Talk:The Harry Potter Lexicon

message: I know this article is short, but that's because it's not finished.
Is "canonity" a word? RickK 01:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you want "canonicity".  Items of unquestioned "canonicity" are "canonical". -- Someone else 01:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short 

message: *	Harry Potter Lexicon - about a website. Seems like a bad precedent to have entries about fan websites. Title also confusing, seems like the article is a lexicon of Harry Potter terms, but isn't. M123 00:37, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: To the two guys who commented above me, the deletion discussion took place over five years ago! The article has expanded significantly since then, and because of current events it would not be considered for deletion now. So there's no need to respond to this section anymore! 78.133.51.232 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should archive this section now. But ya, people could check the dates when posts were added for a sense of pertinence. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD 

message: I think being used by the author herself to research past parts of her work at least constitutes hp-lexicon being noteworthy even as just a stub. I don't think it would be fair to put that on her personal article, or that of the series itself. Having the stub even of an unofficial site allows others to research more about the topic. Maybe giving one article for Harry Potter Fansites would be more fair then there would be less favoritism from the single article for the Lexicon by allowing a look at the larger picture in showing what kind of following the Harry Potter series has made as a Pop-Culture Icon. 71.71.79.235 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  of importance 

message: :Image:HarryPotterLexicon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HarryPotterLexicon.jpg

message: Perhaps we should also include Steve's view on the matter? Now only JKR's is mentioned and I think it's only fair to also incluse Steve's own comments... What do you think about it? Chingchuanchiu (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lexicon lawsuit

message: I am new to wikipedia and am not sure how to tag pages. But since the majority of the article seems to be dealing with the Lexicons yet to be determined lawsuit. I feel that is is appropriate to tag it as a current event. Or to remove the information about the lawsuit and create a seperate page dealing with the lawsuit that is also labeled as a current event.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhagan19 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Page should be tagged as a current event! 

message: Seems that what makes the Lexicon important is the court case - which is basically between Warner Bros and RDR books.
Considering JKR's previous kind words concerning the Lexicon, it is questionable whether JKR was acting on her own or as an agent of Warner Bros.  There was a quote in a Winnipeg Free Press article called "Fan being sued over Harry Potter guide cries in court"
By: David B. Caruso, WPG Free Press, April 16, 2008, p. D2 
"Vander Ark testified on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, pitting his publishing company, RDR Books, against Rowling and Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. "
or
"... Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. 
If someone has a law degree can tell me what JKR signed over with these "property rights" and what her legal obligations are towards Warner Bros because she signed these "rights" over to them.  If JKR does, says or writes anything "related" to the HP books or HP movies which causes WB to lose money, I think JKR is in trouble, though. Does NAFTA Chapter 11 apply?  Chapter 11 gives a company the power to sue for loss of future profits. If the potential for future profits is large, so is the compensation, but if it is quite small, then so is the compensation. Warner Bros is an American company they could claim financial compensation from JKR under NAFTA Chapter 11 if she, who signed a contract with them, does anything to lose them money. 
Then there is the difference between Steve Vander Ark and Melissa Anelli, who is also trying to published a book.  Steve gets sued and Melissa gets a very public hug.  What makes her book different than Vander Ark's? Vander Ark was going to get his book published through RDR - which is not affiliated with Time-Warner.  Anelli's book is being published by Pocket. Pocket is owned by Simon & Schuster. Simon & Schuster is owned by CBS corporation (from Wikipedia).  According to Wikipedia, CBS corporation and Warner Bros tend to work on projects together. 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warner Bros 

message: * This is just another example of how rigid and greedy creators are and how copyright law can lock anyones ideas. I may not be a Harry Potter fan, but this is completely unfair. Who do they think they are? The court and their so-called "justice" really need to get over themselves. See, this is why we can't have any nice things and part of why this world sucks. It's because of these pushy law-types and the media! This whole copyright law is just another excuse for the media to keep anyone from fullfilling their goals. I think a guide like that would've been helpful. I really sympatize for that person and I think Rowling went a little over the edge and should've thought things out. She should've said to herself, "This person really put a lot of  hard work and effort into this book. He should've asked me first and we could've worked something out, but why should this book be banned from released? Who am I to prevent one of fans from creating something that contributes to the franchise. This book could actually be a helpful guide that fans would pay good money for." --Kid Sonic (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice rant. BTW, it's been published despite the lawsuit. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you forget that she was actually okay for the not-for-profit version on the internet. The issue was when it was published for profit. Also, the publisher wasn't the original author, so no, no points for effort on their part either. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trouble of copyright law........... 

message: When I click on the link, I get a webpage saying "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 04/24/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion." So is the website gone, or is this just a temporary problem?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.124.74 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexicon gone? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Harry Potter Lexicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080305000110/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8V406HO0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8V406HO0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Harry Potter Lexicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060316220934/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=14 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified