Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

The link in the References section to: "Rowling Answers Fans' Final Questions", MSN Entertainment, 2007-07-30. Retrieved on 2007-07-31. is broken. Could someone please fix it? Perhaps the page has moved to a URL or is still accessible via the Wayback Machine - I don't know, I haven't researched it at all. Cheers, ----unforgettableid | talk 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Chronology

There seems to be an error in the chronology section of this (section 1.3).

If Chamber of Secrets takes place in 1992-93, as inferred from Nearly Headless Nick's death date, then the books would have taken place in the following years:

Philosopher's Stone: 1991-1992
Chamber of Secrets: 1992-1993
Prisoner of Azkaban: 1993-1994
Goblet of Fire: 1994-1995
Order of the Pheonix: 1995-1996
Half-blood Prince: 1996-1997
Deathly Hallows: 1997-1998
Deathly Hallows should also go to 2016 (The 19 years later) If this is correct (which it should be unless the books managed to jump a year at some point) then it means Rowling's citation of the date must have been out by a year, and that the final battle actually took place on 2nd May 1998. (N.B. In the ITV documentary referred to, Rowling cited the date as that of Fred Weasely's death, and not the battle, although these are obviously the same, as Fred was killed in the battle.)

I think this is feasable, as I recall reading about JK Rowling saying that she wasn't very good with the maths (I think it was in reference to the Black family tree she released, the dates of which meant people were getting married and having children at funny ages), and I think that this is likely to be what happened in this instance.

Also, the main article on the chronology of the books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_stories (which is referenced at the beginning of the section) cites the date as 1998.

--Wombat18 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the date has been changed to 2 May 1998, however, citing this as what Rowling stated on the documentary is a serious mis-quote. It would be better to either remove the reference to the documentary, or make the conflict between the two dates clear. The latter of these two options would be better, I think, otherwise it is not clear where 2nd May comes from, as it is quite ambiguous in the books. Also, in the previous sentence it states that the main action takes place from 1991 to 1997. I am a new member, so I cannot edit the article, but I suggest something like the following:

Thus, as Harry was a year old at the time of his parents' murders, his year of birth is 1980 and the main action of the story takes place from 1991 (the second chapter of Philosopher's Stone) to 1998 (the end of Deathly Hallows). Interviewed for an ITV documentary broadcast in December 2007, Rowling stated that the final battle with Voldemort's forces takes place on 2 May 1997, however, this would seem to be a mistake, and that the actual date should be 2 May 1998, in fitting with the dates given in Chamber of Secrets and Deathly Hallows.

Or, if the last sentence would count as original research, simply quote Rowling stating the date as 2nd May:

Thus, as Harry was a year old at the time of his parents' murders, his year of birth is 1980 and the main action of the story takes place from 1991 (the second chapter of Philosopher's Stone) to 1998 (the end of Deathly Hallows). Interviewed for an ITV documentary broadcast in December 2007, Rowling stated that the final battle with Voldemort's forces takes place on 2 May.

(N.B. There is still the change from 1997 to 1998 for the year at the end of Deathly Hallows.)
--Wombat18 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

>

Christian Bias

Why is it that changing "The books have been the subject of a number of legal proceedings, largely stemming either from claims by American religious groups" to "The books have been the subject of a number of legal proceedings, largely stemming either from claims by American Christian groups" in the Controversy section makes that section uneditable by anyone else? Some bias in favour of Christianity here, methinks, despite the recent stand-up to Islam.

Note that the $ before "Controversy" is not my fault; Wikipedia enters it when I click Save Page. Stratman07 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not good, you probably want to figure out what's going on. Try the help desk here, and of course try updating your browser software etc. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

…

GA on hold

This article is pretty close to GA. There are a few sections needing references, such as the "Structure and genre" section and the "Games" section. Also, try to get someone from the League of Copyeditors to go through this article's prose. It is a bit choppy in spots. Wrad (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since these things don't seem to have been addressed, I'm failing the article for now. It's really close, though. Hope to see you all at GA soon! Wrad (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection

There is a collection of Disney related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.245.243 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand their research into what? What are the Disney related stories about? Jammy (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Flags Vs Characters

Before this turns into a full scale undo war I think this should perhaps be a debate instead. I completely disagree with the using characters thing as it just looks untidy and stupid. Flags make it much more tidier and neat, why the need to change the flags into characters when they were fine the way they were before? Jammy (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jammy0002 thinking that we should use flags. The Characters thing makes it look untidy.Euge246 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RM - jc37 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. I think the current setup is right. Most people searching for Harry Potter would want to know about the whole series, not just the character. The traffic tool should be used carefully, of course, but it shows (in February) 390,660 requests for Harry Potter compared to 71,682 requests for Harry Potter (character). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Staton (talk • contribs) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Harry Potter" is widely used as the name for the series and in my view is more commonly used to refer to the entire franchise than just the character. Bssc81 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see this as the main article which has spawned (quite rightly) dozens of subarticles (even if this might not have been quite what happened). It makes sense to link the name - associated with both the series and the character - to the most overeaching page. This situation is not unique - for example James Bond is an article about the series rather than the character. Guest9999 (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason for making a switcharoo on these articles. I consider the article on the series the "mothership" and all other articles as sub-articles, including the character. Chandlertalk 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page is an access point to the topic and to related sub topics. It provides a good launch pad. - perfectblue (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I oppose the suggested move. A complex situation to be sure, and Jc37 does make a good argument; however, I feel that most people who search for "Harry Potter" will be looking for information on the series as a whole (as opposed to the character), and therefore the current naming is best. Cheers, faithless (speak) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it makes more logical sense to direct reader towards a franchise page and then to the character page than to direct them to the character page and then on to the franchise page. - perfectblue (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

April Fools?

Is this an April fools, or a serious proposition? Looks like the former to me.

http://firefox.org/news/articles/1351/1/Firefox-News-Exclusive-Information-and-Pics-About-the-Harry-Potter-Anime/Page1.html

perfectblue (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this HPANA post was authored by the mischievous Peeves...I'd label that an April Fools hoax.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Studio YHBT? "You have been trolled"? I'd have thought so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that this is notable enough to be included, it wasn't carried very widely and wasn't published by anybody really notable. It's a good in joke but not part of the wider Potter scene. - perfectblue (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter abbreviated as HP, seems obvious

HP is often used as an abbreviation for Harry Potter. This makes it a valid (and popular) choice for adding to the HP (disambiguation) page. In order to explain that to readers who may not find it obvious, multiple citations for the use of HP as Harry Potter in print have been offered and the notation added to this article. User:Arcayne views the abbreviation as "fancruft", although how the initials of the lead character and the series as "crufty" is not clear. I have talked and talked and talked and talked about it, often prompted when a new editor attempts to add the entry to the dab page, but the same vocal minority have opposed it, and most recently accused me of not using the discussion pages, which seems possibly more ridiculous than objecting to the inclusion in the first place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for coming to the discussion page (after only the second request to do so). Respectfully, again and again and yet again, people have pointed out that Wikipedia is not a Harry Potter fansite.Therefore, the feverish typings of fans that use it to argue the merits of this wand or that aren't really important here, any more than their abbreviation is. As well, the few newspaper headlines that you keep adding have been explained away as shortening Harry Potter as HP for the dual purposes of saving headline space and newspaper ink. In exactly 'none of the citations you have unsuccessfully presented as incontrovertible proof that HP was used throughout the article as an acronym for Harry Potter. At most, they occur once or twice, and not consistently through the article.
We aren't a Harry Potter website or fansite. The fevered acronyms they toss together are not notable. Secondly, the newspaper clipping use HP for Harry Potter incidentally and without any sort of structure or reoccurrence. I know you want to include it so it can go in the HP (dab) page, but ordinary folk do not come to Wikipedia and type in HP with any sane expectation that its going to take them to Harry Potter. However, none of this is new information to you. Nothing has changed since the last three groups found consensus in deciding that the usage wasn't notable for inclusion. If nothing has changed in the cited evidence, why should the results change? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, the citations are not from newspaper headlines but from the text of newspaper articles. The two citations I added most recently had the added attribute of using HP to refer to the Harry Potter series without expanding the abbreviation -- the phrase "harry potter" does not appear anywhere in the article to explain to the reader what HP stands for -- the abbreviation is used, in print, in newspapers, with the knowledge that it is a common-enough, non-fan-crufty abbreviation. Please quote the citations' use of "Harry Potter" anywhere else in the articles. You're right, nothing has changed -- it fit within the guidelines for disambiguation pages then, and it fits now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are entitled to feel that way, J. Perhaps you could bring those hundreds of citations that all use HP as the only descriptor, and nowhere else in the remaining text. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Arcayne. There are sufficient citations the show the point I wish to show already provided, and I am convinced that my humping through another hundred, while doubtless amusing, would not get through your blinders. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I for one am tired of this circular discussion. It is very clear from the myriad times this has been discussed that there next to no chance that this will be resolved by the editors who have discussed this, since apparently both sides are willing to continually add and remove the entry. I request that we get fresh editors in this discussion. (I still agree with Jhunter, for the reasons I stated here.) seresin ( ¡? ) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem should (could) be in adding a Harry Potter link to this page. The purpose of this page is to direct people to what they want. If they want Harry Potter, help them get to Harry Potter. It's not too demanding, not too flashy, and not too absurd. Note especially that HP1 through HP7 all redirect to Harry Potter books. —ScouterSig 04:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne is one of my favorite editors, but I have to disagree with him on this one, provided there are indeed sources in which HP is used to refer to Harry Potter. Would someone mind pointing me in the right direction? faithless (speak) 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[2], Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 10#HP.3F, Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 11#HP again, Talk:HP (disambiguation)/Archive2#FAQ, and Talk:HP (disambiguation)/Archive2#More Harry Potter Discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to those who disagree with me here, the usage of HP as a search term for Harry Potter (as this effort is oblique attempt by JHunterj to add HP as a dab term for Harry Potter) is not notable. For all of the archived (and non-specific) links, none of the actual newspaper clippings actually use HP as the sole identifier for Harry Potter, despite claims. HP is used in newspapers to save space in their articles or headlines, but they are full aware that people, reading the newspaper aren't going to see HP and instantly say, 'oi, dat dere's a sterry 'bout young 'Arry Potter, dat is' , which is why they make sure that the term "Harry Potter" is used repeatedly in the article, so when they use the space-saving measures, no one is confused. The only other group that uses HP as an acronym for Harry Potter are fan forums. We don't cater to forums, fan-based or otherwise. What they consider important is something we don't (and shouldn't) give a fig's worth of concern about.
This drive for inclusion is, on its face, nonsense. No one - no one types in HP in the wiki search and expects to get Harry Potter. They really, really don't. They type in Harry, which leads to a bunch of notable people named Harry (Potter included). A seach for Potter leads to a similar result. These are intuitive searches. HP is not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement about the newspaper clippings not actually using HP as the sole identifier for Harry Potter is false. If you can't be bothered to verify the citation, kindly remain silent on them instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been asked to present those articles which support your position; supply links to those articles that use only HP as an identifier for Harry Potter. You've claimed that you have them, and yet the citations you seem keen to add do not demonstrate that singular substitution of HP for Harry Potter. Have enough good faith to provide hat you have been asked for here. Provide the links of those newspaper clippings that use ONLY 'HP' as the identifier for Harry Potter (and that Harry Potter is noted nowhere else in the article), and we can continue. Otherwise, the usage is less than notable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How many times shall I supply them? These are them. The Edinburgh Evening News uses "Potter" and "HP", but never "Harry Potter". The Observer uses "HP", and neither "Harry" nor "Potter" appears in the text. As I've said, even in the archived discussion. And I'll repeat here, stop making claims about citations you obviously haven't read. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it better to be inclusive on the disambiguation pages? There might not be many searching for HP and trying to get to Harry Potter, but they'll might find out "Oh so a big amount of people use HP as an acronym for Harry Potter, now I have learned a new thing for the day!" There are obviously even newspapers using it. I don't know if this will "persuade" you but if you search "hp book" or "hp movie" @ g0wgle you'll get alot of hits for Harry Potter :) Chandlertalk 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems little point in fighting it when it has been established with citations that HP is used to refer to Hary Potter. We are here to help people not make it harder to find what they want. Include it fgs. Abtract (talk)#
Totally not the correct attitude to take and as someone who has been very active in the fandom I have never heard anyone refer to Harry Potter as HP - ever. The books are occasionally abbreviated here as HP1 - HP7 but that's it. AulaTPN 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds very unlikely you more or less just have to browse a fan news site to find HP used. Chandlertalk 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
One more thing Aula, about your recent edit summary "nobody really refers to him as HP" I don't think its about HP being an acronym for the character, rather the book series. I don't think anyone goes around saying "HP, RW and HG are such good friends" Chandlertalk 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My views on this varies, one I am supportive of the fact that HP is useable, the other is that the abbreviation of HP being used at the very beginning of the article just makes it look untidy. My conclusion on this is that it does after all make the article untidy and that it's best not to be mentioned on the article at all, HP abbreviations are still good redirecting acronoyms but to mention the abbreviation on the article itself is just completely untidy. Jammy (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well yea.. I really don't see the need for the article to start "Harry Potter (HP)", but I would like HP to be linked on the HP disambiguation page Chandlertalk 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the untidiness issue raised by Jammy - it seems specifically constructed to allow for the inclusion of HP as a dab term for Harry Potter, which another editor has been pushing for for months. As yet, we haen't been presented with citations of these newspaper articles that use HP and only HP to replace the usage of Harry Potter. Until I see those, just mentioning them isn't going to do the trick; I'd like to see the citations for myself (as I am sure we all would).
The editor said in a previous post that the internal link there would resolve all our concerns. It does not. Following the links reveals a one-line reference to HP:
"I am well aware that this story would be perfection if I were now to write '... and we've been married for 20 years', but, as HP fans the world over are presumably in the process of finding out, we can't control how the journey ends." 1
It should be pointed out that the newspaper linked (The Guardian) has over 4,600 referencess to Harry Potter. Out of that number, two use the terms 'Harry Potter' and 'HP' within the articles 2. A 1:3600 ratio seems a bit on the weak side, when it comes to inclusion; I'd dare say it would be undue weight to even consider it.
As well, the other citation offered as inarguable proof by the editor renders very little in the way of usable info. HP is used in passing (precisely once), and its in an editorial about JKR3.
Maybe there are better citations out there that use HP as a replacement in an article about Harry Potter. One would think that - given all the time that the editor has had to research this, the best of these citations are two statistically insignificant references and one op-ed piece which included a brief notation about JKR (an not Harry Potter). Barring citation that specifically addresses HP as a notably used substitute, I think we are pretty much done with this topic for now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The citations previously provided fit your request. Note to that they don't have to fit your request. The statement being cited is simply "Harry Potter is sometimes referred to as HP" not "Harry Potter is sometimes referred to as HP even in newspaper articles that do not spell out what the HP is used for within the article". There are 16 hits on a commercial news database for HP and rowling and not harry potter, and 336 for HP and rowling. But the additional hits won't do any more to convince you; your blinders are too powerful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
JHunterj, could I impose upon you to restrict your comments to reflect on the edits and not the editor? You are an admin, so you shouldn't have to be reminded of this common courtesy. In previous edits, you claimed that the links you were providing indicated notable references of Harry Potter as solely HP. My previous post specifically showed that those links didn't really discuss Harry Potter per se and, as these were the preeminent sources presented as conclusive proof, they weren't really notable by themselves. In order to be notable, any presented links "have" to present a usage of HP that replaces or serves as a notable substitute for Harry Potter. My request was designed to prompt links from you that illustrated that notability. They did not. If you are in possession of links that actually fulfill that criteria, I don't think my so-called "blinders" would prevent me from seeing them. I currently don't see the notable proof of your theory, and welcome the opportunity to have you choose a link or three that greater satisfies the criteria for inclusion that Wikipedia (and not I) requires. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's "JHunterJ" (caps on both sides). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, JJunterJ; no slight was intended. I often make lotsa typos. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter abbreviated as HP - arbitrary break

  1. The Harry Potter series is commonly referred to as HP both in fan forums, online websites, and in mainstream press.
  2. Citations abound for the use of HP as Harry Potter, and have been provided both recently and in the archived discussions.
  3. Because of this, Harry Potter should be linked from HP (disambiguation). Many, many editors have attempted to do so, to be reverted by the same few editors.
  4. Acknowledging the use of "HP" can be done in the lead para naturally without looking sloppy (as in My Chemical Romance or John F. Kennedy. If for some reason it is not desired in the lead here, it should be relocated elsewhere in this article, so as to avoid any further issues with the inclusion of Harry Potter on the HP dab page.
  5. Further picayune objections to each round of citations is pointless. Articles that discuss Harry Potter specifically do so by spelling out Harry Potter. Articles that allude to Harry Potter might use HP or Harry Potter or both. All kinds of article citations have been offered, and each time, Arcayne spins it to somehow be invalid, but the claim being cited is simply that the Harry Potter series is sometimes referred to as "HP", which each and every citation bears out. Similarly, articles about Hewlett-Packard can be expected to spell out "Hewlett-Packard", but articles about other things might simply say "HP", and articles about horsepower will spell it out, but other articles might simply allude to "50 hp". There are no policies or guidelines that bear out the restrictions on citations that Arcayne would demand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1: As has clearly been illustrated from the discussion above, we don't cater to fansites; its Wikipedia, not Potterpedia. As well, we have yet to be presented with any mainstream press uses of any notability. Plainly put, HP is not used by mainstream press as a substitute for Harry Potter. Crediting fansites and practically non-existent references for HP as a substitution for Harry Potter border un undue weight.
2: Because of this, it should not be linked from HP (disambiguation). A few contributors repeatedly revert in references to Harry Potter, often without discussion, and certainly without notable sources of its usage outside a fan forum. Many editors maintain that the usage isn't notable or mainstream.
3: The sole reason the editor above wishes to include the acronym here is because there is no consensus for its inclusion in HP (dab). Without wikilinkage, it cannot be added to the dab. Thus, the long-term efforts by the fan editor to include it. Please not that in the examples above, notable instances of the dab exist for both articles.
4: While the above editor would seek to marginalize the opposing view of our notability guidelines and NPOV policy regarding giving undue weight to a "vastly limited minority", the inescapable fact is that HP as a substitution for Harry Potter is not notable. Repeated requests for notable uses fail to present news sources that use HP for Harry Potter as a replacement term with any regularity. For one of the two insufficient sources provided by the above editor, a closer look at the source news site yielded two notations out of over 4,600 references of Harry Potter and HP. The other source provided even less in the way of notability. Note that these two citations were added to the article with the sole effort of forcing inclusion into the dab. Immediately upon adding the citation to this article, the editor immediately added it to the dab.
This cynical abuse of our editing process isn't in keeping with normal, good faith editing. We don't force terms in without adequate citation, and we certainly don't push a minority opinion on our fellow editors. HP is not a notable substitution for Harry Potter, and continuing to fight for it is a violation of our undue weight policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


I'd say leave it off the disambig page. Whether others use it or not doesn't change the fact that no-one is ever going to search for HP on wikipedia in an effort to find info about harry potter (this cannot be said about Hewlett-pachard or horsepower).Yobmod (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe not... But just browse about 10 two or three letter dab pages and there are probably multiple of things, first of all less known than HP for Harry Potter, and less likely to be searched on Wikipedia through.
  • TL - German and Dutch abbreviation for teaspoon (from Teelöffel and Teelepel) <- wtf?
  • EG - Eurogamer, the UK-based gaming website <- Probably only used by it's userbase
  • ES - Enter Sandman, a 1991 song by Heavy Metal band Metallica <- Might be used, though by who?
  • LK - low kick <- Don't know if this is some martial arts term...
  • AW - Adult Webmaster <- wtf?
  • AW - Arsène Wenger, manager of Arsenal F.C. in England <- Maybe it's only Arsenal fans who call him that?
  • BR - Blu-ray Disc, officially abbreviated BD <- So why is it there?
  • HF - Hidden Frontier, long-running Star Trek fan-fiction series. <- Has to be fans only?
  • ABC - American-born Chinese <- Do they really use ABC for that?
  • WE - Winning Eleven, soccer video game <- Ok this I can sorta get.. I call it PES (as its called here), but still I don't know if non-fans/players use it?
  • BA - Well got there and didn't find bad ass... that's the real crime here!
Well could go on and on... but the fact? remains distinguishing pages are very very inclusive, can't see why HP isn't. Chandlertalk 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect, some of the dab pages are the red-headed stepchildren of the article family; they are often crufty and non-notable as hell. Pointing to a hobo's attire to defend a pink, green and chartreuse polyester leisure suit doesn't make the suit any more fashionable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence to anyone involed, but are we really going to keep this up? This arguement has gotten way too heated for its topic. I mean we are dicussing an abrivation for god's sake! This is not productive, not inproving the article and not what Wikipedia should be about.Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I keep thinking the matter concluded before it gets added over there, or someone adds something her to makean argument to have it over there. Seeking a new consensus aside, insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Nothing's changed, let's move on to another topic, shall we? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter as HP - arbitrary break 2

I can see that someone has placed the "Stuck" tag on this section. Therefore, I read through all of the comments. It appears, that HP has been used on Fan Sites, in regards to Harry Potter. Now, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a fan site. However, as I was looking at both sides, I did a quick Google Search with the search terms "HP". The results that I got showed that the first page was basically in regards to Hewlett-Packard, the company, not Harry Potter. I also checked the second page, the same result. This search is here. Although I can see that JHunterJ has stated 1 source for this, I am unable to find any other sources or references stating that Harry Potter can be abbreviated as HP, without the page being a fan site. We a trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a fan site. Therefore, my neutral view is that unless there are references, or sources that don't regard to fan sites stating that Harry Potter is abbreviated as HP, then the page should be left the way it is currently (without the abbreviation). I hope this helps to sort out the disagreement that you seem to be having.

Regards, The Helpful One (Review) 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And having read through User:Thehelpfulone's careful analysis, I agree with his comments. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In the case that HP is not "allowed" to be linked from the HP dab page, isn't it time to remove stuff like SW - Star Wars, ST - Star Trek/Starship Troopers and all these abbreviations only used by fans. Chandlertalk 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but be surprised that after claiming you read the above, you proceed to claim that only one source has been provided. If you had read the entire discussion, you would see many. See Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 10#HP.3F, Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 11#HP again, and here, all of which were linked. As for your argument about the google search, shouldn't, by your logic, Hewlett-Packard be the only thing on the disambig page? (Which, by the way, is what this discussion is really about). seresin ( ¡? ) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on Thehelpfulone's talk page, pointing out the four newspaper citations offered so far and the 300+ others turned up in a commercial news database, aside from the Google hits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys! Sorry for getting back so late - I'm on a Wiki Break. Anyways, I did a Google News search, here and noticed that it is actually used, by various people. Looking at this, and the above user's comments including Chandler's - it appears that only 1 user doesn't agree to the abbreviation. Feel free to comment if I am incorrect however. I suggest, that if more than 1 user disagrees, then we have a vote, to decide if it should be abbreviated. If not, then if everyone is in agreement, go ahead an add the abbreviation back on! I hope that we can get this dispute sorted out, so that we can get onto to improving the article, to FA (if the GA passes) or GA, if improvements are required. Have a great day everyone! The Helpful One (Review) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the point that my colleagues keep failing to add is that HP is never - I repeat, never used as a substitution for Harry Potter in any newspaper or reliable source. Does it use it to shorten matters in articles about Harry Potter (to save column inches trimmed out during "budget" the time when the newspaper is finalized by editors, or simply to save ink)? Sure. Does it ever exist all on its lonesome, and therefore qualifying for inclusion based on its actual notable usage? Nope. Not even in the only two (and not four as claimed) articles that JHunterJ brought here after repeated requests. Those articles were barely even about Harry Potter.
Note how I didn't even go into how Google-bombing and other similar types of manipulation rather invalidate (or at least call into question) fan-sourcing. Nor did I go into how there aren't that many rabid fans of hire purchase or horsepower, but the term exists even in those mediums to refer to the relative power of a mechanical device. The key point he is cui bono, or who benefits? Not the readership at large, since HP hasn't appeared anywhere that meets our notability requirements for inclusion. Those people terrified over mistaking a fictional boy from a mostly British sauce? Or, might it be the fan base, who considers the Potter phenomena itself to be so notable that All Things Potter deserve addressment here in Wikipedia? I am thinking - as I have for months - it might just be the latter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
What you don't ask is, "Who benefits by not including it?" My answer to that would be "No-one". Abtract (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, Abtract. Arcayne, I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again, please stop making false statements about citations you haven't read. This revision cites two of the 16 uses I found of HP all on its lonesome. (And no surprise, the articles that use it all on its lonesome, without spelling out "Harry Potter", are not about Harry Potter, but allude to the series when discussing something else). This revision cites two different uses of 300+ I found without excluding ones that use it all on its lonesome, one headline and one main text. 2 + 2 = 4. No fan-sourcing, no other problems. So it is, I repeat is, used as an abbreviation in many newspapers, which are reliable sources. You can raise objection as to why they would use the abbreviation (saving ink or whatever), but they don't change the fact that the abbreviation is in use. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) Actually, you are both incorrect, The encyclopedia benefits from not having it in, as we cannot provide (or at least, not as of yet) notable citation that utilizes HP as a notable substitution for Harry Potter. Atleast, of all the citations that have been presented, only two even use HP all by its lonesome, and both appear in editorials. If more exist, the editor swearing that he has notable uses of HP used solely as a substitution for Harry Potter, and therefore notable as disambiguating term, I invite him - once again - to provide them. Don't point to the archives and say 'it's there', because I've benn 'there', and none of the cites (nowhere near "300" as one rather bizarrely and emphatically claims) constitute notable uses in accordance with our policy. It's less a matter of 2+2 equalling four; instead, its more a matter of being 0+0 still equalling zero.
Google hits don't warrant it, either, especially when considering the ways that search engines can be manipulated to skew the perceptions to make notability = results. No one has offered any sort of referential material to that says, to whit, that there's no tampering going on.
I realize that this discussion has grown tedious, but this is akin to fighting like mad to include 'PH' as a dab term for Paris Hilton, when the only folk who really use it are people using ShortSpeak to get their point across, or the rabid fans who follow/discuss/obsess in forums over her every move. What;s next, we include Potter fanfic? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this mountain of crap debate should be at Talk:HP (disambiguation) not here, but since we're generating more heat than light, it's a good thing. Let the Harry Potter fans pollute their own talk page.
If the goal is to be as inclusive as possible, then the page HP (disambiguation) should include Harry Potter, but it should also include Heath Phillips and several others. It's true that inevitably someone will read "HP" in some fan blog, then look on Wikipedia to determine what it is, but WP shouldn't cater to semiliterate bloggers.
Listing Harry Potter on the page causes a bit of harm by bloating the page, while doing a bit of good for the semiliterate users. Both these effects are so infinitesimal that they pale in comparison to the effort expended in the debate above. This comes down to damage control. Arcayne, give it a rest, let the fans have their way. It's not worth fighting. See also MJ and JKR.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not prepared to let the fans win. It isn't Potterpedia just yet. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The change of Harry Potter to note the use of "HP" as an abbreviation should be discussed here. The inclusion of an entry for "Harry Potter" on HP (disambiguation) should be (and has been) discussed at Talk:HP (disambiguation). And actually, Arcayne, you are incorrect. Notable citations have been provided for its inclusion, and you have not provided any citations that contradict them -- if you disagree with my use of 300, how many news hits do you get when you check? By all means, do your own news searches and stop demanding that other editors do the legwork beyond the initial citation until it has reached whatever arbitrary level of satisfaction you've got in mind. No one else is buying your objections to the provided citations. It is still Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, Paris Hilton the person and Harry Potter book series and really be compared in this case. But rather compare it to other book or movie series who have their abbreviation on dab pages сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You make a bold assumption that those in favour of inclusion are fans ... I for one have read none of the books and seen none of the films. I see you make no attempt to answer my question above, "Who benefits by not including it?" to which I add, "What harm is there in adding it?" This seems to me to be a simple case of ego vs common sense. Abtract (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec')Actually, what JHunterJ neglected to mention is that it cannot be added to dab w/out consensus here first, which is why he's gone through various methods to get it in (if there were a Potter merit badge out there, J has certainly earned it).
Of course it can, and has, with consensus there to do so. If there were an anti-dab merit badge, A has certainly earned it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As well, maybe I am missing something here; is JHunterJ suggesting he has actually brought three hundred citations referencing HP as a sole substitution for Harry Potter in an article? I haven't seen them; I've only seen two, though they were pretty weak and weren't even in the same postal code as notable. I am not asking anyone to do any legwork. I am asking JHunterJ to do the legwork if he wants to prove his point and am curious as to why he would balk at providing something that he has 300 of, unless the rest of these are like his last two citations were pretty unsat by any standard. I've stated clearly what is required of policy and guidelines for inclusion.
In articles that use HP as an acronym, the more popular ones don't even need explanation. In most articles that discuss mechanical performance, the acronym Hp for horsepower is used. Rarely if ever is horsepower ever mentioned. Likewise, Hewlett Packard almost never needs to be spelled out in even general discussions about technology or computers. Even comparatively minor uses of HP, like Health Points or Hit Points in gaming are almlost never spelled out beyond HP. This is why those terms are in the dab for HP - they are so often used as acronyms (even outside their traditional milieu) that their usage is almost immediately understood - without referencing the actual term. Pose the same HP acronym in literature, and 9 times out of 10, you are going to get HP Lovecraft. Unless you search a fan forum, you aren't going to find any sole usage of HP as a replacement term for Harry Potter. And, as has been said here umpteen times before, they are not reliable or notable as to content.
These are the rules. I didn't write them,b ut I sure as hell am going to make sure they are followed. If someone wants to change notability, the Village Pump and the policy discussions are thattaway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Abstract, I thought that asking the inverse of my question was a rather clear semantics or logic game, much like making an argument that you are utterly unaware of Potter related media. I have little time for either. The short answer to your question of who benefits by not including it - is the encyclopedia itself. Keeping out that info which relies on faddish trends allows us to actually maintain our neutrality, By not giving the fanclubs their inch of recognition, we are saying that we keep ourselves to a higher standard than some crappy fanfic/flamewar/PotterNite Snack Guide compendium. It says we are above that sort of nonsense. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But can you not see that the majority of editors disagree with you? Frankly, your arguments are of little account, smacking of "rules rule ... oh and btw I am the arbiter of the rules". You have been kind enough to offer me good advice (twice) so I will return the favour - let it go. :) Abtract (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not claim to have "brought" 300 citations. I claim to have brought four, which is more than sufficient, from a pool of 300+ found in a news search. As I said before, Arcayne, if your news searches are finding more or less than 300 (perfectly possible, given the different sources that different news databases will include), let's hear it. My searches were for "hp and rowling" and "hp and rowling and not harry potter". If you'd like to know the counts or have a citation from another formulation, but don't have access to a news database other than Google (which you seem to distrust), let me know and I'll give you the counts and the details of a couple of the hits too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I will ask - yet again - do you have a citation that speaks to the criteria above? If yes, provide it. If no, realize that it isn't notable enough for inclusion. It isn't a brain bender, and I'd remind you that I am not the one one extending this li'l adventure into crufty triviality month after month. Talk about your forum-shopping. And if the idea of 'rules rule' - by which I mean the rules that govern how we edit in Wikipedia - bother you, the Extra-Large Helping of Anarchy can be found thattaway. I personally find no shame in more narrowly interpreting the policies we use, and favor discussion. The reasons I have enumerated above dovetail with the policies and guidelines.
Precisely none of the 4 citations and 300 search results (only now are they search results; before, they were citations) you keep exhorting about meet that criteria. Your Google search is not the same as research, and with result manipulation a known factor, you will forgive me if I expect you to actually produce a citation or two that meet the criteria specified not just twice above but in our own guidelines as well. Perhaps you missed the actual content of my last post, and just hit reply immediately because I had posted. My reasons are sound, and - with respect - you can wishfully think that HP is notable as a substitute for Harry Potter, but it very simply isn't. Consensus doesn't override policy. Policy says no. Your alternative at this point is to seek a change in policy, since we do not include non-notable terms in articles, including dab articles. However, you could point out where it says in policy that we do.
I will await any of the 4-300 notable references. Until you can present a citation that shows a notable usage of HP as a notable substitution for Harry Potter (as described clearly above not once but many times), it is not within our policies or guidelines to include it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The four citations presented are notable, and I have not presented a Google search. Precisely two of the four (and 16 or so of the 300+) meet the criteria you keep exhorting (but which are not in the guidelines) for using HP as a sole substitution for Harry Potter in an article. I am not sure why you insist they don't, but since you won't bother reading those, you will forgive me if I don't type up more. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know this is going to sound somewhat harsh, and I phrase it as such only because I have asked five different times now: what part of present your citations here is difficult for you to understand? Take these wacky, heretofore unknown citations that meet the criteria that I've noted, and put them right after this post. Was I speaking Ubbi-Dubbi or something? Bring it here, and be evaluated. Bring it not, and begone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It does sound harsh, but only towards you since the citations have been presented over and again. Talk:Harry Potter#Here are the citations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am formally asking you to present the four citations that you say unequivocally proves your point. I have seen two (they weren't at all notable), and I have not seen these other two, and do not know what you are taking about. If you are unable or unwilling to present them, then say so. Please stop stalling. Provide the requested citations, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two revisions there. Each revision has two citations. Each citation is perfectly notable (unless you have a specific notability guidelines you can cite that contradicts that, not just your personal opinion of them). If you are unable or unwilling to read them, then say so and stop your badgering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) While I am unclear as to the reticence of the other editor to present the oft-repeated request for citaiton, the citations themselves do not demonstrate a notable replacement of the name 'Harry Potter' with the acronym 'HP'. Of the four requested citations, one (from The Atlanta Constitution) doesn't appear to be linked correctly and couldn't be found through a cursory search, and the other three references barely reference Harry Potter or HP. At all. And in no case does the acronym actually notably serve as a replacement for the term.
As I think that a fairly important part of this discussion was overlooked, I will point out again that in articles that use HP as an acronym, the more popular ones don't even need explanation. In most articles that discuss mechanical performance, the acronym Hp for horsepower is used. Rarely if ever is horsepower ever mentioned. Likewise, Hewlett Packard almost never needs to be spelled out in even general discussions about technology or computers. Even comparatively minor uses of HP, like Health Points or Hit Points in gaming are almlost never spelled out beyond HP. This is why those terms are in the dab for HP - they are so often used as acronyms (even outside their traditional milieu) that their usage is almost immediately understood - without referencing the actual term. Pose the same HP acronym in literature, and 9 times out of 10, you are going to get HP Lovecraft. Unless you search a fan forum, you aren't going to find any sole usage of HP as a replacement term for Harry Potter. And, as has been said here umpteen times before, they are not reliable or notable as to content.
These are the rules. I didn't write them, but I sure as hell am going to make sure they are followed. If someone wants to change notability, the Village Pump and the policy discussions are thattaway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
While it's unclear why you can't see the revisions with the citations you keep asking for over and over again, other than your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, what is not reliable about the sources? "Using the abbreviation all on its lonesome" doesn't appear in the guidelines for reliable sources or for notability, nor does "not in an editorial". What notability says is "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." Four newspapers cited. In two of the cases, the acronym actually notably serves as a replacement for the term without expansion. In the other two, the acronym actually notably serves as a replacement for the term with expansion. If you cannot find the AJC article through a cursory search, perhaps a non-cursory search is in order. Your local library might be able to help you locate it if you don't have access to a full news database. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps it would now be a good idea to bring in some sort of external mediation on this. You could start at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and if that isn't official enough for you, try Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I recommend this because the discussion is, as I see it, going nowhere at the moment. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, I am sorry, my issue was not that 'I don't like it'; and I am terribly sorry you were under the misguided impression that such was my reasoning. Perhaps if you had actually read my posts, you might have been able to suss that out. As for the 'all by its lonesome' argument, HP by itself is not notable as a substitution for the name Harry Potter. As I explained before, notability is a criteria for dab inclusion. Its the reason we include hp for horsepower or hit (or health) points. The substitution is notable (there's that word again) enough to stand 'all by its lonesome' without the disambiguation. Harry Potter is not notably known as HP outside a fan forum.
I thank you for pointing me towards RS. As I've been here for more than a year, I think I can safely say I know that particular policy really well. Perhaps that is part of the problem with what I see as your either disconnect or intransigence with this issue. It has less to do with RS than it does with notability (watch, that term will keep coming up). Of course, we don't select from unreliable sources, but you are (or should be) aware that we further refine those results as notable and non-notable.
As well, I did read up on dab pages back when this first started, and know that the citation process isn't for inclusion but instead as a measure of notable (that word again, eh?) usage. It was the reason I repeatedly asked you for something - anything - that showed the notability (that word keeps coming up, doesn't it?) of HP being used to refer to Harry Potter - you know, like the lesser known terms horsepower, or hit points, or hire purchase or even HP sauce. Every single one of those terms are notable replacements - ie, known to be substitutions for the longer term in general conversation - for the unabbreviated term. Harry Potter doesn't meet that criteria. I actually wanted you to find something that did, as it would justify the inordinate amount of time you have wasted on this trivial matter. More's the pity you were unable to do so.
And thus far, you've managed to exhaust just about every single sly boots trick to get it included and you still don't have a consensus for inclusion. Tell you what: let's go to mediation or DR on this, 'coz you have not introduced a single shred of info that points to a notable use of HP as Harry Potter. Without it, I am not going to be convinced, and I am not going anywhere.I am here to follow the policies and guidelines, and enforce them as best I can. You, on the other hand have already been blocked for edit-warring the term and 3RR. If you are ready, we can retire tis topic to the HP dab page and have a mediator put it to rest. As you haven't been and aren't likely to find a consensus for its inclusion in this article, its best not to waste space here any more. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh. Great minds think alike, Lilac Soul. That's what I was suggesting when I was caught in the edit conflict. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I am reviewing Harry Potter. It will take a couple of days to read and offer a review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot in advance! --The Helpful One (Review) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Reflecting on the GA criteria, this article is clearly satisfactory and a decent article. This article passes GA as is. However, the article could do with a further copy edit. I hope you attempt to take this article to FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if the ArticleHistory is suppose to be updated, though I've never done it so I don't know how2 сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been automatically updated by a bot! :) --The Helpful One (Review) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

World War Two connections

I'm I the only one who thinks that there should be a section on this? I mean, the whole series is a allegory to the second world war and JK has admitted it. I think this is a big part of the series and should be inclueded. Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes... I think its mentioned under Politics of Harry Potter Chandlertalk 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is actually linked in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea I know, found it here. Though I was hidden, I needed too use my special detective powers Chandlertalk 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The JKR admissions are fairly recent, so perhaps this should be stated here more clearly, such as "JK Rowling has acknowledged that real persons and politics during WWII inspired certain characters and events in the Harry Potter series. See also' Politics of Harry Potter." Libertycookies (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The citations

Since they have apparently gotten lost in the shuffle, Talk:Harry Potter#Here are the citations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parodies

With the massive success of the Harry Potter series, there have been many parodies based on the movies and books circulated through the internet on such websites as Youtube. Many television shows and individuals have created their own parodies, some of these include:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0o_J5QzQs3g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYjUWSfj7fE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZZWxN6W6DM
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagan73 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Automatic Peer Review

Hi there! I've done an automatic peer review - of some tasks that need to be completed if we want to get this article to FA. Please feel free to chip in as much or as little as you want to!

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter/Archive_12&oldid=1136787409"