Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Not Even Slightly Old

message: Anyone have know where I can find good seals to put up for Durmstrang and Beauxbatons? The ones that will be used in the movies are official enough for me. Oh yeah and maybe a higher res Hogwarts crest too. Jarwulf 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it legal for us to use these images?  If you aren't sure, don't post them. Superm401 | Talk 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked...I could easily have pulled off as many pictures as I wanted from google but I was hoping someone knew of some fair use images to use. Jarwulf 20:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any image to be used in the movies is undoubtedly copyrighted, and I don't see the need to invoke fair use here. Superm401 | Talk 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Loads of images from the movies are used in this category as well as a zillion other far less meaningful articles. And it doesn't have to be a screengrab from the film. But whatever, I won't be brokenhearted if nobody has anything. Jarwulf 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: School logos requested

message: I added movie screenshots to the Frank Bryce and Gabrielle Delacour sites. I hope it was okay and I didn't make any mistakes, it were the first pics I uploaded. Can also someone please check the Gabrielle site? Now I have this: bgcolor=#fcf written as words under the picture, and I don't know how to correct this. Thank you very much in advance. Neville Longbottom 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: (Ad for external wiki removed. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the niche this project is supposed to fill? We already have probably the most extensive set of articles on HP an encyclopedia has ever seen. Definitely more info than even 80-90% of the fansites out there. For anything that can't fit here the lexicon goes indepth on every subject and serves as a stable reference. Not angry or anything, it sounds cool but I'm just curious... Jarwulf 19:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you remember those HP-related articles that were deleted from WP? Well, we're making a place for them in HPW. As well as trying to make it the most extensive HP encyclopedia outside of WP. Fansite, that is. :) Is there anything wrong with advertising? We're short on editors. This Halloween, we'll be running on a skeleton crew, I surmise. Chosen One 09:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Advertising is never acceptable on WP. Superm401 | Talk 19:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not quite advertising. People have external links to fansites, and worse, etc. all over WP. It was simply a link to a different wiki solely devoted to Harry Potter. Like Chosen One said, every tiny little detail (that would get AfD'ed here) can have its own article over at HPW. How is linking to WikiCities advertising? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, then, I'll just put an external link to Harry Potter Wiki here, and whoever is interested in contributing new articles or deleted HP stuff, please go ahead. Chosen One 11:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter Wiki 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on the Harry Potter Series? The articles for Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort look good. Please post your sugestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 23:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring a few potential issues that are easily fixed...the Hogwarts article is a good choice. Jarwulf 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree about the Hogwarts article. The Severus Snape and Ginny Weasley articles are IMO very good and detailed, too. Neville Longbottom 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestions. Do you plan on working more on these articles? (I would guess yes since the series isn't finished). Also, do you have any "hard" references, such as books, magazines, etc? Thanks for your help--Shanel 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I mean "hard' references besides the Harry Potter books, of course :)--Shanel 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The movies and the books and a few interviews for some odd facts...this isn't the sort of subject that lends itself to other sources and yes the articles will still be a work in progress for the foreseeable future...Jarwulf 08:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source is JK Rowling's website: www.jkrowling.com This is for example the place, where she mentioned some character birthdays. Neville Longbottom 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I've added these articles to the table here. Tell me if you agree or not.--Shanel 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They all look fine..some of the B articles could use a little formatting but they're okay. Jarwulf 05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 Project

message: I just finished cleaning up all the existing editions sections on the book pages, but the first two books do not have any information there yet. While creating them, I realized that there are a large number of editions (by ISBN): do we really want to list them all? Is this something that might be better on its own page that lists all editions for all books? I like showing the different covers, however, and would keep that part of it. Turnstep 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions

message: Hi guys, can I join the HP wiki project? Zhanster 12:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sign yourself up... If you dare! Mwahahahahahaha!!! But seriously, just sign yourself up. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I join the HP wiki project? 

message: Can someone make a template that says "This user is a member of the WikiProject HP" or something? to put on our user pages? Zhanster 06:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: -  Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProkect HP Participant template 

message: What do you all think about adding references to the book chapters?  For example, when Ron Weasley is described as fearing spiders because of the teddy bear-turned-spider incident, a reference would indicate the book and chapter in which Ron talks about that incident.  Perhaps something like (CS Chapter 9).  I've been working a bit on the Filius Flitwick page, and I'm going to add said references to see how it would look.  I want to do this because I think it would show readers and editors where certain facts were found in the books.  I want to use chapters rather than pages because I think the pagination varies by edition.  Anyway, what do you all think?  -- Kam Tonnes 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, it looks horrible. I don't think a reference is necessary to show where we find out he is charms professor. i do think references may be helpful where assertions in the text are unclear and people may disagree about them, but for the most part this seems to work fine placed in talk. Perhaps there should be reserved section in talk which does not get archived away for references which have been listed in support of a debated point. Sandpiper 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Book Chapters? 

message: ... is nominated for renaming at WP:SFD, on grounds of being a tad cryptic and ambiguous.  Alai 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|hp-stub}}... 

message: The Prophecy article is mostly about the single prophecy by Sybill Trelawney, about Harry. It is not very frequently linked, and is almost entirely reproduced within the Trelawney article. I would suggest merging it into the trelawney article. Comments? Sandpiper 22:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to merge and it would be a useless redirect. I have nominated it for deletion. Hermione1980 00:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sybill Trelawney and Prophecy (Harry Potter) 

message: There are separate articles for Eileen Prince and Tobias Snape. Eileen is mentioned in HBP as the possible HBP, but there is nothing in the article for her husband which is not in her article. Both are quite short. There is one article for James and Lily Potter, which works fine and is longer than this combined article would be. Suggestions? Sandpiper
:Partial agree. Both characters are quite minor so I don't believe that they should have their own individual articles. Yet I believe that they should not even be combined into a dual character article, like the Potters, because there is such a small amount of information on both of them. Listing them on the minor characters page might be a better alternative. -Hoekenheef 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobias and Eileen Snape 

message: I was just glancing through and I saw that Aberforth Dumbledore is mentioned as an employee of The Three Broomsticks, but the linked JKR interview and other pages indicate that he works in Hog's Head.  I also left a comment about this in talk:Madam Rosmerta.  I'll let someone more involved in this project than I make the necessary changes.
:Fixed. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Hermione1980 14:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Minor Error on [[Madam Rosmerta]]'s Page 

message: I saw John Hurt listed as having played Mr. Ollivander in the HP4 movie (Harry Potter cast), but I didn't think he made an appearance.  The Mr Ollivander page says he was only in HP1, so there's an inconsistancy.
:It has been fixed. -Hoekenheef 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small [[Mr Ollivander]] Inconsistancy 

message: I'm trying to get the Featured Article Drive going again on the HP Wikiproject.  Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Improvement#Improvement_Drive, I'd appreciate any input! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter featured article drive

message: One particular user has been busy this evening adding a profusion of images to Hermione Granger and adding gushing POV captions to them.  He/She also altered the layout of the page so that it was inconsistent with the other Harry Potter articles.
I've reverted the edits back to an earlier version, but I suspect this particular editor will be persistent.  Felt you folks would want to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I also notice that the article has been protected, which is fine to prevent this editing, but without the  or  template. Could an admin please either slap one of these templates on it, or remove the protection if it appears that the anon as given up? --Deathphoenix 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone has been busy turning [[Hermione Granger]] into a fan page 

message: I'd invite HPP contributors to respond to a  few questions I have on the formation and life of this project. I explain it further there so as not to waste space here. ;) -Reagle 16:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about the Project

message: where should I sign up?
:You can add your name here, but you should register and create a username first so we know who you are.  --Deathphoenix 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sign up 

message: Harry Potter fandom/RPGs. I don't think this article is necessary, as any encyclopedic information is already included in Harry Potter fandom#Roleplaying Games, and a subdirectory is not the norm in how Wikipedia presents articles (subdirectories are used to present alternate working versions during an editing or copyvio dispute, such as with ARTICLENAME/temp. Harry Potter RPGs, the proper way of presenting this article, is already merged with and redirected to Harry Potter fandom. I say we redirect Harry Potter fandom/RPGs and merge any useful, encyclopedic information to Harry Potter fandom: and I don't see much of it that isn't already in the fandom article. Since my desired actions don't include a delete, I won't list this for AfD, but something has got to be done. --Deathphoenix 18:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to just redirect it. I don't think we need that much detail on RPGs on the fandom page. We have adequate coverage and that's all we need. Hermione1980 18:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete it. I think I may have been the largest contributor  to that article and the more it was expanded the more ridiculous it became.  Most of the contributors did nothing more than post links to RPGs. I could rewrite it but it would just be a repeat of the fandom information, which I'll eventually attemp to clean up. --Ariadoss 09:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind deleting it, but I can't delete it out of turn as it doesn't qualify for any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. I'll list it for AfD instead (in a little bit). --Deathphoenix 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just AfDed it. Thanks for your thoughts. --Deathphoenix 19:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm so tempted to AfD this 

message: I have just received a rather unsettling email from Steve Vander Ark of the Lexicon.
I had emailed him to ask if we could use the errata information on his site, because he seems to have the latest stuff straight from Bloomsbury.
However it turns out that they are not happy with us because we've swiped a load of information from there already, and we've not even cited the Lexicon properly.
I reckon this might be a good time to get out the old fine-tooth combs and get citing.
We need to ferret out stuff that originated from the Lexicon and annotate it properly.
In any case, this is the sort of thing we ought to be doing on Wikipedia generally,
and we leave the door wide open for wide scale deletion of HP-related articles if proper citation isn't included.
I have asked him if he has any particularly egregious examples he can point to.
I await his answer with trepidation.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Post the articles here and we'll get cracking on properly citing them. --Deathphoenix 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Lexicon as source 

message: I propose a merger, as at the moment each member of the family has their own article. All three articles are very short and what little information there is gets repeated across all three articles. Why not have a "Gaunt Family" article? the info pertaining to the whole family, i.e. their background (Slytherin Ancestry) can form the main part of the article and then have sub categories for the individuals. One main article I think is preferable to 3 stubs.  Death Eater Dan    20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which three, exactly? Ah, that would be Marvolo, merope and morfin. well, they do have largely the same story. There is not too much information for just one page. So the issue is whether a reader would prefer them to be together or separate?  I think i would prefer them to be together for ease of use. Unless anyone thinks there is the possibility of more information to come? Sandpiper 02:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is, we can always split them back up. However, with Dumbledore dead, I think more Gaunt-related backstory will be scant. I say merge them into one article. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, the house of Gaunt now contains everything in the other three articles, less all the repetitions. Sandpiper 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. If it contains everything from the other three articles, those three articles can now be safely redirected to The House of Gaunt, agree? --Deathphoenix 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Great Work Sandpiper, good job there..... I had been working on my own version of the article but have been having trouble with getting all three characters information to flow properly. You've cracked it son, well done.   Death Eater Dan    18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of the 3 Gaunt Family articles 

message: I have been looking throught the Tom Riddle and Voldemort articles, and the issue of whether it is necessary to have two article, or a redirect, so as to prevent people finding out that tom is the same person as voldemort. I noticed a couple of things:
#Frequently articles refer to Tom Riddle when actually they really mean young Voldemort. Calling him Tom in this context explicitly calls attention to the fact that it is one and the same person. If we really mean to make a distinction between the two, then the only place that Tom is really a distinct person is during Chamber of Secrets related stories. Everywhere else it is known to a reader that we are referring to Voldemort, or as I said, mentioning Tom is giving away plot unnecessarily.
#That most places where Tom or voldemort are mentioned, it is explicitly also stated that they are the same person. So never mind whether it is necessary to create two articles to keep this secret, just about every other article that can, gives this away.
If we really want to keep Tom's identity a secret, then many articles need amending to not mention him at all. Particularly, all the stuff about his early life from HBP needs to be written up referring to Voldemort and not Tom. This is wholly pointless from the POV of anyone who has read up to that point in the stories and could only benefit those starting out. So do we feel it useful to preserve the surprise story  from COS for the benefit of those who have not read past book2?Sandpiper 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers for Voldemort=Tom Riddle 

message: All external links such as http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80 should be replaced by http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 
(note the additional /en/ in the link).
89.53.218.221 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to jkrowling.com are broken 

message: The Black family tree has grown too big for its britches. It should be resized, moved to its own page and linked to, or something else, because it’s screwing with the individual characters' pages (ex. the horizontal scrolling in the Bellatrix Lestrange article). Guermantes 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a very good suggestion from Guermantes. A basic family tree (like the previous one) could be included in the articles accompanied by a link to the full family tree. It really is ruining the articles with its size. Any other ideas/suggestions??  Death Eater Dan    16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing to do with it is to make an image instead of using a template, and put the image in the articles. That way you can pre-structure the image size so that it'll fit without scrolling right. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Family Tree 

message: That article has quotes that do not say the one who said them. Could you please add that to the article or delete the ""s?
Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which quotes? all the quotes appear to be from J K Rowling.Sandpiper 00:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones in What we know about Book 7 and Things to look out for.  If they are by Rowling, please add that to the article, along with a link to them if they are on the web. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Potter book seven]] 

message: I was once again looking at a long article with right at the very top ..spoilier warning..
It continues to occur to me that people do not look up a character without expecting to read something about him, so the spoiler warnings seem to me useless. They frequently do not distinguish between general information about a character and specific information about plot details. Now, I know it can be difficult to separate the two, but should we have a policy of trying to extract some of the less spoiling information and sticking this in the header. For example, I was just looking at Harry Potter (which someone had largely deleted, incidentally). The only information which apparently is safe to include before the spoiler warning is that he is played by Daniel Radcliff, and his parents were james and Lily. Surely a good element of back story (not to mention his physical description and something about his general character), should be before the spoiler warning. There is a lot more information on the back of a book cover than is deemed safe to include here. Sandpiper 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers and the purpose of spoiler warnings 

message: Does anyone know when book 7 is coming out?  I want to know so we can add more facts to the book 7 page. Va girl2468 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess... when she finishes writing it. And you can take that to the bank. Seriously though, it may be awhile. She has said she wants to spend some time with her kids, so it might be written this year and published sometime next year. Just a guess though. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a press conference after HBP was published, she said she expected it to be "at least another two year wait" and that she would start serious work on it at the end of 2005. Tobelia 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A rough guess (if she really pushed it), would be around Summer 2007, near the tentative release date of the next film, Order of the Phoenix. This rumor has been thrown about because of the marketing gimmick easily achieved (July 7, 2007 or 07/07/07), but there's no hard evidence to back this up. Cybertooth85 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 7 

message: Hi guys. Wizard rock is in some serious need of pruning (and a possible merge & redirect). I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on Talk:Wizard rock. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizard rock: prune and merge article? 

message: In what way is Wikipedia:WikiPotter different from this project or the Harry Potter portal?  Or is it just duplicating stuff unnecessarily? -- Francs2000  02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Harry Potter Wiki? 84.154.87.173 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's offsite, so we don't really care about it. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it looks like the Portal was created recently, and has only been edited by a few people. I've added it to the HP Watchlist. Do we make this an official part of the WikiProject or not? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think Wikipedia:WikiPotter should be on Wikipedia, it looks more suitable for a fan site not an encyclopedia. Besides it is surplus to requirement and very poorly written. Can a project page be put forward for deletion? In response to Harry Potter portal being made part of this project, I would tentativly say yes. This would bring it to alot more peoples attention and therefore it would probably be improved, benefiting from the increased input from alot of very knowledgable members of this project.  Death Eater Dan    (Muahaha) 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put up for deletion and point the creator toward the Harry Potter Wiki, where we actually have a news page for that kind of stuff that could stand to be updated more regularly. Hermione1980 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've listed it on MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiPotter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel very hurt that everyone is voting to shut my project page down. I was just trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Janet6 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that it's your project, it's just that it's not dedicated to furthering the encyclopedia, which is what the Wikipedia: namespace is for. You can move the content to a usersubpage of yours, or, better yet, bring it over to the Harry Potter Wiki, where we need someone dedicated to posting news. Hermione1980 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPotter