Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels‎ | Harry Potter task force

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evilphoenix (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 27 July 2005 (adding a VfD section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello and welcome to the Harry Potter WikiProject! I hope you find the project page useful, and will join the project, as well as help to make the project's organization that much better! EvilPhoenix 08:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy

I just greatly annoyed a friend who had managed to avoid the big Half-blood Prince spoiler until I recommended the Wikipedia as a great resource for refreshing one's mind of the previous books. Here's how it happened: clicking on the Chamber's of Secrets page she is unknowingly taken to the Hogwarts page which completely spoils the Prince in 20 words! Yes, there is a spoiler warning but my friend has read the Chamber of Secrets, in fact, she's trying to brush up on it. So I propose three principles: 1. Eventually all these pages and links be sorted out properly, something I'm sure you are working on, e.g., why does CoS redirect to Hogwarts? 2. We need not be over eager in adding new spoiler stuff (and the associated warnings) all over the place -- give it a month at least. 3. We be clear what the spoiler is about. Articles specific to a book should never have future info on them. Article which span several books, if they have spoiler warnings, should indicate spoilers of which book.

Opening Line

What do people think the standard opening line to articles should be? I say this because there are a load of different ways people are doing it, and it would be best, I think, to have a standard people can work from. I propose the following, (but it's just an idea, I'd love to hear any others people have):

For characters:

For other things:

Obviously these can be altered to suit individual articles (see Harry Potter (character)), but I feel it would be good to have a standard.

Thoughts? --drak2 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I like it a lot. Though I've been searching some character pages and I've seen many of them start that way. Anyway, it's a good opening line option, given we can change a little so it fits exactly to each character! :) Jotomicron | (talk, email) 08:59, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter images

I've created a Harry Potter images page. --bjwebb 15:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great work! :) Should the images be categorised tho? If so, do you think we should do it within the page, or different categories on different pages?--drak2 19:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definatly catgorize the images. It would make the article better-looking and reading. -Hoekenheef 02:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, catogorise. I did them as they were because it was the quickest way. I think they should all be on one page, because otherwise we will have a collection of really quite small pages, which is always less preferable to one long page. --bjwebb 06:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still talking about Images... how can I be sure I can use one image (the image in this page, for instance)? And where can I get some info about that? Thanks. Jotomicron | (talk) 15:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the image on the left side of the page?If so, we are all ready using that image for the Gringotts page. Also, you wouldn't want to use that particular image because of the watermark on it. -Hoekenheef 17:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I mean generally. Are there any hints or clues to help me know if there is a copyright assigned to the image? Jotomicron | (talk) 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well the majority of them are fair use screen shots from the films. Some are promo pics tho. All images from the films are copyrighted but can be uploaded with the {{film-screenshot}} tag. See WP:ICT for more info.--drak2 20:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. I uploaded a screen capture of Hannah Abbott from the COS movie several days ago and linked it to her article in the Minor Hufflepuffs page, before I knew this project existed. Just trying to do right by one of my favorite characters, you know? :-) Anyway, hopefully it meets your quality standards, so that you can cross her off of your "images to add" list.--Zequist 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. Good work! Feel free to cross stuff off in the future, this is as much your project as it is ours, why not list your name on it? --drak2 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aw heck, why not? Count me in. I added a few more images last night (Madam Rosmerta, Pansy Parkinson, and Parvati Patil) and noticed that a couple of others (Percy and Seamus) had been loaded by other people, so I went ahead and marked off all five on the images list.--Zequist 28 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
I uploaded an image of Crookshanks--Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Featured article?

Could any of the articles in this WikiProject be made into a featured article? Hermione1980 17:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? They are just like any other WIkipedia article. If you don't know fully about the standards that an article has to meet to be featured then they can be found here. -Hoekenheef 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think I may have misunderstood you. Are you basically proposing that we as a "Project Group" need to really start to conform the articles to a higher standard? -Hoekenheef 17:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, no, no, you understood me the first time. What I meant was, can we improve one particular article in this project to "Featured Article" status — the group collaborating to make it better? (Of course, improving all the articles is a goal…but that wasn't what I was talking about this time…) I'm sorry if I'm a bit incoherent — sleep is a precious commodity, and I didn't get much of it last night. We could do more than one, of course, just do them one at a time. Thoughts, anyone? Hermione1980 18:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I had just been thinking this this week, go you for using your voice...rather than being like me and not...
So yeah, great idea. It needs to be a fairly lengthy article, but not an obvious one, like Harry Potter or Hogwarts, I think. Snape's looking quite good, as it is of a reasonable length and has a few pretty images. Although we could do something more adventurous, like Hogwarts Houses. Anyone else got any ideas?--drak2 19:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lupin's page seems to be another good one. We could possibly try doing a creature, no? Eh, retract that (I'm writing this as I look over the articles). Thestral looks all right, but it is not great. Neville? Luna's page is good, but it needs some artwork or some image. That's all that's hitting me right now. I would suggest Gred and Forge but it's a tad short. -Hoekenheef 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ginny Weasley! :) My life would be complete...well not complete, but it would be cool if that became a featured topic. It's a lengthy article...maybe too lengthy, and could do with some more pretty pictures I suppose. Other than that, yeah, Lupin would be a cool one.--drak2 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Geez! Ginny's page is like a freakin' essay! That might be a good one. Needs another pic or two. -Hoekenheef 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a vote on the main project page for a featured article drive, to nominate and vote on an article for an improvement drive for the project. EvilPhoenix July 4, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Harry Potter Article Images Project

This was a project I started about a month before WikiProject Harry Potter was created (thank you Evilphoenix). My project was not as widespread as this project in the sense that my project was only about images and no thing else. About a day or two after this project was created I unofficially merged my project with this one. The reason that I bring this up is because I created a standard to which the images should conform. I believe that they are a standard which should be followed still. The standards are posted below. P.S. If someone wants to merge these with the WikiPriject Harry Potter main page please go ahead.

"The members of this project will be working to monitor and add images to any HP article on Wikipedia needing a image or images.

As the movie series of HP continues members will add new headshots of each character to their respective infoboxes. All images used will (if possible) be of a higher resolution, and no noticeably pixelated images will be used. If no movie photo is available then a peice of artwork that is of high quality (use your own judgement).

If a photo that is all ready on the page does not clearly show the character then it will be replaced and moved to a different part of the article. Do not remove an image from the page unless it is completely unrelated image."

That's about it. To view the original project info see my user page. -Hoekenheef 21:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trace Harry Potter articles

Is there a way we can trace all articles on our WikiProject other than search? I though, perhaps a category with all the articles. Jotomicron | talk 10:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a full list I think, but contains user pages that link to the project too--drak2 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of {{HP-project}}

Is there a reason why the HP-project was removed from Lord Voldemort? Just wondering. --Lord Voldemort 16:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was removed from the article page because it should only be placed on talk pages. I have not removed the version on the talk pages --drak2 17:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks drak2... You could prove to be useful down the line. I had thought I remembered seeing the template on the actual article page, but must have been mistaken. I would apologize, but then again, when was the last time you knew an Evil Lord to be sorry? --Lord Voldemort 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lol. You may have seen it on some other pages, as it was on some other pages, but I've deleted the tag from them too now --drak2 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa... picky picky about the name there. I didn't realize I was in the presence of the next e e cummings. --Lord Voldemort 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lol. Yeah I was bored, sorry. e e cummings?--drak2 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4 Privet Drive

Should 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey be removed? It consists mostly of plot summary of the Dursleys. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

Also Quality Quidditch Supplies. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
If you think so you could add a {{vfd}} tag... --drak2 3 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

Newt Scamander

...seems to be nearly plagiarized from Fantastic Beasts. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Years

Hi, apparently it's common practice for the people at this WikiProject to link years to the IRL years (see Ginny Weasley for an example). While I'm in full support of what you're doing in general, I feel that this linkage method hints at the books belonging in the real world, not the fictional one. I removed one of these links at Viktor Krum because of this. So...why are you doing it? Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Common practise places book one in 1991-92, although there are some dissenting voices. I believe there is a note to that effect on the main Harry Potter page — or there should be, anyway. It's kind of like trying to decide if it's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Hitch-hiker's, or Hitch Hiker's. This way is just a bit less confusing for the casual reader. Hermione1980 3 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
I would have thought it'd be more confusing when you keep mixing real years with HP years. Wouldn't it be better to link to headings in Dates_in_Harry_Potter just like the Star Wars articles have done? Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
It's just a general trend to place the first year of the HP books in 1991-1992. Personally I don't think it really matters, because the books take place in a magical world where technology is useless, the books are more timeless. They could more accurately be seen as being set in the present time, and in general terms, this or the preceding decade, if you're looking at it from a perspective of several decades in the future. However, common practice being what it is, I would leave in the references to actual dates for now, unless there is a strong consensus to remove them, which may well develop in the future, but not enough people have expressed an opinion yet to really say one way or the other, but here on the Talk page is an appropriate place to discuss the issue, thanks for bringing it up! And if anyone has an opinion on this, please let us know, so we can get a sense of what the general feeling is. Cheers! EvilPhoenix July 5, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
There are two systems that are most commonly used. One is the one we've been using, which is to set Harry's birth year in 1980 based on Nearly Headless Nick's "500th Deathday" cake in CoS having the year 1992 on it. This is certainly the easier system, and it's more consistent with Jo's timelines, which when she includes them always use actual years.
The other is to set years relative to a specific year, usually either the year Harry was born or the year he started Hogwarts. If you used the year Harry was born, that would be Y0, and the year he started Hogwarts would be Y11. The twins, two years older than Harry, would have been born in Y(-2). This system is more inclusive of disputed dates, because it doesn't pin any years down. It has its drawbacks, though. I've dealt with it before in role-playing games, and it can be confusing for anyone who hasn't had it explained to them. Also there is no defined "Y0" in HP fandom, so you'd have to spell out on every page exactly which "Y0" you're using as your reference point. We'd definitely have to create some kind of "explanation tag" (like the "image copyright" tags) we could slip onto each page that said, "Here's how we're counting the years in the series, and here is what we define as Y0, so under this system book one would take place in these years, book seven in these years, etc."
Even with an explanation, though, it's not intuitive. It's easy to figure out that Hagrid was expelled in 1942-43, since that was 50 years before CoS (in 1992-93). It takes more effort to think, okay, CoS was Y12/Y13, so 50 years subtracted from Y12/13 puts Hagrid's expulsion around Y(-38)/(-37). And then what about events that DO have a defined year, like the defeat of Grindelwald in 1945? You can't put a Y# tag on that because it would require you to fix the year of Harry's birth, and the whole point of having the Y# system is to avoid doing exactly that! The Harry Potter Lexicon got around it by using the absolute dates for some things and the relative dates for others, but I think when it comes to something like Wikipedia, it's best to pick one system and stick with it. My vote, personally, would be to use the normal calendar years, and accept that not everything is going to line up perfectly. But why should we expect it to? After all, we're dealing with a world where it can be Monday two days in a row!--Zequist 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
When was it Monday two days in a row? Am I forgetting something? :-O! EvilPhoenix July 6, 2005 06:08 (UTC)
Goblet of Fire. Most of Chapter 10 takes place "the Sunday evening before they were due to return to Hogwarts" (p. 151 US paperback); they then return to Hogwarts the day after that (Monday) (p. 158), and Dumbledore specifically says during the feast that lessons begin the very next morning (p. 189), which should be Tuesday. But when they check their class schedule in the morning, it's Monday again! (p. 193)--Zequist 6 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
And where PlayStation was invented circa 1992. --Taejo 08:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Everything I was against originally was to link to 1991, not to use a specific date system. Interesting to have spurred debate, of course, but that wasn't really my main point :) Sam Vimes 5 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
I wish I'd remembered that I had noticed that, else I would have tried to make a clarification in my last comment. Actually, I do agree with you about taking out the links to actual year articles, but then again I am generally against putting in those kinds of links anyway...I generally like to use Wikilinks to link to topics relevant to the article discussion, and other main words, and keep the amount of wikilinks as simple as possible, but that's really a touch off-topic. But in short, I do agree with what you did...I remember now looking at it and being ok with the change. Thanks for clarifying. EvilPhoenix July 6, 2005 06:08 (UTC)
Also thanks for the clarification. And now that I see what you're saying, I also agree that the date links aren't really necessary.--Zequist 6 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
  • Hogwarts is set in a Magical World where every September 1 is a Sunday, and (I think) every Halloween is Saturday. But I have no problem with using the "real" year dates, even if they don't fit perfectly. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, now I've spent an evening linking all the years to Dates in Harry Potter instead of the IRL years. Maybe it's pushing POV, but none here seemed to disagree Sam Vimes 22:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-Canon Character Information

I noticed people adding information to the character articles from Jo's notebook in the old TV special, mostly blood purity and characters who haven't appeared in the books yet. I was wondering what folks here thought about that. My approach has always been to clarify that that kind of info is unconfirmed in the actual books, for instance in my revision of the Hannah Abbott article. I do that because we've already seen several cases of information in that notebook changing before it makes it into the series itself, i.e. "Trevor" Boot becoming Terry Boot, Michael Corner and Anthony Goldstein both being re-sorted from Hufflepuff to Ravenclaw, and so on. I wondered if we should think about adopting a uniform standard for how we use/reference/disclaimer that information (or any other similarly unconfirmed information, like first names from trading cards) in the Wiki articles, or whether it should even be used at all. What does everyone think?--Zequist 01:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC) ETA: Here's a link to a page with screenshots of the notebook in question, if anyone doesn't know what I'm referring to or needs a memory jog.

Yeah. I think using the information is fine, just as long as you say its not from the actual books. --bjwebb 14:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game) picture problem

This image has been on this article for forever, but an anon has recently come in and replaced it with this image, which I think is a copyvio because it's got a watermark and no image copyright tag. I reverted it once and s/he came right back and put it back in. Which image should we use? Hermione1980 17:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd use the original one. --drak2 23:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The same here. Revert to original picture. --Jotomicron | talk 20:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
All right, I've reverted again. Now, what's the procedure for dealing with copyvio images? Hermione1980 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You could refer to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Anyway, I've proceeded acording to the policy and have posted the image to deletion. --Jotomicron | talk 22:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't entirely sure how to list an image on the copyright problems page. I may have been here for three and a half months, but I can still act like a clueless newbie sometimes. Hermione1980 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Article split!

Hi kids. I'm currently working on splitting the Magic in Harry Potter article into two - that one, detailing magic, and one on the wizarding world. I've been trying to get around to this for months now, and during that time the former article has gotten a lot less cluttered, but much of its content is still about the setting instead of the magic and there's no good central place for information about the society. I'd have completed it on this sitting, but I'm being chased off the computer right now, so at the moment the work-in-progress is only just starting and at User:Kizor/Wizarding world... the plan is to get the rest done on Thursday (UTC), adding a lot of stuff that wouldn't fit to the magic article (like wizards' lifespans), and making the necessary changes to the magic article and links on other pages. If you have objections, please say them now. And if someone knows of a better place to stick this notice, please move it there.. --Kizor 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Like your idea very much. We should link Magic in Harry Potter into this new article, improve it (perhaps we should remove the Religion topic, cause we have almost nothing to add, perhaps only they celebrate Christmas and Easter as Christians). And furthermore, I think the new article could be named Wizarding world in Harry Potter, just to give a similar title to both articles. --Jotomicron | talk 10:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the support and feedback. Working on this now, and with a rather better command of the language. I'll have to see about the section, but I think the new article should be just called "wizarding world"; The magic article was given its name as disambiguation, which isn't an issue for this one. --Kizor 14:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think it is. Imagine the hundreds of wizard worlds already created or that will one day be devised and published by someone! And remember that Wikipedia is not only a fictional encyclopedia, but also one with very real facts and information. Naming an article like that might suggest that there is, in fact, one and only one Wizard World. But it is my opinion. --Jotomicron | talk 22:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You make a good point, but at the moment this is the only one called such, and very likely the only contender for the name for the next few years. Once the issue becomes relevant it can be dealt with a page move and some linkfixes, for now this is simpler. Incidentally, thanks for editing and keep it up, I follow the 'type until I drop' method, literally, and that leaves something to be desired. --Kizor 04:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

HELP!!!

On Portraits in Hogwarts, I can't get Violet's infobox to align properly! HELP!!! Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"T" for Terrible or Troll

Hi folks, just thought I'd leave a quick note here so it's easier for you guys to revert if you disagree. I've seen the description for the "T" grade described as "Troll, or terrible, which is the proper name." I've changed it to read "Terrible (also known colloquially as Troll)" in the O.W.L. and N.E.W.T. articles, and stated that George and Fred calls it Troll in the Hogwarts article. I think that Troll is the colloquial name for the "T" grade, and would rather see the official name stated first. Please discuss here if you disagree with my change in wording. --Deathphoenix 14:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If indeed it is the colloquial term, then referring is only after the appropriate one seems, of course, good. Anyway, where does it say the T stands for Terrible? I don't seem to recall it from the books or as info J. K. Rowling gave us. --Jotomicron | talk 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I just changed the wording based on the original sentence stating that "terrible" was the proper name. I'll have to dig out my copy of the Harry Potter books and verify this information. --Deathphoenix 01:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Update: Confirmed from Book 6, Troll is the proper name for 'T' --takagawa-kun 18:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's general knowledge now. :-) --Deathphoenix 11:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Yah, I'm just being Captain Obvious for people slow on the take up :p --takagawa-kun 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Brace yourselves

Here we go! By my count, we're currently at H-3 hours. Thanks to everyone for the work so far. Time to submit those edits (which I would have done had Sis not closed the browser on me) and finish those linkfixes. My two cents are that we're guaranteed to get a torrent of activity. New contributors with more enthusiasm than sense are not a problem - the Potter coverage didn't have particularily noble beginnings - but vandals will be riding the crest with their cries of DOBBY IS THE HALF-BLOOD PIRNCE!!1 Everyone geek enough to be present, please stay on your toes. Temporary protection of pages might become feasible. And for the sake of all that is good and holy, stay out until you've finished the book! --Kizor 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Request?

I'd like to request an article called "List of people killed in the Harry Potter books". It could sort the people into "killed during the story timeline" and "killed before the first book" (or "killed off-screen"), and add information whether the killed person was a pupil, etc (or simply link to an existing Wikipedia-Article)

  • Have added it to the To-Do List--drak2 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I object, I don't think that is really needed. EvilPhoenix talk 03:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Horcrux ~ Phylactery

CC to Talk:Horcrux

I'm glad that I wasn't the only person to think that the Horcrux is like a lich's phylactery. What do you think about possibly expanding this mention to other articles? I find it interesting that what Voldemort does to himself (and its subsequent results on the soul and the wizard's physical body) seems very similar to what a wizard does to attain lichhood in the D&D universe. --Deathphoenix 15:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lily Potter a Witch?

I am confused at how Lily Potter a muggle-born knew she was a witch and proceeded to go to Hogwarts? I didn't think most muggles even knew hogwarts existed

Well, if you read the first book, it's explained that a special representative of the school is sent to the homes of children born in a Muggle home, to explain the magical world and Hogwarts to them. Also, if you'd like to sign your comments by using four tildes, ~~~~, that will allow us to know who made the comment. EvilPhoenix talk 18:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a watchlist

(I'll copy this to Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince due to its popularity)

Hi all. To help deal with the many edits we are getting, I created a Harry-Potter related Watchlist at User:Deathphoenix/HarryPotterWatchlist. You can see the list here, though you should probably tweak some of the settings to get an ideal watchlist.

This watchlist is VERY sparse, so please add more articles to the list for all to use. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 15:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added *some* articles to the page; actually, all I had in my watchlist itself, which will now, I think be rather tiny winy!... Good work! --Jotomicron | talk 17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear God, witchcraft and wizardry certainly does bring the vandals out of the woodworks, hmm? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The vandals are easy to deal with. It's the well-intentioned edits that are the problem... the S, P, E, C, U, L, A, T, I, O, and N keys on my keyboard are beginning to wear down. --Deathphoenix 17:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey DP, good work with all the reverting here- just a note (if you have time in-between removing speculation of a dobby/draco romance in book seven) can you tag the offending users' talk pages with {{subst:test}}? Whether or not they deter repeat vandals is dubious, but they're useful to admins, as if they see an anon who's collected all four warnings (particularly in a short time period), it makes the decision to impose a block a little easier. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I've only been doing that sporadically. I must be going nuts. I only did that for a couple of the persistent "spoiler" vandals. I think {{subst:test2a}} is appropriate for the "spoiler" vandals, because thse vandals also blanked the entire article before putting up the spoiler. --Deathphoenix 20:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I took a closer look at some of my reverts, and I believe most of my reverts were to get rid of speculation (though I've thrown up my hands on Book 7). I've left test messages for most of the vandals, but thanks for the reminder, I probably missed a few anons. Who did I miss? --Deathphoenix 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, just a general comment in general- I've been putting some of the test warnings on myself. I didn't mean to single you out either, it's a good idea for people who are doing big revert jobs to use test messages anyway. You're doing good work. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

(indent left) That's fine, I needed a reminder anyway. :-) --Deathphoenix 02:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I'm thinking we need a Wikipedia:Harry Potter notice board along the lines of the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. In particular, it would be useful to have a list of articles that need attention.

For example, there's a revert war going on with an anon, new user over whether to include certain information in Errors section of the newest Harry Potter article. Please see [1]. Exploding Boy 19:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

well, there is the tasks template that I made thats at the top of the project page, which might serve some of your purposes, but if you decide to make the page, Id suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/noticeboard. EvilPhoenix talk 21:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

James and Lily Potter

Why are James and Lily Potter currently being given only a single article? They deserve independant articles, as key (albeit dead) background characters. Superm401 | Talk 05:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't with Wikipedia yet when the first few books (well, pretty much all the books up to HBP) were out, but I'd guess that the original James Potter (history · watch) and Lily Potter (history · watch) articles were made when not too much was known about their background (James was created in 3 August 2003, Lily in 17 July 2003), but they were still background figures with very little known about them, and therefore they were merged together. Now that the latest book has established more of their backgrounds, I wouldn't object to these articles being split again (though which should we redirect this to? James, or Lily?). --Deathphoenix 05:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
James. Men are more important than women(kidding). Superm401 | Talk 21:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think we can just delete it (of course, we'll make sure that all the articles links are changed to James and Lily Potter. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think they deserve seperate articles, there's really not that much information available about them, and they're usually strongly associated together. EvilPhoenix talk 21:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there is enough to warrant distinct articles. In the more recent books, they are developing distinct enough storylines and details that I think that two articles is warranted. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Question

I hope this isn't too off-topic. While I'm here, I have a question/comment about HPB. It does give away the ending so avert your eyes if you haven't finished (though if not why are you here instead of reading the book :) ) Anyway, when Harry checks the publication date of Advanced Potions, it is nearly 50 years old. If you generously define nearly as 5 years less then, he is saying it was published in 1951(using Birthday Cake dating). He decides based on this that neither his parents nor their friends could have used the book. This is logical because they entered Hogwarts in 1971 and would have taken potions in 1976. That means if they used the HPB copy, it would have been 25 years old. The problem is the resolution of the mystery. Snape turns out to be the Half-Blood Prince. However, he entered Hogwarts the same year. I understand he is poor but isn't it still really unlikely that he'd be using a 25-30 year old book? Are we to understand it to be inherited from his mother? Even if that's the case, wouldn't that old a book be a hardship? Superm401 | Talk 05:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

He could have easily inherited the book from his mother. The evidence seems to indicate it. EvilPhoenix talk 21:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Would a potions expert like Snape really tolerate a 25-year old book? Superm401 | Talk 01:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Some folks prefer an old book. --Deathphoenix 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The old textbook clearly didn't hamper Snape. Who needs a new textbook when you are doing your own experimentation and virtually writing your own? - Violet Evans 03:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, my thinking was as follows. The book Snape has is bad enough. He wouldn't want to have one that is even more inaccurate(because older). However, I have since found a confirmation that the potion-making book belonged to Eileen Prince near the end of HBP. So, he definitely inherited. Superm401 | Talk 05:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Grindylows and Hinkypunks

Since both grindylows and hinkypunks are creatures from genuine folklore, and not created by JK Rowling, shouldn't they be removed from the Potter beasts lists and given pages of their own?82.45.244.104 09:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of Rowling's beasts and creatures come from traditional folklore and mythology, but she modifies them to fit with her stories, so passing her folklore creatures off as if they were exactly the same as the traditional ones would actually be doing people a disservice, IMO. Her Boggarts, which are a hybrid of the classic folklore boggart (a destructive household spirit) and the bogeyman (a creature that takes the form of one's worst fear), are a perfect example. In fact, in the case of boggarts there are two separate articles on Wiki, one for the classic boggart and one for JKR's boggarts. --Zequist 03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, but the problem is, when you type "hinkypunk" or "grindylow" into the Wiki search engine, all you get are Harry Potter references. Indeed, the grindylow reference claimed that they had been created by JK Rowling. I've been thinking of doing seperate pages for them, but I've been having registration problems.

82.45.244.104 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename?

So anyone up for renaming this WikiProject? I was thinking something along the lines of WikiProject Lord Voldemort. Sound good? Okay then, we'll prepare the move. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know.... Harry has power you know not. I think we'll have it resolved at the end of the next book. Superm401 | Talk 16:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Say that again and I may have the Death Eaters put the Dark Mark over your computer. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I am back, Voldemort! Flee! I will destroy your puny little group before the next book is over! H.J.Potter 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Alastor Moody

I moved Alastor Moody to Mad-Eye Moody. I think we should title articles by their better-known name. I hope I wasn't wrong in doing so. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real style for this; though Mrs Figg is the only other article I see that uses a nickname instead of a proper name. Although Ron Weasley is also a "popular" name, it at least uses a first_name last_name format as opposed to nickname last_name. I'd be inclined to keep it as Alastor Moody, though I won't undo what you did without consensus. Personally, I'd rather see Mad-Eye Moody redirect to Alastor Moody. --Deathphoenix 16:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
WikiPedia:Naming conventions (common names) is all I could come up with. You wouldn't want the article to be William Clinton or James Carter, you would want Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Just something to keep in mind. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
That covers Ron Weasley, but I'm not sure if it covers Mad-Eye. I think (but can be mistaken) that common names are somewhat different to nicknames. See Peewee Herman, which redirects to Paul Reubens. --Deathphoenix 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Mark Twain, etc.? Or what about even the best ever??? I'm not sure it matters for something like this since it's only a book character. I think it should stand at Mad-Eye Moody. It would be nice to hear other people's opinions though. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we can continue citing examples until the cows come home, but yeah, since your edit is fine (my own opinion notwithstanding), there's no harm in waiting for other voices in this discussion. --Deathphoenix 18:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
They both have justifications, and thanks to redirects, it doesn't really matter. I say we keep it however it is now. Superm401 | Talk 21:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think it should stay at Alastor Moody, with a redirect from Mad Eye. EvilPhoenix talk 03:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with User:Evilphoenix --drak2 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again I must point you to WikiPedia:Naming conventions (common names). I think following this it should stay at Mad-Eye Moody, not Alastor "No-one-outside-the-books-calls-me-by-this-name" Moody. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Romilda Vane

I wasn't quite sure what to do with Romilda, because she didn't fit with any of our past minor Gryffindor groupings. We can't put her in "Minor Characters Associated With Quidditch," nor in "Gryffindors in Harry's year," which are the two groups where we've always stuck the minor Gryffindors like Parvati and Oliver. So I simply went ahead and wrote up a separate article for her, even though her character really isn't that significant (we did the same thing with the Creevey brothers, who are also minor but don't fit in the other two groups). But if anyone has any better ideas for where to put her or what to do with her, I'm all ears. --Zequist 19:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe that it is better to remain an individual page. That will save some trouble for billlund, too. ----Mozart2005 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

Doesn't the List of places in the Harry Potter books duplicate the Category:Harry Potter places?

Prongs

Would someone mind adding some info about "Prongs" to James and Lily Potter? I don't think there is anything about James/Prongs in the article. I don't think I will be able to do it, but I thought someone might give it a go. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I tried. Somebody can correct my corrections if necessary --Mozart2005 20:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Name

What is the correct name of the shop? Is it Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes or Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes? Both are mentioned in the article, and I don't have a book handy to check. If it's the second one, the article needs moved. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Latter. Superm401 | Talk 16:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Links to Tom Riddle

Back when we thought we were just going to have Tom Riddle as a redirect page to Lord Voldemort, I changed a ton of links throughout WP from Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort to avoid the redirect. Now that it seems clear we will have both pages, we need to have people change them back. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There definitely shouldn't be separate articles. They are the same person, with the same background, goals, desires, and personality. Any distinction is arbitrary. Superm401 | Talk 18:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well I had thought so too, but after this last book, one could argue that they were truely two distinct characters. Also, some people didn't want a link to Tom Riddle to go to Lord Voldemort, because they thought it was too much of a spoiler. Your thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikicity

How does the Harry Potter Wiki differ from this Wikiproject? H.J.Potter 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the Wikicity will allow original research; i.e. speculation. Superm401 | Talk 18:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a contributor over there, but it's still in "early developmental stages" at the moment; perhaps you could go over there and contact User:Vostok, who, I think, started the wiki, and ask. I do know that directly copying articles from Wikipedia is discouraged. Hermione1980 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mark Evans

We need to move out Mark Evans from Relatives of Harry Potter. He has NO relationships with Harry and there is no point to keep him there. Maybe we should create a "Miscellaneous Characters from Harry Potter" since there isn't enough infomation to create a seperate article. --Mozart2005 20:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

We've already got a massive List of characters in the Harry Potter books. I think that's more than sufficient for nobodies like Mark Evans or Piers Polkiss; I don't see any need to make yet another article or "list of characters" page just for them.--Zequist 00:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Kittens

Somewhere in Wikipedia it is suggested that the kittens in the plates in Umbridge's office may be capable of movement. Well I've just checked in OotP and in one scene they are the only thing (apart from Harry) in the office that moves. But can I find that original paragraph? Of course not...

One presumes that, like photographs, the kittens move magically but aren't really alive. Exploding Boy 23:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Andromeda and Ted Tonks

1. I am not clear if Andromeda Tonks is in the Order. She is put in "Category:Order of the Phoenix".

2. Should Andromeda and Ted Tonks be together, just like James and Lily Potter? Both articles have similar information and they both appear together.

--Mozart2005 00:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

adding a VfD section

I'm adding a section to the project page for articles within the project that come up on VfD, which does happen on occasion. If you find an article that has been nominated for deletion within the project, please add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/VfD. If you feel an article within the project should be deleted, and nominate the article for deletion, also please consider adding a note on this page. All participants in the project, please consider adding the /VfD page to your watchlist, so you will be aware if any articles from within this project are nominated for deletion, and participate in the deletion discussion if you choose. EvilPhoenix talk 05:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Harry_Potter_task_force/Archive_10&oldid=19694120"