Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 1

message: I note that someone has inserted the name "Kathleen" into the first sentence making it look as if this is genuinely her middle name. I was under the impression that it is not really her middle name, she uses it as part of her nom de plume. Any justification either way? --Phil 11:59, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
I've done some research and I can't find any firm evidence either way, she first use the initial K for he first HP book due to a request of her agent and that K was based on her grandmother Kathleen (who incidently was married to Scott of the Antarctic). Whether she legally adopted the name Kathleen I've been unable to find out. If anywhere has the definitive answer it's probably in the biography "J.K. Rowling: The Genius Behind Harry Potter" by Sean Smith. The closest thing I've seen to providing an answer was a newspaper article which states "The 35-year-old author, who received her medal [OBE] for services to children's literature under her full name Joanne Rowling, has sold more than 30 million copies of her schoolboy wizard books worldwide." --Imran
:It was Louisa Young's grandmother Kathleen who married Robert F. Scott. As far as I know, Joanne Rowling's grandmother Kathleen married only Stan Rowling. - Nunh-huh 17:27, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: I hope that no-one minds, but I added some pictures and some more notes to JK Rowling's biography... I think she is such an amazing woman so I just wanted to contribute a bit to this... thing :)
Jo-Rowling-rocksBecca the Jo Fan
:Thank you for your enthusiasm. Unfortunately the largest picture has huge text emblazoned all over it which frankly sucks rocks, so unless it can be cleaned up, it's not really useable here. The others are nice but placement needs to be adjusted a wee bit. Prepare to be edited mercilessly (not necessarily just by me I should add :-) --Phil | Talk 16:51, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I also think it exceedingly unlikely that the magazine or news show images are Public Domain, as they're marked. Though the one you took yourself - Image:Jo-premiere.jpg - is an excellent addition to the page - do you have a larger scan of it? You can go quite large here and then thumbnail it for the article page ;-) I have unlinked the other two, and unless you're quite sure they wouldn't get Wikipedia into trouble (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) you may wish to ask for their deletion from the server (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems - David Gerard 16:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  JK Rowling pictures 

message: I find no evidence that Jorge Arantes was in the army at the him of his marriage, as our article used to state. All our sources refer to him as "Portugese TV journalist" so we'll leave it as that. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jorge Arantes in army?

message: This article still needs some real expansion on Rowling herself, her life and history. I've added the basics, but it still reads like it's about Harry Potter and not her. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: The opening sentence says she was born in Yate, but under "Early Life" it says she was born in Chipping Sodbury. Most sources on the net seem to say she was born in Chipping Sodbury General Hospital, and spent the early part of her life in nearby Yate. However this link http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/smithbio.html says that the book 'JK Rowling: A biography' by Sean Smith reproduces Rowling's birth certificate and she was actually born in Yate itself. Has anyone read this book that can comment? 143.252.80.124 10:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace? 

message: She has also said that she has told Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane certain secrets about their characters that are not yet revealed.
Having read the books, I would assume that perhaps this refers to what has now been revealed in Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince? Exactly how old is this statement? What's the source? --195.92.67.76 01:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rickman and Coltrane

message: Rowling is not famous at all for her cookery demonstrations, so I removed that part from the intro. If you can provide a reference, please feel free to put it back in. Natgoo 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cookery demonstrations

message: Does anyone have a source for the radio interview mentioned in the "After Harry Potter" section?  I've heard in several places that she may use a pen name, but never that it's definite. Brendan 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  Found a link myself. Brendan 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rare radio interview

message: I read the rationale for allowing the use of the image as PD, but I'm not convinced.  There should be a suitable alternative image of JKR available somewhere, and if so, that would make use of a copyrighted image unsuitable. - Bevo 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JKR image, is it proper to use it here?

message: I'm sorry; is there a ban against listing the proper pronunciation of her name? I posted a small edition, thinking it was common sense, but then got it deleted and called vandalism. I think any article about JK Rowling would have to feature at least three words explaining how to properly pronounce her name, since it is one of the most common mistakes people make when mentioning her. Serendipodous 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the vandalism revert was because of the edit before yours, by an IP address, which deleted a lot of content from the article.  Your addition simply got lost in the shuffle.  I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a pronunciation note, but per WP:MOSIPA it needs to include IPA format in addition to the "sounds like" comment. Brendan 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; can't believe I missed that previous edit. Why would anyone do that? Serendipodous 14:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name pronunciation 

message: I've been reading it in Google translation and it makes some pretty flagrant howlers; for instance, it says flat out that Harry Potter was inspired by Neil Gaiman's "Books of Magic," which even Neil Gaiman has said was unlikely. It also claims Rowling's statement that she was born in Chipping Sodbury was made for publicity, which would be pretty tough to verify. And, like every other Wiki article on Joanne Rowling, it gets her name wrong. Serendipodous 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. We can edit the German site, just like everyone else. DJ Clayworth 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Love to, but I haven't spoken German in 15 years, and despite the fact that a number of people with at best a semi-coherent grasp of English still feel it is their right to edit English pages on this site,  I don't believe I should attempt to edit a page in a language I don't fully comprehend. Serendipodous 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest making a note on the Talk page, or, contact someone from the German Embassy on En or theEnglish Embassy on De and ask for their help, I imagine they'd be thrilled...I'm an "ambassador" to fr and noones contacted me, and I'd be thrilled if they did, so give it a shot. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone else a little peeved that the German mirror of this page got featured?

message: How awesome. This warms out the cottles of my heart.
Sure lots of kids will help their fellow kids if they know their favourite author is doing this.
--EuropracBHIT 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowling helping children in Eastern Europe 

message: In response to the comments I've been receiving, I'm going to post here first about some concerns I have about this section.  The first citation provided, Entertainment Law Digest, appears to go to a site where payment is required to access the information, and the relevant information is not visible, which is less than helpful. I had some concerns about the other citation, but after double checking WP:NOR I'm fine with using that as a source. However even with that one I think it would be more helpful to have maybe an news article talking about the judgement rather than just the actual judgement itself, especially since it's the only citation in that section, and there's a lot of assertions that may not be specifically covered by the judgement. I'd really love any help you guys could give me looking for some more sources for this section. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[J._K._Rowling#Nancy_Stouffer]] 

message: I noticed that Harry Potter: Book Seven is mentioned in Rowling's bibliography, even though it hasn't been published yet (or even named, for that matter). I don't think that a bibliography should include unpublished works (or even unfinished works, for that matter). I have several unpublished works of fiction, and if I were ever notable enough to get a Wikipedia article, you'd never see me list them in my bibliography. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, and it was decided to retain it, seeing as,  while it is unpublished, barring Rowling's sudden, tragic death, there is no chance of it NOT being published. Actually, even if she were to die, there would almost certainly be an attempt to ready the book for publication anyway, based on the notes and drafts she left. It's similar to actors and directors' pages listing films that they haven't completed yet. If there's no reason to assume they won't, then there's no reason not to include them. There are a number of other unpublished works mentioned in the article, such as her "political monster story" and her collection of short stories, that shouldn't be included in her bibliography, as there is no guarantee they will ever be published, but book seven, come hell or high water, will be.Serendipodous 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I still disagree with the rationale, but since it's already previously-established consensus, I won't rock the boat any further by revisiting an old discussion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography includes unpublished seventh book? 

message: Was it Bloomsbury that gave her the tiny advance to publish her book.  The article just says a 100k auction, but I'd read that the advance was only one or two thousand dollars.  So I'm guessing the Bloomsbury company was the one who gave her the small advance.  Does anyone know?  DyslexicEditor 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The $1000 or $2000 advance?  Anyone know? 

message: There seems to be some problem with the numbering of the footnotes, the one marked [n] does not correspond to footnote n at the bottom. --80.129.76.120 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the citation, it will automatically take you to to the appropriate reference. Your browswer should outline the appropriate footnote if it doesnt happen to scroll to the top of the page. Yes, it would be possible to do the supposedly newer and better system. However, as the person who wrote the citations, and maintains them,  I prefer alphabetical. That's all there is to it really. Also, please sign your posts. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Man you guys are really challenging my ability to remain civil while discussing this. I'm so close to getting some serious Rogue Admin points by blocking the everloving goodness out of the next person who comes along here and converts this article. I started an entire discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, where multiple people have complained about articles they've worked on being converted to this new system. Cyde you participated in that discussion, did you not read the comments there? Please do not convert this article to cite.php. I do not want this article in that format while I'm maintaining it, and I am maintaining it.Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am reluctant to second-guess the regular contributors to this article as to what note numbering system is most appropriate, so I've added a comment to that effect to the references section. Frankly, I don't care, even if I do think the new system has more advantages. But, Evilphoenix, I'm rather concerned about the statements you made here. Saying "I do not want this article in that format while I'm maintaining it, and I am maintaining it." appears to clearly violate WP:OWN, and threatening to block those who disagree is even more worrying, for reasons I think I need not go into when talking to an administrator. Please elaborate. Sandstein 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said I was rather irritated at the time. I was merely expressing my temptation, but thus far I haven't actually blocked anyone over this. If you think I'm violating the Owning Articles policy, well then, ok, but, I spent several weeks working on those citations, which is an ongoing project of mine. I've repeatedly stated my reasons for disliking the cite.php system, reasons which I believe are valid and that I am not alone in holding. I'm open to quality content changes to this article, but vandalism to this article and radical changes to the formatting of the citations section I will fight with utter tenacity. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Evilphoenix, you are blatantly violating WP:OWN with this statement: Please do not convert this article to cite.php. I do not want this article in that format while I'm maintaining it, and I am maintaining it.  Consider this a strong recommendation to stop "maintaining" this article because you are doing more harm than good.  --Cyde Weys 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop converting the article. Your converter is flawed, and the cite.php system is poor and unwieldy. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current system is just as poor and unwieldy, and it confuses the heck out of the readers as well. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing that some of those footnotes intentionally link to the same , and have different numbers so as to be unique (unlike with the  or m:Cite system where the numbers are not unique). I have no idea why this would be desired, but hey, this article's citation system is seriously an outlier. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: #Polls are evil, but it looks like we have no other way to go about this. This article is being cited as one of the poster-boys for the anti-Cite.php movement, even though the fellow who prefers the very very confusing and strange citation system no longer endorses the RfC concerning this issue. Johnleemk | Talk 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prefer [[J. K. Rowling/ref vote|Cite.php version]]

message: # Waiting until Evilphoenix goes on Wikibreak to hold this poll and to also invent unsubstantiated claims about whether or not he support the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde is very dishonest, and borders on bad faith.Evilphoenix stated that s/he did not wish to pursue an RfC until s/he returned from Wikibreak; however, s/he did write much of the draft of the dispute statement for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dislike deception 

message: ::And would have changed the wording on a lot of it, had I actually chosen to file it. As I did not, I make no claim whatsoever to the wording of that RfC. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Just asking. Or do we still need to wait for more votes or anything else? I mean, I can perfectly understand that Cyde doesn't feel like firing RefConverter to do the transformation on this article any more, but this article was removed from the list of problematic cases on the RefConverter page , and the poll indeed seems pretty unambiguous, who volunteers:
# To close the poll?
# To perform the transformation of the numbered footnotes-by-templates to cite.php on this page?
Tx! --Francis Schonken 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more than happy to go ahead and do it manually, but I think that it should wait until Evilphoenix returns from his break, as he's the main opposer and hasn't really defended his point yet. He'll be back May 1, according to his userpage. If the consensus continues until a few days after he's back, then I'd say that conversion is O.K. Snoutwood (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to go ahead and do it manually when Ref converter works perfectly fine?  I don't understand .. Cyde Weys 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, I think that I just wasn't thinking very clearly (there was some complaint about information loss when converting Harvard refs, but then J. K. Rowling doesn't use Harvard). I don't think that in this case there is one, it's just a slip on my part. Snoutwood (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I maintain that waiting one more day to May 1, the day Evilphoenix gets back, an preferably at least until May 2 or 3 so that he can be certain to voice his opinion, is a good idea and of no detriment to anyone. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Evilphoenix's dislike of Cite.php is entirely justified, and his work on improving the article's references is appreciated, but there is clear WP:Consensus on the subject, and that should be respected.  A better long-term solution than endless bickering over citation formats, is to get Cite.php improved so that references can be alphabetized or separated out as is merited by individual articles.  Warrens 06:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. However, since he is the most vociferous opponent to the conversion of this article and yet still hasn't been able to speak his mind, I'm very much interested in the points he will make (which may be convincing, who knows?), and I think he has a right to make them. That we have consensus doesn't change that we can easily wait for him to come back and hear what he has to say. Snoutwood (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone close the poll - and perform the conversion to cite.php? 

message: :(feel free to add your thoughts:)
*Took way too long.  --Cyde Weys 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other thoughts after closing the "conversion to cite.php" poll

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*No strong opinion. I misunderstood the policy on Wikipedia naming conventions when proposing this move. It's not important for me any longer. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. There is another naming convention that applies here, which I mean gives us a different indication on what to do. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  Please read the examples there: the whole point of that guideline is to avoid potentially insulting group names, and so we prefer "Roma" over "gypsy".  "J. K. Rowling" is clearly the name she has chosen to be known to the world by.--Pharos 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I misunderstood the policy. I stand corrected. Thank you. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I call(ed) the idea stupid, not the person behind it. I don't claim to be a good editor, but I don't see why good editors would waste their time dealing which proposals that no amount of good faith can assume to be well-thought. Has it found any support yet?--Matthead 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still against the good-faith guideline. — Mütze 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Based on Wikipedia policy about naming conventions. Excerpt:
:When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.
Are we writing an article about a trademark or a person? Or perhaps the article should be moved to Joanne Kathleen Rowling? –DamslethTalk|Contributions 10:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to know which name she uses, just look on the covers of her books. "J. K. Rowling" is the name she uses professionally, so that's where this article should be. — sjorford++ 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I already know what name there is on the books, having read them all a fair few times. I'm just trying to make this article as informative as possible, while complying with our policies, which tells us to be as specific as possible. I also don't think it's a good idea to use an abbrevation in the page title, because it creates ambiguity (and we already have a disambig on Rowling). –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Her name is not "Joanne Kathleen Rowling." It's just "Joanne Rowling." And, if you want to get really specific, that's wrong too. Her married name is Joanne Rowling Murray, which she uses for private business and correspondance. So which is correct? Her pen name, by which she is largely known, her given name, or her married name? I feel that mentioning her married name would be somewhat intrusive; Rowling signs her name "JK Rowling" when dealing with the public, and I see no reason why not to stick to her preferred public moniker. Serendipodous 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Strong opposition against move. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: How does she rank in terms of the world's richest women? I know she past the Queen of England, but I have my doubts about Oprah. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbes magazine in 2006 listed four women among its 25 richest individuals -- Liliane Bettencourt, daughter of the founder of L'Oreal cosmetics, and the widow, daughter, and daughter-in-law of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.  The estimated wealth of each ranges from $15.7 to $16.0 billion (US).  Oprah Winfrey is estimated at $1.5 billion; J. K. Rowling at $1.0 (#746 on the Forbes' list of richest people, which doesn't sort by sex). — OtherDave 13:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: King's individual sales are nowhere near the level of the Potter books; the fifth volume sold 5 million copies in the U.S. on its first day, thanks in no small part to "pre-ordering;"  the sixth sold nearly 7 million on its first day.  Total sales of her books passed 250 million in 2003, reportedly.  Also, while several King books have been turned into films, few have had the mass audience appeal or opportunity for related products like games, toys, or clothing, that the Potter books have had.  — OtherDave 13:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you OtherDave.  Where can I go to find out information on an author's sales or a specific book's sales, or on the net worth of an author?  Articles on Wikipedia do not typically contain this kind of down-and-dirty info.  192.139.140.243 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I found Rowling's sales figures in newspaper archives (googling things like "Rowling" and "sales," then poking around a bit).  The Forbes estimates are just that -- estimates -- so take them with some skepticism.  That said, which writer gets wealthy from writing isn't necessarily an indicator of the artistic value of the writing; it's more a measure of a match between the writing and a market for the writing.  King writes in the horror genre; like the mystery genre, that's a reliable niche but not necessarily one that will propel him into billionaire status.  Rowling's books are for a potentially much larger audience: children (say 8 - 14 years as a generalization), and the parents/relatives/well-wishers of such children.  That's also a market that renews itself every six or eight years (an entire new crop of 8- to 14-year-olds), a characteristic that companies like Disney have capitalized on for generations.  (For whatever it's worth, www.horrorking.com, a King fan site, claims on a page dated July 2006 that he has "over 100 million copies" in print.) I suppose you might also try checking press releases on a publisher's site, to see if they were bragging about the sales of one of their writers.  — OtherDave 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richest woman? 

message: I translated the german wikipedia article and it can be found HERE. It's somewhat informative (but probably riddled with spellling errors) but I'm not sure if it will really actully help at all. I wouldn't have made it a featured artcle. Dark jedi requiem 09:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles in other languages are held to a lower standard. That article's actually a lot better now than it was when it was first featured, and it seems to have been "de-featured" since then. I read it in Google translation, and it seemed to draw a lot of its information from an unauthorised biography by a British tabloid journalist named Sean Smith. (not that it cited any of its sources) Luckily a lot of that "info" was taken out, yet it still, rather infuriatingly, claims that Rowling came up with the idea for Harry Potter after reading Neil Gaiman's "Books of Magic", which Rowling denies and even Gaiman has claimed was unlikely. I'd appreciate it if someone with a better grasp of German grammar could take that down.Serendipodous 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: Shouldn't there be something in here about the religion contraversy? It is a big part of Harry Potter and J.K.'s effect on the world. And what about J.K.'s own Religion? 
DISCUSS!
No. Religion is dealt with in the Harry Potter article. Rowling's personal religious views have nothing to do with the manufactured controversy. She has remained very closed about her religious beliefs and any discussion of them in this article would be speculation. Serendipodous 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Film director sparks debate over origins of 'Harry Potter' Silly, too much beer? Yes. But's it's a verifyable source. Where in the article could this be mentioned? Under the Hary Potter books? --GunnarRene 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's complete lunacy, I doubt it really has a place anywhere. As Rowling says in her debunking of the rumour on her webpage, anyone who thinks this could possibly be true has never heard of the British tabloid press. If they haven't found it out, it's not worth knowing. Serendipodous 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's verifiable lunacy though. Perhaps the best "debunk" is to note that Rowling has an OBE, and that only real people can receive an OBE? --GunnarRene 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But where would you put it? It would need to have its own section, and that section wouldn't really have a purpose, except to tell this story. It has no reason to be on the page. Serendipodous 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hahaha! I didn't know about this one. Crazy! But what if? She kind of looks like an actress in her photo here in the article. Moonwalkerwiz 03:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost writer accusation 

message: This article lists Rowling as being born in South Gloucestershire, however, that didn't exist until 1996 when the County of Avon was abolished on 1 April 1996. Avon itself was only formed in 1974. I'm not entirely sure what came before Avon as Rowling is generally believed to have been born in the Yate/Chipping Sodbury area - that may have just been in the County of Gloucestershire in 1965 - someone will have to confirm. But as her place of birth is now in South Gloucestershire should we list her as being born there or in whatever county existed in 1965? I looked at the Mikhail Gorbachev page for some inspiration and that has him listed as being born in the former Soviet Union not the present-day Russian Federation - any thoughts?
:My feeling is that, as Wikipedia is a reference guide, you would want to give as accurate a picture as possible of where someone was born. Someone looking up the birthplace of JK Rowling might want to visit it, and it would be better to give accurate directions. I suppose it might be more historically accurate to say "Gloucestershire", but I think the modern county name should be listed as well. Serendipodous 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Gloucestershire, Avon or Gloucestershire?

message: The Winterbourne page now references a published list of primary school starters in 1970, which gives her name as Joanne Kathleen - not just Joanne.  Ghmyrtle 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you refer to this (RTF file): It is a file in Rich Text Format, which didn't exist in 1970, and probably the admissions were not stored with a computer then. Moreover, the name "Joanne Kathleen Rowling" is printed red (as well as "Potter" three times). It appears that it is not quite an unaltered copy of the original list. More importantly, Mrs Rowling stated clearly several times that she chose the name "Kathleen" later (interview on darkmark.com , biography on jkrowling.com ). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the admission register simply didn't withstand the extraordinary pressure to insert this name... --80.129.108.245 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now would be a very good time to get ahold of Jo's birth certificate. It would not only settle this but also put to rest those rumours about her fudging on where she was born.Serendipodous 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't... ;-) --80.129.86.173 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Her name

message: Indeed there is a housing development near Bristol called "Rowling Gate", but can anyone actually find an authoritative source claiming it was named in her honour? Because I can't.Serendipodous 13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rowling Gate

message: The (current) number 5 reference, with the tag name "rowling-bio", is cited eight times in the whole article, but has no real reference and shows up empty in the References section.  I checked about twenty recent edits and didn't find any related changes.  Has this reference ever existed?  If yes, it should be restored (probably after checking all eight citations are correct).  If no (or nobody can find it), we should change those citations and reference other sources.  — Ming Hua 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the footnote was removed by User:Baileyrand on August 7. The mysterious biography is the one on Rowlings website. Probably an accident. I have reinserted it without thinking it necessary to recheck the citations (though, however, checking is always a good thing). --80.129.104.160 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding this missing footnote!  I've now checked all the eight citations, and with one exception they all match Rowling's biography on her own site.  The only part I am skeptical is that the article claims Rowling and her first husband had one child, Jessica Isabel, before divorcing in 1993.  But the biography only mentioned the child's name as Jessica, not her middle name, and definitely nothing about the date of the divorce.  I may be missing something, though, can someone double check?  — Ming Hua 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can vouch that that info was added later, and is unsourced. Serendipodous 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know.  I found the divorce date in the article from about.com, and added a citation to that.  I also removed the middle name of Jessica.  — Ming Hua 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mysterious biography in references 

message: I know it's a bit silly to ask, but on all the covers of the British editions there's no space between the initials, neither there is on J.K. Rowling's official site, so maybe the article should be moved to J.K. Rowling instead. Sorry about the nitpicking :). --Lividore 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might as well ask about the font size of the letters J and K, too. Moonwalkerwiz 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick googling of "space between initials" showed that it is around 50-50 between space and no space in the various style guides.  The Wikipedia style guide is to use the form of the name which she is known under, so Lividore is right, there should be no space in this case.--Per Abrahamsen 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not familiar with english name shortcuts - I do not see any difference between J. K. and J.K. Is any ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, yes.  The space between the initials is larger in the first case.--Per Abrahamsen 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J.K. or J. K.? 

message: Both Rowling and Murray were divorced when they married, though Murray had not yet divorced his wife when they met. They had, however, been separated for a year. Not that it's anyone's business.  Serendipodous 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to be clear...

message: Should this article not be included in the category "Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms"? I thought that Rowling adopted the 'K' initial so that the name would be gender-neutral and appeal to a male audience. 82.26.30.32 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms" 

message: It should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.175.34.218 (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see it. By the way - feel free to fix any vandalism yourself, next time you see any.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I added a section in regard to the origin of the Harry Potter character. There was already a character named Harry Potter in the film Troll very much like Rowling's. This was in 1986. It brings into question of just "Who is" Harry Potter. When asked where she got the idea from, she claims she has no idea. Her response should raise eyebrows.
*More on where Rowling gets her ideas from. Scroll to bottom for Troll controversy.
"Harry Potter first appeared as a ordinary kid that discovered magic in the 1986 film 'Troll.' In this film the dark haired boy learns about magic and fights a troll. In an interview with Stories on the Web, Rowling was asked where she got the idea for Harry Potter from, and she answered 'Where the idea for Harry Potter actually came from I really couldn't tell you.' This brings up the legal question: Who owns Harry Potter, makers of the movie Troll, Rowling, or the public domain?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clydeman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many books, films and comics with similarities to the Harry Potter universe. To draw attention to "Troll" as one, when there are so many others that share far more in common is just silly. Apart from the names of the characters and the common fantasy genre, the two works have nothing in common. Suspicions could justifiably be raised if the two characters were named "Tetrabellius Smellings" but both "Harry" and "Potter" are common names and really there's no more reason to suspect plagarism than if the two characters were called "Jason Smith." People tend to forget that JK Rowling lives in England. That she would have drawn inspiration from a trashy mid-eighties American kiddie horror flick at a time when it took up to a year for US releases to even be screened in the UK seems highly unlikely. Regardless, the contention raised by that website is nonsensical. Yemets never claimed his book wasn't inspired by Rowling's works: he tried to hide under the shield of parody, but his books were judged not to be parodies. Even so, two main characters sharing the same name in two different works is not illegal; only if it is clear that the creator is attempting to pass the character off as the same or similar to another is it considered plagarism. If "Troll" had been called "Harry Potter and the House of Trolls," for instance, the filmmakers may have a case against Rowling. There is no law, nor has there ever been, in creating a work that has similar themes, storylines and characters to another's work, unless the similarities are judged to have been the result of plagarism. So far, despite the many similarities between Harry Potter and, say, The Worst Witch, no judge has declared that Rowling's works are plagaristic. Serendipodous 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the Harry Potter Character

message: I've given this good article status though I am hesitant as there is no free photos (all fair use). Computerjoe's talk 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Status 

message: Can we be a little more careful in using fair use?  If you replace the existing photo, please list the original one for deletion.  I've just had to hunt back through the history and tagged :Image:Jk-rowling.jpg and :Image:Rowling.jpg, unused fair use photos.  Also, I find it a little ridiculous that we're even using fair use.  Rowling is a highly prolific author - it shouldn't be hard to find a free photo of her. Hbdragon88 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, but I have no idea how to locate a public domain image of a living author; most, if not all, images of the author would fall under the copyright of the photographer, correct? And given how Wikipedia's entire Harry Potter domain seems ruled by screenshots from the movies, it seems a bit odd to go against fair use for this article. Serendipodous 14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be public domain; it just has to be freely licensed.  Someone here with a camera can go to a book signing or whatever and take a picture of her.  But fair use is discouraged - the philisophy is to use it only when it's necessary.  It is inevitable that we must use fair use movie screenshots for the movies, but for its author? - it should be relatively easy to find a freely licensed image of her. Hbdragon88 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a harsh image policy indeed that places fair use below stalking. Serendipodous 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh give me a break.  If Jimbo had his way, he'd probably have deleted the image by now.  It would techincally violate criteria one of WP:FUC - FU is supposed to be used if a free imae can't be located.  As a living person it shouldn't be hard to find an image.  And stalking?  Pfft.  She's a celebrity and presumably goes out on book signings.  It would be stalking if someone got an image while she was at her house or something. Anyway, Flickr turns out nothing, so I suppose that this image will stay for now. Hbdragon88 05:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, we have a choice between using a picture without the photograper's consent, and taking a picture without Rowling's consent. Which is worse? Serendipodous 07:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No Fair Use image is suitable as a Free image can be created, purely because JKR is a living person and it's neither impossible or difficult to create an image to release under a free licence. I've removed the latest image uploaded as it's one of them "from some website" jobs too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this bullshit about images is nonsense.  Can't you do something more constructive than policing pages for questionable images.  Just forget the rules, this helps nothing.  John Reaves 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the statement that she makes "regular public appearances" is false; she in fact has only been seen in the recent past at Radio City in August 2006, where photography was not allowed inside the building, and prior to that in July 2005 for the release of HBP where she read an excerpt of the book for children starting at midnight. And, as we have said, no free images have been found. Just because she's living doesn't make her an easy subject to photograph. Besides, the pictures on the back of the books are meant for promotion and certainly, if the photos we've found recently don't work, the "About the Author" qualifies for FU. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images