Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Archive 2

message: Most of the events listed under the events section have websites, is it acceptable to include links to them? --Niu 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events 

message: I'm very late into this discussion but I am suprised that there is no mention of the Yahoo Group HPforGrownups, especially since so many key characters within the fandom spent time there. Was this intentional or just an oversight? Dumbledad 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HPfGU? 

message: I've moved links from Harry Potter#External links to this page without prejudice because I assume any external links in the main site have already passed "spamlink scrutiny". See Talk:Harry Potter for my justification in moving the links to this article. I split the articles between those with Wikipedia articles and those without (then alphabetical after that). I'm not sure if they should just all be combined, but I think splitting it like this seperates, sites like MuggleNet from the less notable sites.  --Deathphoenix 14:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite links moved from [[Harry Potter]] 

message: I noticed links to funpic subdomains were posted though the sites do fit the category, they are not very notable. lumusrpg.lu.funpic.org/ has a 0 PageRank and hogwartsonline.ho.funpic.org/ is just a splash page with no content. In addition to that the Alexa rating is for funpic.org, which is a freehost comparable to geocities. --Ariadoss 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roleplaying Games 

message: No offense intended to our hard-working volunteers, but the shipping section is just bloody awful. Can someone who knows more about shipping than I (and therefore has a better idea of what is notable and what isn't) please clean up this section? I think this section could use some serious pruning. --Deathphoenix 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at it, but looking at the diffs, it doesn't really look like I did that much. I got rid of the one-sentence paragraphs and the clunky bulleted list, at least. Hermione1980 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Hermione. I took a brief stab at cleaning up the text as well. --Deathphoenix 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have a go at expanding/clarifying this since it's something I have experience of.Alecto 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, might have just made it worse.  The main thing was making it sound less like shipping had died in HP fandom, since that's simply not the case.  What do you think? Alecto 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did wonder that, but of the people I've consulted it seems that the really popular ones had become common usage.  I see that someone else has added to the list though, which perhaps isn't the way to go.  When I've got more time I'll see if I can write something appropriate.213.48.73.94 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipping 

message: Hi, I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd have on merging and redirecting the contents of Wizard rock to this article. Please provide your feedback on Talk:Wizard rock. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, that would be me, but I forgot to remove the tag. Thanks for the cleanup! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Wizard rock]] be merged to here? 

message: (CC to Talk:Harry Potter: Book Seven)
Do you think the Dumbledore is not dead web site currently in the External links of Harry Potter: Book Seven belongs in the Harry Potter fandom External links?
It was likely included there as a "reference" for the fact that many people believe that Dumbledore isn't dead, but since that was fan speculation that doesn't belong, the original text was removed, thus leaving this web site as an orphan that should be removed. However, as a site with an Alexa rank of 198,865 and a Google PageRank of 5/10, I think it certainly belongs in the fandom page. What do you think? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I seldom go so far as a 'further reading' section on wiki, but Dumbledore is not dead sounds exactly the sort of thing which should be in it, on the book 7 page. Probably not something to publicise by going into it here, but for completeness such sites ought to be mentioned. Especially if it possible to find a balanced selection with different views.  Sandpiper 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler web site belongs in fandom? 

message: Is this edit valid? Hermione/Snape sounds more like a "Harry/Malfoy" type of ship, ie, not notable enough. I'm going to revert this edit, but since I am unfamiliar with the shipping crowd, I'd like someone in the know to either endorse or undo my revert. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermione/Snape ship? 

message: An issue has arisen on the HP portal page, where someone was asking about what websites deserve a mention on wiki. My own view is that we do not have an adequate list, and we ought to. Yes, there is JKR's site and warner bros, but there are other like leaky hplexicon, etc which JKR has herself recommended, and then there are a lot of others with interesting content but not necessarily so famous. We should have a sensible spread to offer people for further reading. Sandpiper 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those lists should be maintained in one place, and links be provided from that one place to other places. As I stated in the Portal Page, I believe that the best place for those links would be in the External links section of this page. I'd rather not have to maintain links in several articles at once when the links would be very similar. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of HP websites

message: I would like to add the site www.darktimesrpg.com although it only has a pagerank of three it's alexa rank is 3 millon ~spyfox
I was going to edit the links to add a roleplaying site I have been running for 2 1/2 years, but the edit area said to wait until I talked about it here.
The site is www.hprpg.net and I would love to have it added to the list of links.  We've been around since October of 2004 and are an active community.
:Hi, I appreciate your asking here first. Alexa rank puts your site in the 6million mark, and Google Pagerank is 3/10. I don't think your site is notable enough to be included here, but let's see what other people think. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I Add My Site? 

message: I'd like to suggest Dissendium to be added to the list of external fan sites. They have produced the online Triwizard Tournament in association with Warner Bros which is claimed to be the largest online tournament of its kind to take place, and also what is claimed to be the world's first full 3D unofficial Quidditch game.
*The web site seems notable enough due to its involvement with Warner Bros. What do the rest of you think? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissendium 

message: The Events section seems to display the historical promotional tendencies of several other sections in this article. I'm going to do what I did with the Wizard rock section, which is to remove all the examples. Text explaining what is being done is fine, in my opinion. Including examples implies that these ones are more notable than others, and I think encourages people to add even more examples. Before long, we'll have twenty or thirty events added to this section as examples. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deathphoenix, while I agree with the general principal you've described, I maintain that such notable events, like Accio, Lumos, and Patronus, to name just the top three, be included somewhere in Wikipedia. This seems like the best spot for it, but I completely understand that some anons will come in and just add in some random event with no notability. I considered the suggestion of creating a main article for the events, but knowing what happened to Harry Potter podcast, Wizard rock, etc., I doubt it would last long. Any suggestions? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know how notable these events are, but if they are notable enough for an article, they would definitely be notable enough to be mentioned here. If they are not notable enough for an article, I don't know how notable enough they should be to warrant a mention here. Do we include the top three events in terms of attendance? Media exposure? I'm not sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to read a bit more on each, you can see Accio, Lumos (which TLC and MuggleNet are covering), and Patronus (which Steve Vander Ark of the HP Lexicon attended). Not to say that the attendees mean anything exceptional, just noting their popularity. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events section 

message: Hi,
I run a Harry Potter site, and i reckon it might well be worth including on the Wiki page on fandom. Here is the link: 
www.trivia-duelling.com
It is based on the most popular fan game called 'Trivia Duelling' and is played on most if not all fansites, but ours is the largest Trivia Duelling site.
Nick Hilton,
TD
:Hi Nick, and thank you for asking here first. From what I could see, it appears that you have an Alexa ranking of over 4 million, and a Google PageRank of 3/10. As such, I don't think it's notable enough to be included here. However, as a fan of Harry Potter, I do encourage you to take part in editing our numerous Harry Potter-related articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nick, Alexa rankings basically track how many visitors (with Alexa installed) go to your web site, and can be found here. Google PageRank refers to how many other web sites link to your web site, and can be found here. In general, either one has its strengths and weaknesses, but so far we've agreed to apply a combination of the two for a rough estimate of whether a web site is appropriate for linking on this page. I do appreciate your talking about your web site here first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Nick. Well, rankings aren't the only mark of notability. Don't try to get your rankings up for the sole purpose of being on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a trophy room (nor is it just an indiscriminate collection of links, though this fandom page is certainly becoming one). :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for the official Wiki guidelines which we all are expected to conform to.  External links are intended to provide verifiability and reliable sources as reference information that bolsters the article's quality, or purely as "examples" of what is being discussed in the article - and in general very few "examples" are needed.  External links that are provided specifically for the purpose of increasing traffic to the external web site is really contrary to the Wiki guidelines and policies.  I think stating that "I believe that if our link gets added to Wikipedia we would have a large amount of new members in no time" is really not the approach you want to use.  Thanks for asking.  --T-dot 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well yes, it may well be that there are more than sufficient Fan Forums listed as "External Links" in a large number of Wiki pages, HP-related or not, and it will take much time and effort to clean up the excess.  But two (or dozens) of "wrongs" do not make a "right".  Again the Guidelines state that External Links may be provided, IFF they serve to illustrate the point of the article; for example on a page that describes what such Fan Forums are, and how they are used.  One or two popular and high quality examples of such Forums is sufficient.  There are probably tens of thousands of other HP Forums and blog pages and other web sites set up globally by fans, but the Wikipedia is NOT the place to list them all, or even any more than a very small sample.  Wiki Policies state that the motivation for posting such External links must not primarily be to serve to increase traffic to that External Link, which is what you seemed to be suggesting was your purpose for posting it.  I understand, and grant to you, that there may be tens of thousands of young motivated fans who would love to know all about your Forum web site, and they might find thousands of other fans there with similar interests, but this is not the place for it.  It is not the duty of an encyclopedia like the Wikipedia to publicize such links and provide "free advertising".  The more links that get posted, the more there will be that also want to get posted, and then the list explodes out of control as everyone wants a piece of the action for their pet website.  The "me too" temptation just produces a massive snowball effect, and eventually someone is forced to get all wiki-legalistic and delete them all, or perhaps leaving one or two prime ones as examples.  I believe there are objective ways to sort out which forum sites are "most notable" as good examples, based on traffic, from Google and Alexa, as discussed by Deathphoenix above.  Please understand,  we are not trying to shut you down, I am trying to assist you and others with understanding why we have to keep a limit, and make good choices, on these external links.  If your Forum page is ranked among the highest in Google and/or Alexa rankings, then I certainly do not have ANY problem with pointing that out in the main article, and providing a link to the site, so all can see what a "good example" Fan Forum looks like.  Good luck with that - and HAVE FUN!  --T-dot 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add my site? 

message: What's with removing my (Podcasts release on sunday night). Demonblade  (talk)  11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says "New podcasts are released weekly," referring to both MC and PC. I didn't think it was necessary to specify the day of the week. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Rate

message: There are way too many fansites, even for a fandom article. Under "Links to be used occasionally", WP:EL states: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." -- Win777 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (put up a section header for navigation purposes) You have an excellent point. I think we originally discussed these fan sites when we didn't have WIkipedia articles on any of them, but now that we have an extensive collection of Wikipedia articles on fan sites, now would be the time to get rid of all external links to articles that don't have a Wikipedia article. That would also make it very easy for us to set a standard on what sites should be included: basically, if it can pass an AfD, it can be included. I'm thinking of what we used to do for the now-deleted "List of web sites": any red links get deleted automatically. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections or further discussion, I'm going to remove all the external links to fan sites very soon. It'll create a precedent for not adding every single little fan site to this article, and the list of fan sites notable enough to have a Wikipedia article are more than enough to show examples of fan sites. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just saw this. I'm a bit torn. While I understand all these reasons, and think they're very rational and sensible, I don't quite think these fan sites should be deleted. We're doing fine with the "ask on the talk page to post a site" thing, why not keep it at that? Besides, the page is about Harry Potter fandom, and having links to Harry Potter fan sites on such an article is quite acceptable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm actually somewhat torn as well, since I know we personally looked at each link and deemed them "notable enough" at the time. As I recall, there weren't too many of these fan sites that were notable enough for a Wikipedia article (only MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron). Now we have six. Feedback I do pay a lot of attention to would be from "outsiders" who have no real vested interest in an article: from what I see, Win777 is a "Harry Potter outsider" who has seen and edited many other articles. Coming into this one he (or she) was taken aback by the sheer volume of external links. I can see how removing external links can really make it much easier to handle potential spamlinks in this article: simply revert any addition of a redlink or external link. On the other hand, this list is already slightly filtered to exclude fan sites with little or no notability (incidentally, since I do have a response now, I won't delete these links until we come to a consensus. Regardless of how I've stated my opinions, I'm not exactly very gun-happy). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and agree that the article may look cluttered to an "outsider" who comes to the external links section. But, as I said above, this article is about the Harry Potter fandom. Is there another place where we can put the fan sites? You can't very well direct readers to the talk page or a subpage, and the article is supposed to be about fandom and fan sites and fan whatever. Suppose we removed all the fan sites, or left none but the six with articles. That doesn't say much about the fandom -- that there's only six (or no) fan sites! The HP fandom is one of the largest, why downplay it by removing what makes the fandom? Just my two knuts… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you downplay (or show off) the size of a fandom by increasing the number of external links; you can accurately convey the size of the fandom by writing about it. In other words, rather than indicating that there are tonnes of fan sites by showing tonnes of external links, why not simply say "There are tonnes of fan sites" in the article itself (better worded, of course)? If we need several external links to show how large the fandom is, there is a problem with the content of the article. I'm getting more and more convinced that we need to submit this article to a formal peer review to see what other people think. I think this article is one of several that could use some work from many Harry Potter outsiders. What a typical Harry Potter fan thinks is appropriate for a Wikipedia article is very different from what a typical Wikipedia editor thinks is appropriate. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes sense to mention within the article that there are qualitatively "very many"? (or something quantitative - "dozens"? "hundreds"? "thousands"?) of HP-related fan sites, and making mention of a very few that are ranked extremely high on the traffic scales.  List External links to the few key ones in an appropriate heading: "Example HP fan sites", with a hidden note to editors stating "please do not add other fan web sites unless they have a higher ranking than those already shown, and have been peer reviewed on the talk page..."  Perhaps we can also provide a Google link to "search results" for "Harry Potter fan site" or something sensible - as a citation reference to the "hundreds" or whatever (and: can we legitimately post a Google search result link?).  Just wondering "aloud" to the community...  --T-dot 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, all these suggestions sound good to me. I dunno about linking to Google as a ref, but that sounds good as well. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove all external links?

message: I just changed the blacklisted links so the spam filter wouldn't block me from adding an edit to this page (adding archive box and talkheader). Abby724 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed blacklisted links

message: Hi, I have a web site called The Harry Potter Detective, and I was wondering if i could have a link on the Harry Potter fandom page. Here's the link  The Harry Potter Detective--Res2216firestar 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site for consideration 

message: Hello, I was wondering if you would consider xauror.com for the link section. It is kindly mentioned in the Role-Playing section.  
Site Stats for xauror.com:
    * Traffic Rank for xauror.com:  908,429 (up 1,759,261)
Thanks you for your consideration, 
Xauror 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Xauror, thanks for asking (again – sorry that it was missed in all the discussion back in August)! I think one thing we have to do in the article, and one thing I'm in the process of doing now, is prove the notability of each site in the External Links. For example, from what I can tell, Wizards.pro is not that notable of a site, and I may be removing it from that list fairly soon. Most of the other sites are fairly notable at first glance: JKR has given them her fan site award, or they have an extremely high Alexa/Google ranking. So, if you can prove that your site is quite notable (eg it's been mentioned in a publication like a newspaper or something), then it belongs on the page. But – and with no offense – if you think this would primarily just be advertising for your site, then the answer is no. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia regardless, in other subject areas to which you can contribute! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site for Consideration 

message: I am involved in the Warriors (book series) page, and I think this page should be deleted. We were told that we cannot include fan sites in the external links section. We were also told that we could not create a Warriors fan sites page. Warriors has outsold Harry Potter on many occasions, and this is Wikipedia, why should Harry Potter be any different.--Res2216firestar 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this page is slightly different. This is not a fan sites page, but a page discussing all the fandom in the world about Harry Potter, which happens to mention some notable fan sites, notable because J. K. Rowling has referenced them on occasion, and personally invited them for interviews. If Warriors fan sites have had this much press from Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry, or any other distinguished source, you have grounds to mention these fan sites. That is why most fan sites suggested on this talk page don't make it to the article -- and some fan sites currently in the article should be removed because they do not mark this notability. However, the article talks about topics like fan fiction and wizard rock, which are real-world topics which merit encyclopedia entries. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: I am involved in the Warriors (book series) page, and I think this page should be deleted. We were told that we cannot include fan sites in the external links section. We were also told that we could not create a Warriors fan sites page. Warriors has outsold Harry Potter on many occasions, and this is Wikipedia, why should Harry Potter be any different.--Res2216firestar 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this page is slightly different. This is not a fan sites page, but a page discussing all the fandom in the world about Harry Potter, which happens to mention some notable fan sites, notable because J. K. Rowling has referenced them on occasion, and personally invited them for interviews. If Warriors fan sites have had this much press from Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry, or any other distinguished source, you have grounds to mention these fan sites. That is why most fan sites suggested on this talk page don't make it to the article -- and some fan sites currently in the article should be removed because they do not mark this notability. However, the article talks about topics like fan fiction and wizard rock, which are real-world topics which merit encyclopedia entries. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: Lets count how many agree or disagree with it:
# I disagree. We should not add it. Everyone should be free to add his site here. Carhonda 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think this is bordering on WP:POINT. You are wrongly interpreting WP:POINT. Actually the one who added this sneaky invisible restricting phrase into the article, this is the one who did this to make a point. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we have plenty of space here to include all Harry Potter Fan Sites. Carhonda 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is patently false.  There are thousands perhaps tens of thousands of unofficial web sites, blog pages, forums, and other fan-made pages based on the Harry Potter universe and phenomenon.  It is not the Wikipedia's place to attempt to list "all Harry Potter Fan Sites", nor even many or several of them.  The Wikipedia is not to be used as a list of external web sites.  See WP:EL and WP:NOT.  --T-dot 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I just wonder, who is responsible to give us the correct interpretation of the policies? Who is about to decide whether we should keep or delete the phrase? You are? Carhonda 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus determines the policies, but once an actual policy has been set, they don't usually change except under specific circumstances. Ultimately, Jimbo has the power to set or disband policies as he sees fit, but he usually lets the Wikipedia community determine it. If you want to question these policies, you are welcome to do so on those policy pages, but a little Harry Potter page is not the place to be setting policies. That's the last I'll have to say on this matter on this page. I think any further straw polls you try to set on this page will only dig you deeper. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not about questioning the policies. Policies are great. It is about interpreting polices, and what I am asking you is who is responsible to interpret them. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is the first policy, so apparently is more important than "wikipedia is not a democracy". Also, who makes the point here, am I? or the one who without reason prohibits the insertion of harry potter fan sites? Regarding notability, what is more notable? A harry potter fan site or a single hidden comment someone inserted someday whithout anyone to notice? Is the author of this comment an expert or something? Carhonda 10:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, that doesn't mean go ahead and list hundreds of thousands of fan sites in it: there is no point in listing them all, because Wikipedia is also not a directory. From WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: Links mainly intended to promote a website [are normally meant to be avoided]. Also, you are misinterpreting the use of a comment. Read here: "You will not be able to see the text on this page, but it will be seen when you try to edit this page. Hidden text is mostly used for warnings." We inserted the comment so that people would be directed here, because this article is not a listing of Harry Potter fan sites. It is text about Harry Potter fandom, discussing wizard rock, fan fiction, podcasting, with a brief listing of notable fan sites. To prevent the page from continuing on and on, listing after listing of fan sites, we've cut it short at those which, in alignment with one of the most important policies on Wikipedia which should rarely be ignored, are notable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It would be polite, if nothing else, to discuss what sites are referenced in the article. I think the bigger issue here is: what effect will discussing sites have? Will editors have any power to prevent or encourage site inclusion? Or will it merely be a courtesy announcement? That is the bigger issue. Also, I don't think that this is a case of WP:POINT on either side: merely two different viewpoints over what should and should not be included in the article. Nonetheless, a notice to be thoughtful of what is included is hardly dangerous in itself. Michaelsanders 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: editors always have the power to decide an issue, by editing the article as they see fit. Rules are all very well, but articles frequently come down to the views of those interested enough to keep editing them. Sandpiper 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I havn't got time now to go through all the sites included at present and decide if I feel they are either representative or includeable, so as to get an idea about inclusion criteria. I also do not have time to read the fine print of all the policies quoted (which always takes hours), some of which are downright confusing, and therefore not helpfull. I think the number of examples currently included is reasonable, it ought to be a representative sample including ones which are particularly noteable for some reason.  absolutely should not be a comprehensive list. This includes an implications that a new one wanting to come in must be at least as good as those already mentioned, and adding one might involve knocking out another. I don't think page rank is the last word in noteability. Content is very important, perhaps also uniqueness. I'm afraid this is something which requires editorial judgement. That is what editors are for.  We do not provide free advertising, at least not per se. Sandpiper 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  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.-- 

message: I also agree with WP:NN, WP:POINT and WP:NOT policies. But, I firmly believe that these polices do not apply in our case..  So lets discuss about it. Do you agree that the above policies apply here, so we dont need to discuss whether we should add this "--Please do not add a site here without first discussing it on Talk:Harry Potter fandom first. Thank you.--" in the article ?
# I disagree. The above policies do not apply in our case. We do need to discuss about it, and the fact that this invisible comment stayed there for 8 months, this does not legalise for it to remain there without discussion! Carhonda 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't got time now to go through all the sites included at present and decide if I feel they are either representative or includeable, so as to get an idea about inclusion criteria. I also do not have time to read the fine print of all the policies quoted (which always takes hours), some of which are downright confusing, and therefore not helpfull. I think the number of examples currently included is reasonable, it ought to be a representative sample including ones which are particularly noteable for some reason.  absolutely should not be a comprehensive list. This includes an implications that a new one wanting to come in must be at least as good as those already mentioned, and adding one might involve knocking out another. I don't think page rank is the last word in noteability. Content is very important, perhaps also uniqueness. I'm afraid this is something which requires editorial judgement. That is what editors are for.  We do not provide free advertising, at least not per se. Sandpiper 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing whether [[WP:NN]], [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:NOT]] policies apply in our case 

message: How about this? If a fan site is mentioned in the prose of the article (in which case its notability would be established with a cite and by the surrounding text), it should be linked in an External links section, as per WP:EL. However, if the fan site is not mentioned in the prose, it should not by any means be in an external links section. (I brought this up on the talk page of the WPHP.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of several folks who worked hard to try and get some sort of notability standard for this article, I'm happy to have you blow our work up and implement this standard as it is much easier to enforce. Furthermore, when you rejig this section, may I recommend that you change the title from "External links" to "References"? That way, it makes it more clear that any links to fan sites must have been mentioned in the article first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I'm just happy to blow your hard work to smitherings! ;-) Since the whole article was in desperate need of a rewrite anyway, I decided it would be best just to start a new draft of the page, working to enforce the policy above. I've started it at Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite and was able to work on the top two sections of the page, fan sites and conventions. However, I don't feel experienced enough in the fan fiction world or the RPG world to contribute well enough in revising those sections, though I'm happy to cover podcasts and possibly music later. Anybody want to work on it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of conventions seems a little much (and it certainly doesn't need a list of "future conventions"). That's just my opinion, though, I'd like to hear from more folks before I shrink that list down. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree it's a little long, just wanted to put them out there for possible removal, rather than omit them and leave it incomplete. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further thoughts

message: I'd like to see the Fan fiction section made concise and succinct, then have any extra details merged into the main Harry Potter fan fiction article. That article has recently been cleaned up quite a bit, and could be improved more with some of the details which are mentioned offhandedly here. Furthermore, some of the information in the section is incorrect. Where contradicting information is available, assume that Harry Potter fan fiction is correct, as it contains more citations and has been updated with the latest informations available.
Cattlyst 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanfiction Section 

message: Can someone, anyone, if possible, which it may not be, please try to explain to me why Harry Potter fan stuff, and I mean all of it, every medium, worldwide, is like 94 percent animé? Seriously. Getting annoying. VolatileChemical 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animé