article nomination.  If any project members have any comments, particularly about issues relating to our WikiProject, please do raise them on the Emma Watson talk page.  Happy-melon 13:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma Watson --> FAC? 

message: A recently archived discussion  concluded, according to WP:WAF, that articles about the content of the books must be written in the fictional present tense.  Shouldn't this be priority, possibly on the to-do list, as I think just about every Project article uses the past tense?  This could greatly help to make the articles seem less in-universe (such as these), and potentially deflect some of the waves of deletion nominations that we've seen recently. -Phi*n!x 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional present tense 

message: We have 9 Good Articles and 1 featured list. I think we should be bold, and shoot for 9 more good articles by december, and 1 more featured article...Gotta shoot high! What does everyone think? Any articles to propose? Judgesurreal777 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds nice. I don't have any in mind, but I'll think about it. The big problem here is that the articles are generally really unorganized and in-universe. Many could use complete rewrites. -Phi*n!x 01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea.  As I've mentioned above, I reckon Emma Watson is our best chance for the new FA.  For the good articles, I think Severus Snape might well get there.  Maybe Ginny Weasley? Luna Lovegood?  It'd be nice to get at least one of the books, films or games in the list, and I'm sure some of the actors have enough content to be cut together into a GA.  Happy-melon 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was sure that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) was all set to become a GA, but it's still B-class because it's lacking book/film differences, which are tremendously hard to cite and push POV to mention what were changes. So, if anyone can find some good, solid references as to what's different between the two, then we'd probably have our GA and be close to a FA; the rest of the article is well-referenced. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Goals 

message: Is this worth creating an article (with more info than just their names, of course), a section of Moldy Voldy's article, or is it too in-universe?
Matchups 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As very few of his killings are known, I wouldnt do it because of that. Chandlertalk 09:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Guest9999 will eat it up within days of you creating it!  Happy-melon 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd beat him to it...Is that the lovely smell of cruft, baking up simewhere? Yummy... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of people killed by Voldemort? 

message: Of late, many characters have had secific book titles, under the appearances section, turned into 'Third to sixth books' etc, such as here, which is often unaccompanied by any change in the content of the subtitles. Personally I don't see why we can't have 'Appearances' broken down into sub-sections that document each book individually, just for clarity's sake. Is there any reasoning behind this change? asyndeton 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases a character's appearances in one or more books are so brief that separating them out into seven sections leaves one or more as a single paragraph or even single sentence.  In Severus Snape, if the sections were split off by book the Chamber of Secrets section would be only one sentence long, with little hope for expansion.  In these cases it makes more sense to lump them together to bulk out the section.  Of course, the ideal final position is to have all articles contain enough material that separation by book is possible.  Whether that's possible without allowing cruft to develop is another question.  So in general, yes they should be broken up by book, but if that leaves some really short sections which can't easily be expanded, lump them.  Happy-melon 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'm with you. But does it have to be done for characters who have more than enough in each book, such as Harry? And if 'consistency' is the reply, then my response would be that it's not consistent because Voldemort has different 'lumps' to Snape. asyndeton 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances 

message: Well, yesterday I moved the page without discussion because I didnt think it was that big of a deal! Aprantly I was wrong so I brought it to the discussion page. Personally, I dont think she is a significant enough character to deserve her own page. There is alot of information on the page, I do realize that. However, the ridiculous articles that are spawning off of Harry Potter are just going to far. Harry Potter is a very large thing, so many things in that "universe" do deserve their own articles because they have played an "important" role in the books, and other things. **Ko2007** 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, you were wrong; just removing an article becuase you think it is of little importance is not the way to go about things here. However, as I said on Talk:Narcissa Malfoy, I agree; any mentioning she may have in the first five books is not noteworthy and she is of little importance at best in the last two books. The whole page violates Wikipedia is NOT a plot summary. asyndeton 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nacissa Malfoy 

message: I asked this, but I am not sure where, or if anyone answered it In Hallows, when the goblin took the Sword of Griffyndor, it later turned up in Neville's possession. How and when did that happen? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Goblin took the sword in Gringrots just before they almost got caught. But then when neville was wearing " the hat " he asked for help. and just like in the 2. year the sword came to the hat to help a true Grifindor. Because It was godric Grifindors sword it didnt belong to the goblin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.230.112 (talk) 05:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
*Here, Su: How did neville get the gryfindor sword, is there a link to the hat
J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!
J.K. Rowling: Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor's sword was transported into Gryffindor's old hat -
J.K. Rowling: - the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor's initially, as you know.
J.K. Rowling: Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.
This was taken from http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156|Jk Rowling Chat Transcript on Mugglenet **Ko2007** 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If this discussion isn't actually related to editing an article, could you take it to e-mail? This is not a Hary Potter Q&A forum. 86.140.181.38 11:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guideline on fiction: Delete Harry Potter-related articles? 

message: I previously mentioned this here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Archive_9#Minor_character_lists_need_massive_cleaning. There is a dozen (at least): minor lists that need a lot of work. People assume they are catchalls for any (or every) character ever, some examples include: someone sorted by the hat once and never mentioned again, or someone mentioned on a wizard card once. In my view: a popular subject doesn't justify many many minor lists of cruft, clutter and just any little note. These minor character lists are one place that need work. In my view: one minor character list is all that is needed at best. If the person had some sort of impact in a book (or books) in the series: discuss him or her, but if it's someone that was brief and non-notable: it doesn't belong, as Wikipedia isn't about completeness when coming to plot summaries. I think sometimes people think Wikipedia should be a 100 percent guide to subjects, but that's not very useful. There is a Harry Potter Wiki for more detailed character lists, so when in doubt: things should be moved there (if they aren't there already). I hope this gets some replies, with willing people to help. RobJ1981 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially with the newly adopted policies at WP:FICT, most of the prose on Harry Potter in Wikipedia should be moved to the Harry Potter wiki. I think one list of minor characters would be appropriate. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does any list of minor characters satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements? If we're saying they're minor within the Harry Potter universe they do not merit a Wikipedia article. Right now, the Harry Potter articles do depend on these minor character lists to a certain extent, but that's only because the there is way too much cruft.  I say delete/transwiki the minor character info.  Anything that requires info on minor characters should either be deleted or put in a different place. RobJ1981, you definitely are right in saying that people want Wikipedia to be an all-inclusive guide to Harry Potter.  I personally love having all this Potter info at my fingertips, but as it stands, Wikipedia is not designed to be the place for that. -Phi*n!x 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I think we could make that argument that they have combined notability. Not enough notability for an article, but notable enough for a few sentences. WP:FICT doesn't have specific guidelines for this, but it does say non-notable content can be merged to articles that are notable. In my mind, most of the character articles here should be removed, but I think some of the mid-level characters deserve a few sentences of mention in a combined article (perhaps like Crabbe and Goyle). -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I suppose one article with the more major of the minor characters would be okay. Of course, Crabbe and Goyle have enough in their sections to merit a small standalone article, so they will need some serious cutting down. -Phi*n!x 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's time to clean, merge and condense character lists 

message: The plot summary guidelines on WikiProject Novels say:
:A plot summary should be no more than three or four paragraphs (for example, four paragraphs for a complex plot such as that found in Charles Dickens' Bleak House). Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries. Plot summaries should not contain an explication of every subplot in the novel nor need they be told in the same order as the novel itself. Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve and one of the ways to make your article look like Sparknotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to detail the plot of every chapter rather than to attempt to truly summarize the novel. A summary details the most important events and character relationships in the novel. 
Looking through the HP book articles, they all go way beyond this.  They are, thankfully, consistently structured, and I know that there are exceptions to every guideline, but still, shouldn't they be cut down? I don't want to go cutting down articles without consensus, but if we start here, we might be able to start making the HP articles adhere better to Wikipedia policy. Thoughts? -Phi*n!x 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summaries 

message: I would suggest creating a HP wiki (akin to Wookieepedia or the Star Trek Wiki) and moving the sub-articles there. Then there would be no problem with the articles being written in an in-universe style, with notability, we could go into even more detail etc. I think this is the way to go since the HP universe deserves its own wiki and Wikipedia's not really the right place to go into minute details about fictional universes . Jiri Svoboda 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is one: http://harrypotter.wikia.com. I agree that much of the cruft on Wikipedia should be transwiki'd there. -Phi*n!x 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, which means it contains information. In what way is information about HP inappropriate content? I would firmly suggest that anyone who feels there is excessive coverage of one particular topic compared to others should concentrate on expanding thosae topics which they feel are under represented. I would lsoobserve that the wikipedia coverage of this subject, all in all, is rather good and comprehensive. It does not need trashing. Sandpiper 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every little note on subjects: and with many (if not all) popular subjects... there is massive lists, cruft (and so on) taking place. When a plot summary should happen: it's more of a detailed guide in many cases. Detailed guides belong on fan wikis, not here. There is some exceptions I suppose, but frankly there needs to be more limits on fictional things here (to put an end to the fancruft of Harry Potter, along with all other popular subjects). Wikipedia shouldn't be anarchy, period. This isn't about trashing: this is a matter of cleaning up. RobJ1981 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a HP wiki? 

message: This template is getting a little too large, methinks. Anyone who really wants to look at past results of AfDs can just look at the article history. This AfD box is good as a link for people who want to !vote on HP AfDs, but people who want to know what happens to the AfDs should just put the AfDs or this AfD template on their watchlists. How long do old AfDs stay in the template before they are removed? A day? A week? A month? It requires unnecessary micromanaging and maintenance of this template. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who was responsible for both adding the opening/closing dates of AfDs, then the history of closed ones.  I merely ammended the template when I saw the rather awkward formatting on the main page, to standardise the formatting and minimise the space taken up by the extra details.  I am ambivalent about the inclusion of closed AfD results, although I can't remember any discussion over it.  I've tried to keep the maintenance of the template as easy as possible, by simply moving a <noinclude> tag around, and I set a completely arbitrary limit of four AfDs in the closed list.  I like the inclusion of the opening date.  Happy-melon 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the open date is fine and looks like an improvement over the original. Including a separate section for prods is something I'm neutral on, though it can be useful. It's the recently-closed AfDs that I have a problem with, though I'm glad you have a set limit (four). I don't recall seeing discussion on this, though admittedly I've been relatively inactive on Wikipedia these past few months (and will probably continue to be relatively inactive overall). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD template has history of past AfDs? 

message: After hours of work, here it is; Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Index. Now, all of our articles are listed in one place, so we can see the whole project on one page and which articles should be worked on. I have found them extremely helpful!Judgesurreal777 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BY THE WAY, please UPDATE THIS AS NEEDED! It will change constantly, and is very useful if kept updated :) Yes, shouting is in order, as this is exciting and I spent hours on it! :) Judgesurreal777 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawp! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THAT IS NICE! We could re-organize the category system with this index so that the list would update automatically. What do you think of that? – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like we had the same idea. Yours is a bit more comprehensive than mine. If only I'd known you were doing this... All that work to be redundant. Great. i said 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a list of Harry Potter articles has already been in place for some time (since July 2005) as an index (also viewable as a watchlist). Please feel free to update the HP watchlist with new articles (you can indicate FAs or GAs using characters, letters, and so on). --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I HAVE CREATED AN ARTICLE INDEX! 

message: Over at Wikiproject Final Fantasy, we found a very strong focus has been the goal of making all of our articles Good Article status. I propose this as one of the overall goals of the project, that way our efforts to cut down on unnecessary articles will ultimately lead us to create quality ones. Judgesurreal777 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a great project goal. I think I might try making one (a GA) sometime. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else agree? I'd like to get a census of our group feeling so we could institutionalize it if we agree. Judgesurreal777 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can there be any other ultimate goal??  I would say that our theoretical goal should be FA class for all factual articles, and GA class for anything that, for one reason or another, can't make FA (ie fictional articles).  Naturally, all-over GA class is a prerequisite for that, and an ultimately achievable goal (all-over FA class is highly optimistic!).  Agree.  Happy-melon 17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting goal that we might want to set for ourselves along the way is to produce some featured topics. We have so many articles that could be grouped in so many different ways, why not get them all GAs or FAs and get an FT? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I think that might be the best goal we could make because it is attainable and a great accomplishment. A topic like the seven books would be good because they are easier to source and we have pretty good articles on them. The films would be great, but we can't do that for a few more years. I think the characters would be good but more difficult. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a good plan, we did a similar thing over at WP:SIMPSONS when we realised we could get every single episode from the first nine seasons up to at least GA level, and we've slowly been doing it. Same with the characters. But it really is an affective way of firing out GAs. Gran2 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Goal 

message: If others could join in the discussion regarding a very mild dispute on the list, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List of Harry Potter films cast members#Do mentions of seeing people count as appearances?]]