Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 6

message: How does everyone feel about splitting off the members section to identify active and non-active members - last I checked it was something like 180 project members, with three more since last weekend alone, but I see relatively few of them. RHB 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  John Reaves 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's because the project has been inactive, not them. I'd ask a bot to deliver some sort of message to all of them alerting them to the fact that the project is active again and if they want do participate head on over! Let's draft this first though, before we send it. Try creating it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Letter or something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be the members that have been inactive?  Afterall, there isn't really a project without active members.  John Reaves 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I do appreciate the picture of Dumbledore. He's inactive, not dead. Valley2city 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume that's a joke? John Reaves 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you move the picture to the right so that the text is emphasised?  I think this would be better as English is read left to right.  I don't think the inactivity comments should be included; as the  cause of project inactivity is contributer inactivity. Also, I think a slightly more formal tone would be better (i.e. remove "love"). Is there a bot that could post these for us?  John Reaves 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's true though… there were really no leaders on the project to tell the participants what to do. They put their names on a list and that was basically it – no assessment, no model articles, no collaboration… Also, don't you think the informal tone is slightly more approachful? Here's it anyway with the pictures on the right. For bots, see WP:BOTREQ. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, don't worry, John Reaves, I was kidding. I like the template and I think it looks better on the left side. More uniform in terms of images on Wikipedia templates... Might I suggest you include the word "member in the very first clause"? ie: "Hello, WikiProject Harry Potter member..." Valley2city 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tone is slightly too formal and rigid, needs to relax a bit. And the inactive list should redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Participants#Inactive Participants, rather than a completely new page. RHB 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fbv65edel, I like your version. Also, I fixed the link in your suggestion per RHB's comment.  I like Valley2city's idea of having "WPHP member" in the opening.  To RHB: feel free to create your own version with your suggested wording here.  John Reaves 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a version with new wording to your sandbox. Let me know what you think. I'm going to updated and add items to the to do list in the perhaps wishful expectation of more active project members. RHB 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive recently updated the Harry Potter portal page too, so you might want to put some of the to-dos there.  I like you version, it's friendlier and more likely to bring people back.  Do think a thin border would look good?  Also, what do thing about bolding WikiProject Harry Potter?  John Reaves 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind whats done with the border but bolding WP Harry Potter would look a bit off, especially since it already stands out by being bluelinked in comparison wiht the rest of the text. Be bold :P RHB 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point with the bolding. John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've numbered the version to make picking easier.  I linked the page in your comment RHB, I figured you wouldn't mind.  I vote for 3..  John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Three looks good.TonyJoe 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like 4 RHB 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the inactive/previous contributors should be placed on the same page lower down. On a different project I see they add them in small type in a serial list  just running across the page, block of type like a paragraph. Minimises the area taken by a lot of names. As far as the sandbox versions go, I favour 4 as it is more friendly. But I also suggest using Present/Previous rather than active/inactive. Inactive implies they may be coming back any time, whereas I think the idea here is to clearly remove people who have permanently gone away? Sandpiper 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to cast a deciding vote? RHB 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Go with number four.  I'll take any flak (if there is any).  Use  so we can easily change all templates at once.John Reaves 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting it now with my AWB account. I have to say, I think we'll see a definite drop in numbers, but hopefully it will reawaken some people to the project's continued existence and latch on to the popularity of the release of the final book and 5th film. RHB 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactive Members

message: I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates.  I assumed it wasn't as well-watched as this page.  John Reaves 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter citations 

message: Are the actors from the film versions within the scope of the project?  John Reaves
And are redirects rated as class=NA? Thanks, RHB 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been adding the project template and rating them as NA just so we know we have them.  John Reaves 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished rating everything except the actor pages. When I posted on the WikiProject Council page they suggested Actors got project banners too, so I don't see why not, but if pages got cluttered the small=yes option would be used to lump project headers together. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Project banners and actors Only about 40/450pages left to be rated though, including images. Thanks for your help, RHB 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors 

message: If you could all head over to Talk:Harry_Potter_fandom#Discussing_whether_we_should_add_this:_--Please_do_not_add_a_site_here_without_first_discussing_it_on_Talk:Harry_Potter_fandom_first._Thank_you.--, read the section thoroughly, and vote in the second straw poll, that would be appreciated. The user involved in the dispute asked me on my talk page what we should do (as it's been a week since any activity there, and the votes are "tied" 1-1), and so I figured the people who know the page best should participate in this poll.
While we're talking about Harry Potter fandom, I think we need to come up with a method of referencing the notability of the fan sites, because it gets to a point where you really don't know if they're notable or not (see the section below the aforementioned one -- the user makes it sound notable but I haven't a clue what those things (Sulake) are). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic.  There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. I don't have enough access to reliable internet to check, but I assume the problem at the page stems from the recent influx of newbies to the HP articles because of the whole title thing.  I suggest just letting it die down and keep on reverting in the meantime. John Reaves 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't very helpful, though. Try to persuade them to what you think. Try to be calm and constructive, rather than simply aggravating everyone by reverting.  Also, fandom should be addressed in an encyclopaedic manner - I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic.  There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. isn't helpful. Michaelsanders 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, John, in this case though, it wasn't the question of whether fan sites were notable or not, it was whether to include a comment (using ). However, Harry Potter fandom is notable because of JKR's connections with, primarily, TLC and MuggleNet, and then you can expand on all the notable things done (like the Lexicon, wizard rock, Muggle Quidditch, etc.). But that article is in such a state now that it doesn't exemplify that notability too well. Hopefully in the future we can collaborate on that. Speaking of which, anybody up for a collaboration of the month? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are 4 or 5 websites which JKR endorses on her own website (though I think at least one is in a different language). I don't know if she has endorsed others in the past. I don't regard this as as a necessary condition for inclusion, but a helpfull one. Inspection is usefull, if it has poor content then strike it from the list. If it is blatantly advertising, then strike it from the list. Sandpiper 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rowling-endorsement would, I think, be THE condition for getting in - if she endorses a fansite, there is no sane way you can justify NOT including it in such an article. Inspection would merely be common sense - the problem coming when people disagree over what should be included based on 'common sense' (some people really believe that Hermione is secretly Harry's sister, for example - the rest of us, on the other hand, read such theories for comedy value). I would think that Red Hen should be included - I consider her the 'higher end' of Harry Potter theorising and analysis (Bradley she isn't, but could get there) - but what happens if someone disagrees, thinking her site blatant rubbish, and that some site they like should be promoted instead? Is it better to ignore such cases, or try to legislate some means of dealing with them? Michaelsanders 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the former. Delete, Ignore, and if they really feel the need to have it in there, leave it up to them to prove notability. On the Fandom talk page I also support destroying the entire fansite section. Cheers, TonyJoe 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If wikipedia could be written by computer, then it would be (or, at least, someone would have done it on a different website). The point is that it can only be done by human judgement, what to include and what to leave out. There is a whole raft of people writing content rules like mad, but I find the whole thing ultimately self-defeating, because there are too many rules to waste time staying up to date with what they say.  So, ultimately, everything comes down to personal judgement. This is exactly such a case.  Sandpiper 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreements at [[Talk:Harry Potter fandom]] 

message: With the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows imminent, it is a pleasant surprise to see WikiProject Harry Potter recalled to life, albeit haphazardly. I would however hope that within the next week we can make its return more formal so as to allow the project to move foward more cohesively in the New Year. 
To do this, I'd like to make/refocus on some proposals.
1. We should strengthen our membership by following through on the proposal of RHB, Fbv65edel and John Reaves, of informing inactive members of the revival via the Dumbledore Member Box, as well as actively recruit new members via the Community Bulletin board and the talk pages of other promienent HP articles. 
2. Make the project more purposeful by firmly establishing our priorities via a "scope" and "Articles of Importance" section, as well as making our To-Do list more current and definitively choosing an "Article to Improve." 
3. Patroling HP articles for vandalism as Deathly Hallows' release approaches. 
4. Promoting "Project Togetherness" via a Project Award and a new Userbox.
TonyJoe 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It all sounds good to me. However, what's the Dumbledore Member Box and Project Togetherness? As for the notice to old members, we were still deciding on a format we liked until… erm, we forgot about it. I'm still away for a week, but I've left my thoughts at User:John Reaves/Sandbox. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Dumbledore message box is the inactive warning we've concocted.  As far as "Project Togetherness" goes: all I'm going to say is I'm not opposed.  John Reaves 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "project togetherness," that was the best way I knew to phrase it, and considering recent developments, it probably now sounds a bit insincere. Nevertheless, other projects are really effective because they work well together. And I thought that bringing some of that here would be a good thing... TonyJoe 23:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: RHB sent it.  John Reaves 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Revival of the WikiProject Harry Potter

message: Should we do a template for characters, like many video game (Template:Resident Evil series characters) or television (Template:Star Trek regulars) ones? igordebraga ≠ 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a character template at :Template:HP character. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not singular characters, ALL or most characters (i.e., LOTR has a template for the Fellowship of the Ring and Ainur) igordebraga ≠ 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character template 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: List of Harry Potter films cast members is currently a featured list candidate. I'd advise you to assess the article neutrally and head over to the FLC nomination page, if you so wish, and discuss. This article is especially important to me as I've worked it from a cluttered table, out of AfD, to what it looks like now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FLC]] 

message: I've requested on the participants page that Admins add (Admin) next to their name so we know who can help with deletions, vandals, et cetera.  John Reaves 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins 

message: Three new articles are up for deletion.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD.  John Reaves 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To anyone who hasn't already done so, please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD to your watchlists. :-) (perhaps we can put together a small suggested list of things to do, including adding the AfD subpage to your watchlists). --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a suggestion box to the page.  John Reaves 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the pastel box while keeping the text. I hope you don't mind, but the pastel box seems to look overpowering, especially for a page that is traditionally short and sweet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's up to the individual. When I !voted in a lot of AfDs (VfDs back then), I didn't, but when I started being a lot more specific in AfD !voting, I would. It really depends on the person and the situation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New AfDs

message: Does anybody think a class=list option would be a useful addition to the WPHP template? John Reaves
:I don't really like this because it's discriminating against lists, which are just as well part of the article namespace. Lists can have qualities too, that's why there are featured lists, etc. If there's a list class then everything that's a list is assumed to be of the same quality, which isn't true. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see your point.  John Reaves 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List class 

message: Hello - 
I am an avid wikipidian, and as such I figured there are likely not many better places on the web to ask this most basic and fundamental question about the Harry Potter books/films.
I am a fan of the Harry Potter movies, though I have not read the books. Recently, while watching the most recent film, I asked myself "what is the PURPOSE behind all of this magic learning?" What is the point of having this school, and everything that goes with it, if none of the magicians can execute their skills in the "real world"? If someone was to answer my question with "to learn how to use magic", or something along these lines, it would not quite be to the point...
Are they being groomed in order to mount some really cool "Magician's Army"? Is there some devine plan that serves as the primary reason for training people to use magic? When they graduate, what will they have....A DEGREE IN MAGIC? For what purpose? To teach others to perform magic? If that is the reason, then what is the point in teaching it?
Its almost the same thing as if, for example, people attended school to in order to be dentists, and yet were never able to work on teeth.
Any assistance in helpng me to understand this most fundamental element of the "Harry Potter Universe" would be nice, because I am baffled.
--Mrlopez2681 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have seen numerous adult wizards using magic outside Hogwarts. We have seen that magical households, such as the Burrow, are run by magic. All wizards in the series use their magic outside school, once they finish school. I would be fascinated to know where you have got the impression that 'none of the magicians can execute their skills in the "real world"?' Michaelsanders 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, and I think it arises from the movies not showing a complete dimension to the universe, in contrast to the books. The movies, as of yet, have not shown the Ministry of Magic, which is the wizarding world's government. A large percentage of wizards go on to work there. Others are professional athletes. Some, like Charlie Weasley (Ron's second-oldest brother) controls dragon in Romania, keeping them out of Muggles' view. Others go on to teach at Hogwarts. Others run or work in stores. Others stay at home, like Mrs. Weasley, tending to her family and house. The life of a wizard is not shown very often in the films. I'd highly recommend you read the books and get a real idea of what Rowling's vision is like! :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point behind all of this magic? 

message: Let's give a cheer, our first featured article is here! Well, actually, it's a list… but just as good! Check out the recently promoted List of Harry Potter films cast members. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, now for the rest.  I've updated our statistics grid for Version 1.0.  John Reaves 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Congratulations, all! --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Featured Article!