Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 3

message: Well, I managed to get the article down from 35K to 31K and trimmed and rearranged some things. How's that look? Hermione1980 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: :The Harry Potter books are primarily aimed at older children (because they have progressively darker themes), but have fans of all ages, as demonstrated by the publication of editions of each book with cover artwork intended for adults. These adult publications, however, have not experienced successful sales to due the popularity attached to the original artwork by Mary GrandPré.
Removing this text (emphasis mine); it's unreferenced and not particularly credible or verifiable. And above all, the reason given is absurd: GrandPré's artwork appears only in the Scholastic (US) editions, whereas the adult covers are Bloomsbury (international) editions. If someone can find figures to back this up, please do so, but without the spurious explanations. -- Perey 02:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult covers unsuccessful? 

message: I'm not sure about this paragraph, especially as its in the section "Allegations of plagiarism":
"Recent viewers of the 1985 film Young Sherlock Holmes, scripted by Chris Columbus, director of the first two Harry Potter movies, have noticed similarities between its characters, setting, events and tone, and those of the Harry Potter series."
It's not really surprising that films with the same writer or director might share some stylistic similarities, but unless someone can give strong and specific examples of the similarities suggested, I would like to remove this section.  JW 2 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
:That seems reasonable to me. EvilPhoenix July 7, 2005 14:06 (UTC)
:Me too. Thelb4 21:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Sherlock Holmes

message: in the overview, when the name "(Tom Marvolo Riddle)" appears after the name voldemort, that constitutes a significant spoiler...
i am still a beginner wikipedia editor, so i want somebody to second my request for removal.
thank you. --jonasaurus 7 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
:I seem to remember that getting mentioned previously as well. Go ahead and remove it. EvilPhoenix July 7, 2005 14:05 (UTC)
::I object. Have you read the disclaimer? Wikipedia may contain spoilers. That's what that big spoiler warning at the top of the page is for. A similar proposal on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince deadlocked with, I believe, two users for and two users against — see the talk page there. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
:::I agree with Hermione1980. As long as we don't write Lord Voldemort (Tom Marvolo Riddle) before the spoiler waring, I don't see a reason why we should refrain from wrtiting it. Jotomicron | talk 7 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
::Well, even though it comes after the spoiler, It's in the introductory part of the main article, so I guess it's just a question of how much you want to reveal. I'm not really sure how many people will really be coming to this article that don't actually know who Tom Riddle is, but I think that linking to the character's article is sufficient, as it will discuss his Muggle name in that article.EvilPhoenix July 8, 2005 01:39 (UTC)
So...
:Vote on inclusion of (Tom Marvolo Riddle) after first mention of Lord Voldemort:
For:
#Hermione1980
#Jotomicron
Against:
#jonasaurus
#EvilPhoenix July 8, 2005 01:38 (UTC)
#It adds nothing here, and can be clearly seen in Lord Voldemort. —Cryptic (talk) 8 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
#Same as above --bjwebb 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
#I think that plot summaries are best when incremental--that is, you can read up to the point where you are in a book without having what you're reading spoil anything further on.  It's worth putting the revelation at the end, sure, but there's no need to have it up top.  (Think of it as a sort of game walkthrough, where you just want to read the bit that you're stuck on, not see what happens at the end. Phil Bordelon 8 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
#Tjss July 12, 2005 at 9:45, Seattle time
#As Lord Voldamort has been linked to its own article which discusses Tom Riddle, the subject matter's completeness is preserved so I think we can remove this bit of fact and if a reader wants to further clarification on LV, then they can continue through on the link. --takagawa-kun 19:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPOILER warning necessary 

message: I'm not positive, but I believe that the book sales figures are of U.S. sales only and should be labeled as such.  Can someone confirm this? Brendan OShea 9 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
: I believe that these book sales figures are out of date... they need to be fixed as she has actually sold over 250 million books.. --jonasaurus 21:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book sales 

message: The article is incorrect when it says, "Unsubstantiated rumours and magazine articles claim that sales from the books, as well as royalties from films and merchandise, have made Rowling richer than Queen Elizabeth II, though in a 2003 interview, Rowling denied having more than £280,000,000, which is Queen Elizabeth's supposed fortune."
J.K. is a billionaire . She is the 552nd wealthiest person in the world, according to Forbes. 
She is also richer than the queen.
:Please, if you have the references and they are believable, feel more tha free to change the article. And please, sign your comments. Thank you --Jotomicron | talk 20:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J.K.'s Net Worth

message: There's a Harry Potter Burgers food stand in Zhengzhou, PRC.  68.255.6.137 01:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter Burgers 

message: I'd really like to work up a section on A. S. Byatt's critique of the Harry Potter books.  She's one of my favorite authors, and although I absolutely love Harry Potter I thought that a number of her criticisms hit the mark.  I don't, however, want to just open up a new section to effectively do a hatchet job on the series.  So I'm looking for suggestions of equally credible literary figures who have offered positive criticism of the HP series (I know about Stephen King, but he's no Byatt.)
The other question I have is whether such a discussion would be more appropriate in a different article.  Certainly, I think Byatt's criticism is fairer (and more interesting) than the evangelical christian point of view that we currently devote a substantial amount of time to.
Would this be a useful section to add?  Thoughts?  Nandesuka 15:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.S. Byatt on Harry Potter 

message: With regard to the above topic, yes you are right that the space devoted to Christian criticism is disproportionate. I wrote the intro paragraph that puts it into context. 
We both feel the same way about the space devoted to religious criticism as I do about the slavery section. This is a poor article, with too much on things that some people feel strongly about, and too little about some of the basic areas that should be covered. It is way short of the standard you would find in Britannica, if they had a major article on Harry Potter. It is also well short of the quality of many Wikipedia pop culture articles like The Beatles. I have just added another important thing that was missing - a basic discussion of Rowling's strengths and weaknesses. If the article expands to include all it should do, including pushing the number of themes covered into double figures, I will not then object to the inclusion of a separate slavery section. I am yet to see a hint that any one understands that my position is based on a desire for proportionality; you all seem to think I'm just trying to censor material I don't like, but that is utterly incorrect. I have said at least twice that slavery can be covered in more detail in the house elves article. Calsicol 15:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are some of the points you feel are inadequately covered in this article? My Harry Potter expertise pretty much ends once we're past talking about the actual content of the books/movies and start talking about things like the social impact of the books, but maybe we can all work together. Hermione1980 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure you should be cutting particular sections in order to reduce them to the poor state of other sections. Rather, recognise areas which are lacking and maybe point them out, to encourage any interested party to add to them.Sandpiper 14:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The quality and comprehensiveness of the article (or lack thereof)

message: Should the expansion request tag be on the top of the article or the top of the talk page. Wikipolicy dictates that either is acceptable - though I'm not sure whether the fact that this is a heavily trafficed article makes it better suited for the article or for the talk. What do you think? --jonasaurus 00:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion Move Request 

message: The Harry Potter Further Reading article is really needed on its own ? Or it could be a section of some other article ?
--Raistlin 16:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading