Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

diagon alley?

where should I put that Diagon alley is a pun on diagonally? MidKnightHunter (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That can happen, but it needs to be included in a broader subsection on wordplay within the "Structure and genre" section. However, this wordplay would need to be authoritatively sourced! The speculations of a fansite wouldn't count. Serendi^podous 18:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

can any body tell that if there exists any relation between real life mechanical engineer james harry potter and fictitous character harry potter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.18.209 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Serendi^podous 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement needs correction - 20 highest grossing films

There is a statement, with an external reference, in the Adaptation section of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Adaptations) that states all five films are on the top 20 grossing films of all time. A reference is provided. According to the reference, Prisoner of Azkaban is now #21 due to The Dark Knight's recent release. I can not correct this due to the article being locked. 70.105.7.112 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed :0) And thanks for flagging it. Serendi^podous 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorect Statement

Under translations section: "The series has been translated into 65 languages,[2][58] placing Rowling among the most translated authors in history."

It has in fact been translated into 67 languages, which is stated in the introduction and in the citations. I can not correct because of the semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triscut (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple names Name

The name of the first book is listed as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" But was published in the US and Canada as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" some note should be made under the links to the books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.123.207 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I noticed this page is semi-protected. I would like to do so with a page that keeps getting hit by vandals. Can someone get back to me--How do I semi-protect a page or submit a request for a mod to do so?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

You go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Serendi^podous 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

List

The only list of the books is to the right column. Can it be included elsewhere in the article? 24.192.75.54 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel it's necessary to repeat the information? (Also, the books are listen again in the template at the bottom of the article.) faithless (^speak) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dated musical information

Hello everyone. I'd just like to bring your attention to the short paragraph at the end of the "Adaptations" section. It states the musical will begin in 2008. Well, did it happen? Or was it delayed, or altogether canceled? The two given sources don't have any follow-up information on the topic, and a quick Google search turned up nothing useful. Either way, the paragraph needs to be updated. I haven't heard anything about the musical, but I live in the US. Perhaps someone in England, especially London, knows something more? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 07:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

correction to summary

The summary ends with the statement that Harry kills Voldamort. Actually, Voldamort is killed by his own backfiring spell, ironically repeating the incident that began the series. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The summary lists Delores Umbridge as the Director of Hogwarts, but her position title is actually "High Inquisitor of Hogwarts." Myerstudent2 (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

£7 billion equals $15 billion??

In the lead, it says that the brand is worth £7 billion or $15 billion. I don't believe that £7 billion equals $15 billion. Isn't it more like $10 billion? Professor Davies (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The exchange rates have changed in the last years yes.. There's no reference there right now... which should really be fixed, and not use multiple currencies. chandler ··· 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixt. Aaronomus (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Semi-Protected

I added a sentence at the beginning which states that the whole idea of the school of witchcraft and sorcery is not original of Rowling and making authors like Jill Murphy and Jane Yolen to critisize the series. Look for that here at Wiki, you don't have to search for other sources (copy/paste the ref on the other articles) the reason I am saying this is because many people think that Hogwarts is the first and only magic school and that is pretty much like thinking Bram Stoker invented the vampires, in the article of Dracula it states that of not being invented by Stoker, why not to state the school idea wasn't invented by rowling??? PS: Sorry for grammar, me-not-american lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.147.73 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Me not American either. Why do we need to say it isn't an original idea of Rowling's? Themes tend to persist through literature. If people incorrectly think that Hogwarts was the first magic school, it's not up to us to correct them, otherwise that's probably all we'd end up doing. Rodhullandemu 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article on the subject; Harry Potter influences and analogues. Serendi^podous 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A negative statement like that doesn't belong in the lead (an by negative I don't mean a criticism, I mean a statement that 'such-and-such is not true'). As User:Rodhullandemu says, we'd have to say a lot of things like that; that Rowling didn't invent spells, or broomsticks, or wizards living hidden in society, or hippogriffs... well you get my point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Stamp picture

A user recently removed the image of the HP stamps in the infobox, claiming, "use of non-free stamp image to illustrate the subject fails WP:NFC#Images and does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic". I disagree. What better way to illustrate a book series than by showing the covers of said books? In such cases (i.e. when the images are not free), it is better to use a single image showing multiple items than using multiple (in this case seven) different images to illustrate the same thing. Furthermore, the stamps help the reader understand the cultural importance/impact of the Harry Potter series - after all, not many book series receive such an honor. For these reasons, I believe that the image meets the non-free image criteria, as well as deepening the reader's understanding of the topic. faithless (^speak) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, procedurally, it passed WP:GA with those images, so one would assume WP:NFCC wasn't a troublesome issue to its reviewers. It wouldn't have passed without a sufficient WP:FUR. Rodhullandemu 20:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree chandler ··· 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WP:NFC#Images clearly states: Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. The use of this image is being used to identify the subject of the article so is contrary to, and fails the criteria so must be removed. Sorry but you are wrong even if you think the stamp image does contribute to the a reader's understanding of the topic it contravene the guidelines. I am going to retag the image as a dispute fair-use rational for now. You may want to familiarise yourself with the following: WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Images, and this FAQ too. You cannot assume that because it passed GA with the image in use that its use is proper. The GA editor may not have been familiar with the nuances of non-free image use criteria which this image fails. ww2censor (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to bring this to Non free content talk page where this type of issue get discussed by people who understand the issues. I suspect that a book cover would likely be more acceptable than a stamps. ww2censor (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just submitted an online request to Royal Mail for permission to use these images, and if it is successful, will forward to OTRS. I'll even pay the fee myself. Rodhullandemu 20:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Philosophers stone?

Why are we using the british name for the book,instead of the American name???i feel it should be changed to sorcerers stone--Aldamira (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Convention (e.g. as with Beatles' albums) is to stick with the original title of publication (which was in England) and have a redirect for title variations in subsequent publications (which we do). Rodhullandemu 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So that would apply to the books, but not to the films. 68.115.83.140 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the films were realeased in Britain first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.28.139 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Released in Britain but certainly not British films. 68.115.83.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

J K Rowling wrote the novel in Britain, the film was British, the sales are British. She is British! It was only in North America it was Sorcerer's Stone. Get over it. Anneboleynofheads (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that Harry Potter is British and not American, so the proper British name should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.186.116 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

date harry potter begins

i was just recently reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when i came to realize that Harry Potter was born in 1980...i had never known this despite my reading the series many times...would that be something of interest to include somehwere in the article? if so, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.76.146 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC it's in Harry Potter. --Philcha (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's the whole Chronology of the Harry Potter series article as well. chandler • 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I was looking for a section on inconsistencies, I was rereading some of the books and noticed one (see below), and thought there should be a section that lists them out (I know there's more). I know there's a section about it in the chronology article, but no general.

In book one when Harry is talking to Voldemort, in the room with the mirror hiding the philosophers stone, Voldemort says that Harry's father put up a good fight (and then that he's mother needn't have even died). Yet in book seven when Harry and Hermione escape from Nagini in Godric's Hollow, Harry falls into Voldemort's mind and the scene is replayed, Voldemort laughs before killing James over the fact that he "hadn't even picked up his wand" (Symo85 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

That would constitute original research, and probably wouldn't be allowed. Serendi^podous 10:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe (shock, horror) Voldemort was lying! DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A real inconsistency is in the fourth book when Harry's father appears before Harry's mother during prior incantatum, implying that Harry's mother died first, though it's revealed that Harry's father died first.

Protection

When and Why was this article protected? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here. WHy not ask the protecting admin? Rodhullandemu 01:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because not everyone has time to crawl through pages of history to find the protecting admin. Thanks for the link, I think I'll wait until after the new movie comes out, the page would have likely had an upspike in vandalism anyway. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed - 20 highest grossing films

Since Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is now released and in the top 20 highest grossing films, the statement should be changed from "four out of five" to "five out of six" Kappalex (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jusdafax (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Titles of the books

I made a list of Harry Potter books. If Hermione were about, I should like to hand it round to her. Some real-life readers might also like seeing the list. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What about redirecting it to List of Harry Potter related topics? It's got the same information, although I think your sentence or two would be a good improvement. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

People should see the American brand-new covers. They are so much better and easier to see, also Wiki should criticize the movies, they are an insult to the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Someone needs to fix the vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_potter (the redirect page with a lowercase P on "Potter"). I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.238.114 (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Female fantasy writer

I'm not sure if the "offense" lay in labeling Ursula Le Guin as female or in suggesting that her subject matter concerns females or may be of particular interest to female readers.

• the "awareness of the female character," which has become such a force in Le Guin's own tales.
• "I still hear," says Vonarburg, "from a number of young or less young female readers what I myself have been saying for years: 'I came back to reading SF because of Le Guin."' [1]

Considering how few women there are in the science fiction writing business, I personally (as a reader) would like to be aware of any writing which comes from a perspective other than that of men and/or their stereotypical interests. I daresay most sci-fi has targetted the adoloscent boy, but the Harry Potter series seems to be equally interesting to boys and girls, so the mention of Le Guin could be relevant here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, which is why it should be mentioned on her page. In terms of Harry Potter, however, and her less-than-positive review of the book, the fact that she is a she has no value whatsoever. It doesn't matter what sex she is or what gender she identifies as - that has no weight on her opinions. Drawing attention to the fact that she's female should neither serve to raise the value of her words (what you suggest is occuring) nor decrease their value (what the anonymous editor suggests is happening). To quote a line from Hot Fuzz, "She's not a policewoman, she's a police officer. Being a woman has nothing to do with it." To draw attention to a perceived "difference" or "otherness" out of context is easily perceived as offensive. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading your suggestion, I truncated the link to Le Guin. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to observe that in the 1970s Ursula Le Guin wrote an excellent fantasy novel (WIZARD OF EARTHSEA) that involves a boy at a wizards' school, and is probably comparing Rowling's ideas to her own. Unlike Rowling, she invents a "theory of magic" to explain how it works, and a clearer ethical code about its use.CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you TRYING to ruin the beauty of Harry Potter book's magic, because I just love the fact it's so unpredictable and strange, making a THEORY completely ruins it, I mean is there a theory for LIFE? Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

About the fifth book, in the section 1 (Plot):

"An important prophecy concerning Harry and Voldemort is revealed,[17] and Harry discovers that he and Voldemort have a painful connection, allowing Harry to view some of Voldemort's actions telepathically."

Although the prophecy implies a connection between He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Harry, such connection is not responsible for allowing Harry to view the Lord's thoughts. The horcrux is. And even if you consider the horcrux is mentioned in the prophecy, Harry did not discover it (by hearing the prophecy).

If you agree... Can somebody change it, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliz.rhf (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What was the box called?

The thing in the box that depended on who opened it to be what it was --usually scary. What was it called. I'm trying to refer to it in another article. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A boggart. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Right on! Thank you. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace image

This image shows someone's collection of the seven British books, but this has already been shown in the infobox. Also, the books are somewhat tattered looking and makes the article look just a touch less professional than it could be (no offense to original uploader of course). I couldn't find any suitable replacement in a quick Commons search (plenty of images of volume size comparisons though!). The image does break up the article though, so it'd be nice to replace it with something. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

YES YES YES I am so glad someone caught that, the American covers are so much neater, you can even use Google Images and get great photos, I would change it but I don't know how!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1st title in Harry Potter series...

I see the first title in the Harry Potter series listed as 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.' I thought it was the Sorcerer's Stone...216.214.105.222 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) LA Cain

No, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". The USA publisher changed it for the USA edition, which came later. See the details in the article. --Philcha (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would they change a perfectly fine title like that. Wait a second, the actual story wasn't changed was it?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No the story wasn't changed. The story goes that the American public wouldn't read anything to do with philosophers, and wouldn't know what the philosophers stone was. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Theme Park

can we get some more specific information? that reads as if it was just copy/pasted from Universal's website. does anyone know WHEN it actually opens? will it be part of the Universal Studios, or will it be a seperate park like Islands of Adventure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.188 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit page notice for Harry Potter related articles?

Hi! I see that many Harry Potter related articles get edited to "correct" the spelling when it was already good... but in British english. I would like to add a page notice to these articles. I know I can be bold and do it right away(I have the rights), but I can opinion on this. I would add the following banner to those articles :

Does anybody have any comment on this banner, or would like me to add anything else that would be needed? (maybe a "canon-law" for the Spell in Harry Potter article?) Please reply. --Stroppolo^talk 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't emphasize the "ize"/"ise" dichotomy, because the page to which you refer doesn't mention it. My Concise Oxford Dictionary (1985 edition) doesn't draw that distinction; furthermore, Eric Partridge in "Usage and Abusage" (Penguin Reference Edition) states

"Fowler, in Modern English Usage has an admirable article on the subject. The following summary rule is based on the OED's article (at -ize): You will be safe if you make every verb, every derivation noun or participial adjective, conform to the -z type, for this suffix comes, whether direct or via Latin or French, from the Greek -izein : to employ -ise is to flout etymology and logic

I don't know where this idea has arisen that -ise is UK spelling and -ize is US, but as far as I can see, it's just incorrect. Otherwise, a great idea. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is incorrect for the -ize thing. I'm french as a first language, and I use both english spellings in a mixed way. As for where it is explained, you can find it here : American and British English spelling differences. I could replace the link with this one. This editnotice was pre-made, I simply adapted it. It can easily be corrected. So I would remove the -ize/-ise. Maybe replace it with -our/-or like in colour/color? (I personally think an example would be useful.) What do you think about this? --Stroppolo^talk 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And what about something like "We use the original titles in this article. Please do not change Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone..."? --Stroppolo^talk 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; I think colour/color would be a better example since it seems standards are in flux for -ise/-ize and not universally agreed. I also think it's a great idea to highlight Philosopher's/Sorcerer's, not that some editors would respect it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so here is what I'll put as an edit notice. It can be changed anyway if needed.

And for the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's warning :

I will begin rolling out the British edit notice tonight, but I'll wait for the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's warning just to be sure that I'm not making a blatant mistake that I've not seen.--Stroppolo^talk 17:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note! Your "therefor" needs an 'e'. Therefore :) --AycliffeAngel (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What was that Ralph Waldo Emerson quote about "a foolish consistency"? Nevertheless, it's probably better that we get it right. Thanks for pointing this out, and I'm sure it will be taken on board; that's that nature of draft proposals, in that they are not set in stone. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected "Therefore". What do you think of the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's warning? Would is be usable or would it need more explanation? --Stroppolo^talk 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, User:Stroppolo - I'm sick of reverting the language and title issues.

In the "title" banner, I suggest Philosopher's Stone withto Sorcerer's Stone. Use of prepositions is also difficult for non-native users, I've had the same as a Brit user of French (long ago). --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the philosophers/sorcerers warning as it clears up any confusion yes. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected "Philosopher's Stone withto Sorcerer's Stone". I will implement it on the article where it is most needed as soon as time permits me... which leaves time for others to comment. --Stroppolo^talk 14:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the link about British English and it only covers spelling, while editors also need to avoid traps in vocabulary (see list in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) and grammar (e.g. Br "got" and US "gotten").

I also think the title issue produces as much trouble as the British English one, and the 2 issues should be in the same level of "paragraph". Since one of these has to be placed first and the 2nd in the edit notice, I proposed to bold the key words to warn editors that there are issues to avoid. See Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Somone fix this

Can someone please add that Neville Longbottom was also one of Harry's best friends? Thanks.

ILOVEWillT (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

On the introduction it reads "There is also many other themes in the series, such as love and prejudice." It should read "There are also many other themes in the series, such as love and prejudice".

Spelling

Under "Awards and honours" Honors should be capitalized and spelled H-O-N-O-R-S--Drstand09 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The capitalisation is standard, the spelling is UK English - see WP:ENGVAR -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception section not grasping mood

Harry Potter has been extremely well received but there is an odd emphasis on negative criticism rather than positive criticism in the reception section. The three sub-sections all have a negative focus. In fact, if the series wasn't well known then it would be assumed from reading this page that the books were poorly received and little appreciated and that's not the case.

Why are the sources so selective? Even generally positive reviews have only had negative comments quoted from them, leading to the impression that the series was critically panned. This section doesn't indicate almost any positive reviews about the books and places too much focus on negativity. Vision Insider (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Director's Cut"

JK Rowling mulls 'director's cut' of Harry Potter books. Jmj713 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Error for the amount of books sold? Why isn't anyone addressing this?

In the 2009 Guinness World Records Harry Potter has sold 519 Million Books, Philosophers Stone: 120 Million, Chamber of Secrets: 77 Million, Prisoner of Azkaban: 61 Million, Goblet of Fire: 66 Million, Order of the Phoenix: 55 Million, Half-Blood Prince: 65 Million and Deathly Hallows 75 Million, and that was recorded in 2009, so now it should be 600 Million or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanneAttinwoord (talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that says they have sold over 600 million copies then yes we should update. What we do not do is assume that it has breached that based on sales up to 2009. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Source found?

Would Guinness World Records 2009 be a sufficient source for Harry Potter having sold 519 Million copies? As it has all reliable information for all the books sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.109.198 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be a perfect source GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Themes: Christianity

I would suggest adding to the 'themes' section in light of this interview and article in the leading UK broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

"J.K. Rowling has also stated that Christian allegory is a key theme running throughout the series but that she declined to answer queries about this previously to prevent providing clues as to future plot direction. Specifically, themes of resurrection come to the fore in the final book whilst Rowling has also stated that biblical quotations in the final novel sum up the entire series".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/fictionreviews/3668658/J-K-Rowling-Christianity-inspired-Harry-Potter.html

Graham87 12:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace285364 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Please change the photo on the page so that when you like the page on Facebook the photo isn't cut off in the icon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.smith091 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This request is a duplicate of the below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Please change the image in the thumbnail to something else. This logo drives me crazy because when you 'like' Harry Potter on Facebook, it links to this page and the icon is cut off. That may seem silly; however, I just can't see why it would have been changed in the first place. It was, at one point, a picture of the books, and that was fine. I think that it should be changed to something like the Hogwarts coat of arms

Hogwarts coat of arms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.smith091 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: We do not edit articles solely to accommodate Facebook. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

unneeded counter punch request for edit

"Charles Taylor of Salon.com, who is primarily a movie critic,[107] took issue with Byatt's criticisms in particular. While he conceded that she may have "a valid cultural point—a teeny one—about the impulses that drive us to reassuring pop trash and away from the troubling complexities of art",[108] he rejected her claims that the series is lacking in serious literary merit ..." Is this counter-punch against Byatt's criticism of Rowling's writing ability really encyclopedic for this article? 173.167.1.129 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot

In the Plot part, Harry potter also learned and grew his emotion of love and fell in love with the witch Qiu Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermione89603 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Cho Chang? Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry Potter Fandom

It would be great to see a section about the "Fandom." This section could go something like this: An obsessive Harry Potter fan is referred to a "Potterhead" and these fans are often known for starting large discussions. This could go on and on and on and refer to the whole Harry Potter fandom. If needed, you can source Tumblr, because many potterhads are on that site. Thank you! Harmione (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: - The section Cultural impact talks about this and links to Harry Potter fandom. Is there something you believe is missing here or the other article?Moxy (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pic

Even if not important it needs a pic to capture us and gives an idea about harry potter to encourage people to take interst in it cuz sometimes judging the book by its cover can be right Huklpop15 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It has a picture of the books just below the info box. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Two new books?

Jordankestler has been adding information that JKR is writing 2 new books, and was reverted by me (2), Elizium23, and Onorem. The claim was referenced to a USA Today video, from a celebrity gossip site called Hollyscoop. I can't find any other sources, reliable or not, except for sites calling it a hoax. Do you think this is a reliable source, or a hoax? Jordan, one more revert and you will be edit-warring, so I brought this up here. ~HueSatLum 23:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gossip cites—such as Hollyscoop—are certainly not reliable sources. As there is no word from Rowling, her publishers or her agent on any book related to the Harry Potter series, this speculation should not be trusted. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball - point #5 applies here. —JennKR | ☎ 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

HueSatLum I was not trying to imply that there were 2 new books being written, which is why a created another sub-page with the title "new book RUMOUR" implying that it was indeed a rumor. I used 2 sources. Whether the rumour is true or not, I dont see the harm in putting it at the bottom of the page like other pages do. For example, on the article about friends (TV show) there is a sub-page about the recent film rumours. Please stop deleting the work. If you have suggestions on what could be added so that we have a mutual understanding, please let me know. Jordankestler (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about Friends_(TV_series)#Film_rumors, that is included because the rumor was recognized and reported on by reliable sources, and refuted by studio executives. This rumor is most likely nothing more than an April Fools joker, and has not received enough coverage to merit it's inclusion. As for the "2 sources", the second one was for the 15th anniversary covers, which is notable and probably should be added, but that's not in the scope of this discussion. ~HueSatLum 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing needs adding here. Post-Deathly Hallows, Rowling has commented that she sees Harry Potter as done, but will not rule out writing more in the future. That should be it, until something of significance develops. Any "rumours" should be from a reliable source with some ground—was Rowling seen writing a new book? Was her publisher copyrighting titles? etc. Your sources provide any basis to this theory and are mere gossip. To add, the Friends section is mostly the debunking of rumours by cast/crew members from reliable sources, which isn't the case here. —JennKR | ☎ 02:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I still dont see the harm in including something that MAY or MAY NOT come true, as previously stated "will not rule out writing more in the future". Im not trying to force a fake rumor down everyones throats, im just stating things in a wikipedia article as everyone else did to form the entirety of the article. While I get your point of reliable sources, i bring the attention back to friends. Before the rumor was debunked by the actors and creators, it was just a minor edit in the article with one reference, which turned out to be a fake website. If this turns out to be something like that, then why not post those debunking statements AS WELL as the rumor, as in the Friends article? Jordankestler (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in including hoax material in the article in such depth. Even a single comment such as "An April fools joke in xxxx implied that Rowling was writing two more books" is undue weight in the general world of Harry Potter. It's insignificant. If the report was printed in a reliable source then we could reconsider it - but that hasn't happened. You seem to be referring to the Friends film rumour section - WP:OTHERSTUFF exists to counter that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: Your continual insertion could be viewed as editwarring - I'd advise you stop before that opinion changes from "could be" to "is". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Harry Potter etymology

Voldemort Lat. valde -very + mors, mortis -death

Lupin Lat. lupus -wolf + in -of, related to

Dementor Lat. de -down, off + mens, mentis -mind + tor -person

oculus reparo Lat. oculus -eye + to repair

mobiliarbus -mobile (Lat. movere, motus -to move + habilis -able) + arbor -tree

fianto duri Lat. esse, fui -to be + durus -hard

repello inimicum Lat. re -back, again + pellere, pulsus -to push + inimicum -enemy in -not + amicus -friend from amare -to love + ator -person

Lycacomia curse Gr. lycos -wolf + aemia -blood

morsmordre Lat. mors, mortis -death + mordere, morsum -to bite

anapneo Gr. an, a -not + pnoe -breathing

everte statum Lat. e, ex -from, out of + vertere, versus -to turn + stare, status -to stand

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Avada Kedavra killing curse did NOT rebound from the Expelliarmus disarming jinx, as Rowling stated many times throughout the books that the curse is unblockable. The reason the spell rebounded was that the wand in question, according to the book, "refused to kill its master". The article should be changed to reflect this correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.207.177 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you may wish to note that the name Voldemort is derived from French, not Latin (I believe Rowling confirmed this although bugger me if I can't remember where). The French translation is considerably more apt and accurate, as the latin one here assumes Volde to be derived from Valde, whereas in fact if taken literally from French, it roughly translates to Escape. "Escape Death" makes all the more sense as this is the characters primary goal throughout the series. 80.47.85.219 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

first entry was not the philosophers stone it is the sorcerers stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.84.160 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Only the American release was Sorcerer. Philosophers is correct. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Silly phrase

'the highest-grossing film series of all time.' How can anyone know? Time has not ended yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.216.86 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a perfectly common idiom which refers to all time up until the present. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

simple, chronological listing of books and movies lacking

I'm flabbergasted that there is not one simple table (or two) of the books and/or films. To have to dig through 47 rambling paragraphs of obsessive narrative without an overarching framework is unreasonable. Except for the fanatics who maintain this page and who could no doubt cite the books and movies from memory. Surely, wikipedia entries are meant to be informative for the non-experts/non-obsessives, not just a mosh pit for insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpresearch (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you after? The Info-box on the right has the books listed in order - a chronology would only be written if their where reliable sources that provided it that we could cite, anything else would be original research (and possibly too in-universe given this is fiction we are talking about) and that is not what we do here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I came to this page looking for a simple list of the titles and the dates in which they were published. From what I can tell, that information is not even in this article at all. I would need to visit each individual article for the books to see the dates of publication (but of course, I will do the much easier thing and leave Wikipedia to find the list elsewhere online). Michellecornelison (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Nevermind; I've found the publication section. This information would be great in a table, though. Michellecornelison (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

instead of "Extremely Poor" when describing the Weaslys under Plot why cant the term "Fairly" Poor be used. 205.143.204.110 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done EDITORIALIZING in this manner is discouraged. In this case, neither word is appropriate, and as such, I've removed it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

I hope someone who can edit this page sees how stupid "The series, named after the titular character..." is. Equivalent to saying the series is named after the character after whom the series is titled. 72.130.132.230 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

not best selling series of all time

in the first introduction section it says that, and links to the page with the list of the best-selling series, and HP is clearly second behind maigret.

Well spotted - tweaked. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Italics in title

Should the title of this article be italicized? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, franchises such as book series should be italicized, but I hesitant about this as this article has existed for years but has not had its title italicized. Transphasic (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC) No; it doesn't necessarily refer to the books. It could also refer to the person. Disoriented Person (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo of books in wrong order

Under Reception next to Literary criticism the photo of the Harry Potter books are in the wrong order. Does this bug anyone else?

Kind of an OCD question. Do you think we should find another picture of the books in order? Gunners4Life (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but it would actually annoy me more if they were ordered chronologically - because then they would not be in physical size descending order. I see I'm not the only person who likes their books to start close to the bookend large and work their way down. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, good point. At least they are in some sort of order. Cheers :) Gunners4Life (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Attractions

Harry Potter will be expanding its location at Universal Studios to include Diagon Alley, Weasley Wizard Wheezuz, Florean Flourtescue's Ice Cream Parlor, and the Hogwarts Express which will transport guests to and from both locations. In order to access both parks a two day pass must be purchased. The expansion is set to open Summer 2014.

There is also a park that is opening at Universal Studios Hollywood in California, with an expected opening date in 2016. One of the rides known is a Gringotts roller coaster ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoFo Oedipus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

It is my understanding that this article is written in British English, as it should, because this article concerns the novel's of a British writer. However, I've noticed the following mistake: "... and Hermione starts recognizing her loving feelings for Ron.". I think recognizing should be changed to recognising, because recognizing is American English and recognising British English. You can find this part in chapter (in the absence of a better word ;-) ) Plot, when described what happens in the sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (1. Plot → 1.2 Voldemort Returns).

195.240.40.153 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing. /~huesatlum/ 22:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

EXPANSION OF WIZARDING WORLD OF HARRY POTTER AT UNIVERSAL...

THERE IS A SECTION FOR THE HARRY POTTER AREA INSIDE ISLANDS OF ADVENTURE AT UNIVERSAL ORLANDO RESORT BUT NOT A SECTION OF OR ADDED CONTENT, TO THE PREVIOUS MENTIONED SECTION, OF DIAGON ALLEY IN UNIVERSAL STUDIOS ORLANDO RESORTS. IT IS TO BE OPENING SOMETIME DURING THE SUMMER OF 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.104.102 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Once it opens the section can be added NathanWubs (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - consensus is clear that until we have a real article to put here about the entire franchise, we aren't going to even be able to discuss this move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 08:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Harry Potter → Harry Potter (book series)
• List of Harry Potter-related topics → Harry Potter

– "Harry Potter" covers an entire franchise now, much more than just the books. If we move this to "(book series)" then the basic title can cover everything: i.e. books, games, films, attractions etc. Unreal7 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment someone needs to write a franchise article. The list article can be used as a starting point. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support on one condition. I would support this as long as what the IP above me said also occurs. The List of Harry Potter-related topics is merely a list article and must be expanded. Johnny338 (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• And the thing is that all that is already on the book page - but obviously copying and pasting is discouraged on here. Unreal7 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until a franchise article isn't written. The un-disambiguated title shouldn't be occupied by a set index. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The list is clearly not the primary topic. This hypothetical franchise article could arguably be (though my gut instinct is that the book series would still be primary), but seeing as that hasn't even been created yet this discussion is premature. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I was previously debating whether or not to have this as a single or multi-move. It could just be the book series moved to the proposed title and then have the original page turned into an article about the franchise (and forget about the topics page). Unreal7 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, whenever this happens we inevitably get left in limbo as everyone passes the buck to someone else hoping they will create the hypothetical article. If you want it moved, the burden should be on you to first create an article on the franchise (either in mainspace or your userspace). Jenks24 (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014

The page on the Harry Potter series states that the first book is called The Philosopher's Stone. The first book is The Soccer's Stone. Please correct this error. Jacquibaby (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done because it is not an error.
The first book was The Philosopher's Stone published in the UK on 26 June 1997, the same book was published as The Sorcerer's Stone in the US on 1 September 1998 - well over a year later, because the US publishers "thought that a child would not want to read a book with the word "philosopher" in the title". For a full explanation, please see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I see even Harry Potter is not immune from World Cup Fever... Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to see what a Soccer's Stone would look like. Red Slash 08:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry Potter "sequel"

JK Rowling had released a short story that took place after the events of the last book (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/08/jk-rowling-releases-new-harry-potter-short-story). It should be added to the article just as the prequel short story was. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Pottermore section

I agree with Mean as custard - the Pottermore section is already mentioned (and anchored - leading to weird results) under the "Supplementary works". I don't think it warrants any deeper discussion or inclusion - and if it did, then it would be better done than just copy & pasting the lede (including the ref [x] links!) from Pottermore into the article. I've removed it again. If it's to stay, then it needs rewriting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Skittle, pls double-check that the material you're reverting is actually good material; in this case, that newbie editor cut n pasted the bare [1],[2] citation links, as noted above. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, tbh, I didn't notice the detail until I clicked on the "Pottermore" from the TOC. Instead of taking me to the newly added section it took me to "Supplementary works", which then prompted me to look deeper. There's nothing actually "bad" about the addition (bare citations notwithstanding), it's just not good enough, is all. Good faith is assumed for a new editor - it was certainly well-intentioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chaheel. If there'd been an edit summary explaining any of the reasons to undo the edit, I would have left it. Undo is a pretty blunt, aggressive tool when you don't explain why you've used it, especially when the initial edit looks like a new editor trying really hard. Skittle (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be an 's' at the end of 'bestow' in "bestow everlasting life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.186.80 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

The first book in the series is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone not the Philosopher's Stone. 199.46.199.230 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: two different titles exist Cannolis (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The ending

Discussing the ending of the series, the plot summary suggested two things that were not supported by the books: first, that Potter somehow "managed to return from the dead," and second that Voldemort's rebounding killing curse, having killed Voldemort, "disintegrat[es] his physical presence."

On the first point, the book claims that Voldemort's wand would not kill its master. That refusal would apply just as much to the killing curse cast in the Forbidden Forest as to the killing curse cast in the Great Hall in the climactic scene. So Potter did not die to "return from the dead." Moreover, the books have insisted throughout that no return from the dead is possible (though, apparently, the dead can keep up with things and chat through paintings, the Resurrection Stone, and the strange shared-wand-core Priori Incantatem effect). So that phrase was changed to, "managed to survive Voldemort's killing curse again."

On the second point, the book clearly describes moving the body to a separate chamber away from the bodies of the fallen defenders of the castle. Thus, his physical body or "presence" did not disintegrate (as it did in the movie). So that phrase was removed.Arkunets (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Arkunets

Agreed on the second point, but not the first. But maybe rephrase. He "survives death" perhaps? That he does have to die (and ergo return) seems inarguable. Or maybe I am just being stupid. It happens.HullIntegrity (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arkunets:You know, you are right. That is a very sticky point. "After apparently dying"? HullIntegrity (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@HullIntegrity:Love your solution. "Apparently dying" conveys the ambiguity as well as the experience of everyone to whom he appeared dead.Arkunets (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arkunets: Thanks for pointing out the problem and explaining it. Now, lets see if someone else comes in and reverts us. :) HullIntegrity (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"This is, as they say, your party" is how Dumbledore put it, and I always liked that sort of ambiguity as to where Harry actually went after Voldemort blasted him. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Suggest that "Harry is given an old potions textbook" be changed to "Harry finds an old potions textbook" Treethinker (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 199.46.199.230 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: He doesn't "find" the book, which suggests an element of chance, or that he wasn't looking for a book, but he has to take it to continue his Potions lessons.

However, I've reworded it slightly to accentuate the fact that the book is required. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Harry Potter (franchise)

The article on the franchise was a stub until recently when it was redirected here without explanation. I would like to know if people really want to have a franchise article as mentioned at the above RM discussion, or not. Especially @Macks2008: I would like to know if there has been other discussion on this subject. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

Please edit Cedric Diggory's murder to be attributed to Lord Voldermort and not Peter Pedigrew as currently stated. This can be verified by reading the Goblet of Fire book or at least watching the film.

141.92.19.35 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is old but just to chime in in case of future requests, Voldemort ordered Pettigrew to "kill the spare". The text in the article is accurate as to who killed Diggory. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

Either italicize the article title and all instances of the name referring to the series, or leave it unitalicized and de-italicize all such instances. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Do you want them all italicized or all de-italicized? What does the WP:MOS say is appropriate? Which ones need to be changed? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: In my opinion, it’s not entirely clear whether “Harry Potter” is considered a proper name for the series itself or not. But since Wikipedia seems to treat it as one (in the content of this article, in the content and name of Harry Potter (film series), etc.), I request that {{italic title}} be added at the top of this article and any other necessary italicizations be made. My original request was just that we make up our collective mind. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Due to the lack of clarity, I decided to "ask the experts" on Wikipedia style policy for advise, and apparently there is already an ongoing discussion on this very topic that you can follow on WT:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics for series titles. I'm sure that the appropriate changes will be made at the conclusion of that discussion. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not magical realism

I noticed one of the listed genres is magical realism. This is incorrect; it simply has magic in it. The genre of magical realism treats magic as a part of the natural order of the universe, accepted by all characters--for instance nearly anything written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Magical realism would expect the magic to be there. In Harry Potter the magic is hidden and a complex governmental infrastructure as well as physical explanations (muggles use electricity in place of magic) must be written into the universe of the books to account for the real word lack of magic. In other words, the genre of magical realism is not concerned with the fact that there is not magic in the real world. Harry Potter does not treat the lack of magic IRL in this way, and therefore does not qualify. Additionally, magical realism is closely connected to the Latin American Boom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernGully (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

One year in Harry's life?

Each book mostly chronicles one year in Harry's life. Except for a significant number of chapters devoted to events when Harry was a baby, such as multiple retellings of Voldemort's attack on his parents, and the very first chapter of the first book about Harry being left on the Dursleys' doorstep. And the epilogue of Harry's later life, of course. And then numerous chapters of events in the near and distant past about Voldemort's early life, Snape's early life, Dumbledore's. And James and Lily Potter, and so on. Plus ancient history and legends. Some of it is in flashbacks, some is in dialog, some in replays of memories. Most of the books cover one year, and mostly only Harry. But there material about Harry outside the year is more than a word or two, and there's quite bit that's not about Harry, and not within the one year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If we have to go in such detail, we better change Wikipedia completely, because it won't be 100 procent correct otherwise. They chronicle the life of Harry Potter, all seven, because they are ABOUT Harry, told from HIS point of view. It doesn't matter that it tells the history of Dumbledore, Voldemort and so on, it is told from Harry's perspective, and what his part in all those stories is. By the way, there are no "multiple retellings" of Voldemort's attack on his parents, only one (in HP7), and no "a significant number of chapters" devoted to events when Harry was a baby (which ones? Only chapter one of HP1 and a few flashbacks that consist of only a few sentences). Does Patrick Rothfuss have to rename his series (The Kingkiller Chronicle) because it gives information on characters that are not Kvothe? Of course not. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The prologue and epilogue are vital to the plot. They aren't trivia. As are the several flashbacks. And it's important to understand that JK Rowling isn't a particularity disciplined writer. She makes up rules and establishes a convention, and then forgets it when she runs into a problem. The series would be rather a tour de force if it really did follow it's own conventions from beginning to end. Wikipedia strives for accuracy. You don't read an encyclopedia for a bunch of halfassed approximations and weak generalizations. You can get that on a million fansites. People come here because they want to get the facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are brief passages of non-Harry narrative in nearly every book; the prologue, Spinner's End, Voldemort killing the caretaker, etc...but on the whole, each novel is still primarily a-year-in-the-life of Harry Potter. Not sure what the quibble is here. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The quibble was the rather picky reverts -- two of them[3][4]. We can say, as you just did, "on the whole". Or more succinctly, "mostly". Or this perfectly good statement. Wikipedia isn't going to topple over because of five more words in an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't topple either because of five extra words, but I must say that I agree with Tarc and don't really see the point of discussing this. If you write a autobiography and tell about all the people you knew in your life, it's still a autobiography, period. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any reason why the article can't accurately describe the contents of the story? It's not that we don't have enough room. So why? Just describe that it mostly covers one year, and it's mostly about Harry, but not entirely. What's the obsession with making it seem otherwise? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is an unnecessary level of detail, bordering on errata. Would we have to make special mention about the chapters detailing Dumbledore's backstory, which come from Hermione reading excerpts of Rots Skeeter's book?Tarc (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Errata? Errata are errors in printing. What on Earth are you talking about? And no, nobody is proposing more than adding a few words. What is your problem with adding a few words to make it more accurate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is accurate as it is now; an epilogue and a prologue falling outside the scope of "one year in Potter's life" doesn't matter. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It matters that the rule that nobody can fly without a broom gets broken. It matters that you can actually do magic without a wand. It's an important fact about these books: violating rules, breaking conventions, is everywhere in Harry Potter. Every book starts with some absolute rule that gets announced in at the beginning and then gets smashed. When you put it like that, that the books follow this one-year-in-the-life structure, you create a false impression, and it's not trivial. If they really did only cover one year in Harry's life, that would be extraordinary and inconsistent. That is the reason this matters.

It's weird to see you guys cling to this little detail so stubbornly. What's the big deal here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a big Harry Potter fan. Back in the day, I visited every great Dutch fansite every day for at least a few hours. That Rowling wasn't perfect in the planning of her books is absolutly right, as it the fact that her rules don't cope with what she said in earlier books, and so on. But I refer again to the autobiopgraphy thing I explained earlier in this ridiculous discussion: it tells the story of Harry, from HIS perspective, and thereby is HIS story, not that of others. Topic closed, I think. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's ridiculous, why are you so adamant about it? Put in a couple words and make the article more accurate. Simple. Many people think one of the things that makes the HP series great is that it subverts adherence to rules, formality, convention, etc. Rowling has a philosophy of individuals cutting against the grain of social pressures to achieve greatness. Or maybe she was just a lazy writer. However you read it, Wikipedia's job is to convey plain facts without whitewashing or glossing over. If you think this is mere quibbling, then you should stop quibbling.

"Topic closed"? Who do you think you are? I'm getting ready to carpet bomb this thread with citations of academic criticism that makes the exact points about consistency and convention that I've been making here. With all due respect to fansites. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the problem here is that the premise of the complaint...Except for a significant number of chapters......is a bit exaggerated. Off the top of my head, the prologue, epilogue, Voldemort kills Frank Bryce, Spinner's End & the Unbreakable Vow, Voldemort kills the muggle teacher are the only actual Harry-isn't-the-observer and/or falling-outside-the-7-year chapters out of 250-ish total. That's not a significant enough deviation to affect a "every book chronicles a year in Harry's life" description. Sorry, but I think you're being way too literal-minded about the text in question. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that these books don't only cover one year in Harry's life. It's merely a Wikipedia editor's opinion that those deviations are too small to count. How come you get to decide what doesn't count? Why not add the word "mostly" and leave it at that? Would your mind change if you saw a significant number of sources that said this type of inconsistency in form is a notable aspect of Rowling's style? Because this doesn't come out of thin air. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We're all just editors here tossing our opinions into the ring, nothing more. Yours is "merely an opinion" just as mine is, just as Mr. Huygebaert's is. It's nothing to get so worked up over. If you have reliably sourced (i.e. not fansites or blogs, hopefully) critiques of Rowling's writing style, I'd think that'd be more suited to the Harry Potter#Literary criticism, rather than using the criticisms to alter a simple plot description. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's not something to get worked up over then why all the bickering? I really wish these repeated complaints about his topic would stop. If YOU think this is trivial, then YOU should let it go and don't stand in the way of editors who want to add factual, constructive content to the article. Don't accuse ME of blowing this out of proportion: it takes two to quibble. If you think it's a big deal, then fine. It's a big deal and we'll discuss it. But you don't get to have it both ways. You're sitting here debating because you can't stand to add the word "mostly" to the sentence. Seriously? "Mostly". Would that kill you?

You assert that the chapters that go outside the year "don't matter" and when I say I have expert sources which say they do matter, you reply, no, ha ha, sources don't count here. Only the books count in the plot summary section! Yet the books themselves are the source for the fact that whole chapters are devoted to time outside Harry's life. And the sentence you're trying to keep from getting changed has THIS citation: Foster, Julie (October 2001). "Potter books: Wicked witchcraft?". Koinonia House. What?! There's SIX footnotes in the Plot section, none of them from the books.

I really think you should be willing to change your mind when presented with citations. I'm not going to waste my time looking up every example and citing it for you if you're said from the ouset that sources don't matter to you. But then, why are there so many citations in the Plot section? Or you could just let the word "mostly" into the sentence and move on. Why is this such a big deal to you? One word: mostly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we change the intro to The Hobbit to read "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is mostly a fantasy novel..." because not every literal thing in the novel was about magic and the supernatural, e.g. the metaphor of the Shire to rural England? Maybe if we do an analysis of A Tale of Two Cities and find that tings were bad slightly more than they were good, the opening line could be "It was the best of times, but it was mostly the worst of times...". So this article stating "each book chronicles one year in Harry's life" does not mean that 100% cover-to-cover must take place between Harry's summertime break and the end of the next school term. Your brand of literal-mindedness is what I would hear when telling my 10-yr-old that it was 10pm and time for bed, ("NO, it's only 9:58, I don't have to!") So, please, stop. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy is not well defined, and 10 experts will likely give 10 contradictory opinions about how much of The Hobbit meets their personal definition of fantasy. Conversely, whether the events in the HP novels are during one year or some other time is well defined. Any fool can see that the chapter they're reading is either one, or the other. This isn't some nebulous philosophical question about Existentialist Truth. It's basic simple, easy stuff. Boring facts.

Since nobody has provided any rational reason for this deletion, I'm going to boldy add the word "mostly" since using five whole words to be more specific might piss somebody off. Please do not revert unless you're prepared to cite facts, guidelines, or policy. I don't like it is not a reason.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ample explanation has been given above; that you do not agree or do not understand why other editors hold a different opinion on the matter is a problem for you to work out on your own. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You're sitting here digging in your heels to fight to the death over one word. One word. Seriously? I can cite a large number of sources to support this change. I ask you again, would you change your mind if you were shown sources that support the edit? And if you are not willing to be persuaded by source citations, then how do you think your behavior is within the bounds of Wikipedia's editing guidelines?

Also, have you ever read Wikipedia:Ownership of content? Because behaving as if you are the curator of a particular article is not allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I, along with another editor, have sat here patiently and explained our opinions on the matter. You are the one that has, sadly, resorted to hysterics and virtual temper tantrums from the moment it was lea that we did not agree with you. Also, kindly refrain from bringing this to my talk page, the discussion is perfectly fine right here for all to see. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal: Could say "Each book focuses on one year of Harry's life." That gets the main point across, while also allowing for the fact that other elements are covered as well. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The original was fine. Seven books, seven years (plus a bit of lead-in and wrap-up at the end). "Mostly" is awkward, and, because the remainder of the paragraph doesn't describe why it's just "mostly", the word removes, rather than adds, clarity. The preceding proposal is okay, but "Each book chronicles one year in Harry's life" is cleaner and, IMHO, the fact that each book also covers things that affect Harry doesn't make their scope any broader than him. JohnInDC (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The alternative to "each book chronicles one year in Harry's life" is that they don't all chronicle a year in his life. The whole framework is built around such a chronicle, and "mostly" makes it sound as if there are aberrations from this pattern of chronicling one year per book. Simply including chunks that are in addition to the pattern doesn't disprove the pattern. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are distorting the structure of these books, making them seem better planned, more carefully written, than they in fact are. The reason I'm annoyed with the the overly-promotional, fanboy nature of this article is this was promoted to Good Article in 2008, had an effusive paragraph claiming that the Harry Potter books increased literacy. This false believe was debunked the previous year, 2007, and it was reported in mainstream media. How could anyone miss that? It's bad enough that this would be promoted to GA with such an egregious misconception, but then it took seven more years to fix this error. How come nobody noticed? Maybe people see what they want to see.

There are aberrations from the pattern chronicling one year in the book. This is not 24 (TV series). If you want to pretend that the structure of these seven books is clean and clear, then you're using this article to sell books instead of describe them. The reason it is hard to describe and hard to phrase in simple terms is that the book are muddled. They are not neat and tidy. You can't bend reality because you want your article to look a certain way. Since when did avoiding a little awkwardness become more important than accuracy? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Trading letter-perfect accuracy for simplicity and clarity is the entire premise of "editing". The sentence is clear, it's close enough, and editors with no stake in the article or particular POV favor it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, many Wikipedia editors are happy to trade away accuracy in order to neatly fit bumpy, wrinkly reality into clean, simple abstract categories. It's one of the worst habits of Wikipedians. On the other hand, I think everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Just so we can be clear about what this is over, the only reason for saying without qualification that each book covers one year in Harry's life is that it sounds "awkward" to mention that the books deviate from this pattern? Is that right? Is that also the problem with the original edit that started this, the parenthetical "apart from prologues and epilogues"? Can we say "generally"? "For the most part"? "Most but not all of the chapters are about one year in Harry's life"? Are you saying you would support a change that was phrased better? You just want succinct, snappy wording? There must be some way of phrasing it. Or is there some other reason? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to stay away from this discussion due to previous disagreements with Dennis, but I feel I have to enter. The sentence is not "close enough" without "mostly" - it's accurate without "mostly". The books chronicle a year in Harry's life. They also include other times & dates, but only as these are relevant and necessary to clarify or explain parts of Harry's year which is what the books are about. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, "mostly" is inaccurate: each book chronicles a year in Harry's life as well as doing a bunch of other stuff. The awkwardness of "mostly" is that it leads to ambiguity, and the reader will wonder which book(s) do not chronicle a year in Harry's life. If "A and B" is true, "A" is true. Nyttend (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. The first chapter of the first book. When does that take place? During the same year as all the other chapters? Nope, it's a good decade earlier. Most of the chapters are in the same year, but not that one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed out the few chapters that are the exceptions, and noted how a few exceptions do not substantially affect what we're talking about here. Again, part of the problem here is that you're being far too literal-minded about this all. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mostly chronicles" is also just wrong, if each year in Harry's life is, in fact, chronicled. JohnInDC (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Every single month, day, or minute of Harry's life is not chronicled. Whole stretches of months are glossed over. So if you disingenuously want to read "chronicles" that way, that fails too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess if I'm being "disingenuous" then there's not much more point in my talking, is there? I'm done. Thanks. Good luck with your windmills. JohnInDC (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No loss. I asked you several specific questions yesterday to find out what wording you might find acceptable in place of the rejected additions, but you ignored my questions, didn't offer any alternative edits, and instead came back to make some more dismissive remarks based only on your opinions without bringing in any new facts. So if that's all you're here for, were you even helping at all? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Where the disconnect comes in all this is Bratland's conflating the accuracy of the passage with a broader critique of Rowling's literary skills, e.g. he problem is that you are distorting the structure of these books, making them seem better planned, more carefully written, than they in fact are and similar passages. I've never seen this as having anything to to with literary criticism, or that retaining the passage makes the article a puff piece. It's absurd. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

At last! For the third time: if I cited literary criticism which says that this issue, deviating form the one year in Harry's life formula, matters, then could that evidence change your mind? For me what matters is what experts tell us matters, not what a bunch of editors think. So can we proceed on that basis? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If such a thing exists, I think it'd be better suited to the Harry Potter#Literary criticism section. The novels are each about one year in Potter's life; that is fact. That some criticize Rowling for covering a few non-year-in-the-life chapters for the sake of story exposition doesn't alter that fact; it's just criticism. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's a one-sentence, general summary of the scope of the books. It's fine. JohnInDC (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The article's lead contains a one-sentence, general summary of the series, "The series chronicles the adventures of a young wizard, Harry Potter, the titular character, and his friends Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." We're down a level, in the Plot section, which goes into greater depth. The sentence begins "Each book chronicles...". We're trying to say what is in each book. For some reason, people are crawling out of the woodwork to express their staunch opposition to adding one word to this summary to make it slightly more accurate. One word. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question: May I ask, is the objection of the OP to "Each book chronicles one year in Harry's life", that, while accurate per se (in other words, each does not merely chronicle one month, and indeed each book does cover an entire year), it is incomplete (in their mind)? In other words, it is an incomplete statement? I'm asking this as a non-Potterite, in order to clarify the scope of the discussion, which seems to have been poorly stated and is getting off track. If that is the objection, then we have these ways to move forward: (1) Seek consensus as to whether the statement is incomplete or not; (2) come up with a sentence that is complete (I offer "Each book focuses on one year of Harry's life" or "Each book covers one year of Harry's life" as possible solutions, though possibly not the best or preferred ones). (3) If after all of this there is no consensus for change on this page and yet the OP is still unsatisfied, the only way forward is a public WP:RFC, newly opened in a brand-new thread, clearly and neutrally stated; because to have this length of discussion over one word is counterproductive when it isn't progressing, and therefore a resolution must be sought. Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically, there are 5-6 chapters out of the 250-ish spanning the 7-novel series that are not told from the point-of-view of the protagonist. This leads the OP to claim that the "each is about a year in the life of..." line to be false. As for an RfC, I really don't see the necessity when a single user disagrees with the rest. Sometimes you just chalk things up as a failed proposal/suggestion and move on. Tarc (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this started with an edit by someone else, @Alumnum:. I like the idea of going with an RFC. I don't know what to say to people who simply don't care what the sources have to say. This is being treated as a vote between "I like it this way" vs "I like it that way". I'm trying to find someone who gives a shit whether or not expert sources say this issue matters. Crowdsourcing votes is how Urban Dictionary works. Wikipedia is supposed to care about facts over votes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Expert sources would not help with your overly-literal interpretation of the passage in question. This has never been an issue of policy or sources, but rather deflecting an overly-nitpicky editing change. If there's no new ground to cover here, then this section should be closed, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not done. I'd still like to discuss what the sources actually say, and I intend to do that. Since you've made clear that mere reliable sources are of no interest to you, then by all means, you may go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no worries; Like Nearly-Headless Nick, I'll always be hanging around. :) Tarc (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that means we're mostly done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As I said at the recently pointlessly opened ANI thread, this storm in a teacup really is as pointless as the addition of "mostly". The additional word makes the prose lumpy, is unnecessary and is, yes, pointless. Dennis Bratland, the consensus here is firmly against you on this point, and you are displaying big signs of WP:IDONTHEARYOU over one minor and unnecessary word. It's time for you to try and be a little more flexible in your approach, especially when your arguments are not being supported by anyone else. Pick your battles over things that matter in life: this really doesn't, and it's time to stop being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

TYPO IN CONTROVERSIES SECTION

"The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's sections...." Should read "The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's books...." 76.90.10.191 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Best Practice

I don't understand why criticism has been worked into the second paragraph of the main article AND has it's own section? Seems a little npov.Twobells (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and came to this discussion with the intention of making a similar point. I suspect the two odd-looking references to criticism in the introduction probably come from persons with some sort of misplaced agenda (any ideas what?). From my incidental observation of the mainstream views of the series, the broad consensus view is a more healthy one that the (junior or otherwise) audience for fantasy fiction can make up their own minds as to how well it fits its purpose of entertainment, and it is simply misguided to judge it as something else. In my opinion, minority critism of the series does not justify any mention in a short introductory section, but it is reasonable to include it in a small sub-section. My impression is that the negative criticism (reported in the article as appearing after the fifth novel) must to some extent be a response to the series' status as the most successful ever (a reflection of the views of its readership). I consider my own views on these points as being fairly neutral as I have not completed any of the novels, and consider myself a few decades too old to accurately judge their quality.  :-) Elroch (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Obsessively bookish???

"Hermione Granger, an obsessively bookish witch of non-magical parentage."

I would have changed this myself if the page were not locked. Replace the negative and judgemental "obsessively bookish" with "gifted and hard working".81.156.19.208 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit performed as requested. Note that you can create an account on Wikipedia and make many of these edits yourself (on some pagen like this one, you'll have to wait to be autoconfirmed as not a vandal). -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Audiobooks

The audiobook section needs refs and expansion. I know Jim Dale has won quite a few awards, including the world record for (I think) 149 different character voices in Deathly Hallows. Does anybody have a Guiness Book of World Records (2008 and up) handy? --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got one of the books handy, but I have found on their website that although Jim Dale may have had the title, he has been beaten since January 13 2004. [5] Jsphabll (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As an update, both GWR 2010 and 2011 have no record of it, and my local library doesn't stock any more versions, so i cannot check any more. Sorry I cannot be of any more help. Jsphabll (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's in 2008, there's a whole Harry Potter section...I'll have to see if I can find mine to find the exact page. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a typo and I don't know how to correct it, I believe the page is locked.

Under the section plot, the last sentence reads: The only specific dates given in the series are in the last book, on the grave of James and Lily Potter which identifies them to have died in 1981, and in on Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake in Chamber of Secrets, which points out the date as 1992.

This is the typo: ...and in on Nearly Headless Nick's...

Hermione would never stand for such nonsense.

 Fixed. Hermione would be proud of you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"... Philosopher's Stone" and UK English

You may want to get an admin to put an Edit Note in this article, like the one on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - you'll see it if you open an edit box anywhere in the article. The Edit Note also says UK English must be used (except for quoting US sources). After the Edit Note was installed, I put an vandalism warning in perps' Talk pages, explaining the Edit Note. It worked - before the Edit Note, there were 2-4 "... Sorceror's Stone", but in the last 2 months I can't remember any. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ecological Impacts

Can someone tell me how many hectares of forest was used to make the paper for the estimated 450 million books in print? Not to mention the chemicals and ink etc.

Karryconway (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss such things. The Talk page should be used to discuss the article (see WP:TALK), not to discuss other subjects. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the horrcruxes

As a ten year old boy who has read and seen all the books and movies,i know there is seven horrcruxes including Ravenclaws diagram ( a tiara), nagini( Lord voldomorts snake),Tom marvolo Riddle's diary,Lord voldomorts locket, slitherins ring,huffelpuff mug, and unexpectedly Harry potter himself.Trent Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.198.26 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That’s slightly incorrect. The Horcruxes are Voldemort’s Diary (when he was a student), the Hufflepuff Cup, the Ravenclaw diadem, Nagini (Voldemort’s large pet snake), the ring which contained the Resurrection Stone previously belonged to Marvolo Gaunt, Slytherin’s locket, and Harry Potter.71.244.111.250 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Change article to be about brand?

Shouldn't this article be reworked to discuss the Harry Potter brand and not the novels, since that's what it has evolved into?

Also, it's interesting that this article makes very little mention of the fact that Harry Potter as a brand is owned by Warner Brothers. The only thing Rowling retains in the right to publish the novels (now over) and the right to publish whatever material comes out of "Pottermore." IndigoAK200 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

misspelling

enrol should be spelled enroll— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.72.217 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2011

Nope, it's spelled correctly. This article uses British English. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct name of U.S. Publisher

.is Arthur A. Levine Books. Arthur A. Levine Books (not sister Imprint Scholastic Press) is the U.S. Publisher of Harry Potter and has been for all seven books. Arthur A. Levine Books is an Imprint of Scholastic Inc.

I can't figure out how to make this change myself. Any help gratefully accepted.

Lanternpublisher (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• See Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone#U.S._publication_and_reception and citatioins there. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Why there is no link? (in Article milestones) Bulwersator (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thefunkrabbit, 23 July 2011

"The environment J. K. Rowling created is completely separate from reality yet intimately connected to it. While the fantasy land of Narnia is an alternative universe and the Lord of the Rings’ Middle-earth a mythic past, the wizarding world of Harry Potter contains magical elements similar to things in everyday life.

The above statement is part of the second paragraph of the wizarding world section of the Harry Potter page. I believe that the above statement should be altered to something along these lines:

"The environment J. K. Rowling created is completely separate from reality yet intimately connected to it. While the fantasy land of Narnia is an alternative universe and the Lord of the Rings’ Middle-earth a mythic past, the wizarding world of Harry Potter exists in parallel with the real world and this is how Potter's world Italic textcontains magical elements similar to things in everyday life. "

The reason I think this is because it begins to draw a comparison between the Narnia and Middle-Earth world's but does not complete it. Let me know what you think as I cannot alter a semi-protected page and it feels incomplete somehow.

Thanks.

Thefunkrabbit (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One uncovered topic...

If I may point out one thing which would be worthy including in the article, don't you think a list of books the series consists of would be nice? There's one in the infobox but wouldn't it be good to include a more detailed one, with release dates and so on, like in articles about other book series? Ustt (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's included in Harry Potter#Origins and publishing history. NW (Talk) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jakovche, 27 July 2011

Could you replace the image and the thumbnail representing Hogwarts' coat of arms with a version I find more accurate and closer in description to the one that can be found as an illustration in various versions of the books.
Here are previews:

File:Hogwarts coat of arms color.svg

Alternative version

File:Hogwarts coat of arms colored with shading.svg

Alternative version with shading

Please, review and comment.

Yes please, the current picture bugs me so much!! Why did it change from the set of books anyway? The books at least showed what the article was on about. The Hogwarts Crest does not.... 202.154.137.135 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing this edit request for the same as Talk:Hogwarts. Again suggest going ahead and making the change. As a side note I have no preference on which is better as I have not read the books or even seen the movies. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

eBooks on Pottermore

Should there be a section about how the eBooks are being sold, purchased and distributed? Apparently it is different from how other eBooks are sold, as they will be exclusively available on Pottermore. --DisneyFriends (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yates radcliffe.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Yates radcliffe.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter: The Exhibition

There is nothing on Harry Potter: The Exhibition on this page. Where should it be added? --DisneyFriends (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Returned from the dead"?

I think the line "Having managed to return from the dead".. under the heading "Voldemort Returns" should be edited to better reflect what actually happened. This line makes someone who hasn't read the book/series think that an explanation was not given for how he "managed" to return from the dead and it's a big mystery.

Perhaps "After Voldemort's killing curse killed the Horcrux inside Harry, Harry awoke..." etc. etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob512 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling

You spelled enroll and defense wrong (enrol and defence) respectively. When I type them as "enrol and defence", a red bar is under it, notifying misspelling. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Vegeta Saiyan

They are correct. Have a look at American and British English differences. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in America, not England. If you want to use the British spellings, then that should be under the British Wikipedia. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)VegetaSaiyan

We are? In case you haven't noticed, English Wikipedia is international, and covers all countries and regions which speak English. There is no such thing as "American Wikipedia". Please see WP:ENGVAR. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the page linked, quotations should not be changed. Therefore, the [sic] after "center" in the Reception section is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.180.183 (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Ignore the Yankee troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.53.133 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Yankee troll??? As an American I find that offensive...Anyway since the Harry Potter series is rightfully British then we should use British spellings.

Incomplete Quote

Reception and controversy, 6.1:

A. S. Byatt authored a New York Times op-ed article calling Rowling's universe a "secondary world, made up of patchworked derivative motifs from all sorts of children's literature ... written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip".[101]

She actually called it a "secondary secondary world":

"Auden and Tolkien wrote about the skills of inventing secondary worlds. Ms. Rowling's world is a secondary secondary world" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/opinion/harry-potter-and-the-childish-adult.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

I think the wiki link of secondary world to fictional universe is unnecessary as well, but that's just my opinion of course. 126.59.94.250 (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job, and thanks for pointing this out. I went in and made sure the quote matched the source word-for-word. However, after reading the article, I'm not sure this quote belongs in the "began to receive strong criticism" paragraph; it certainly seems to cherrypick the most negative-sounding parts of the article, and it had just plain left out the word "intelligently".

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether this quote belongs in that paragraph? Princess Lirin (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was quite critical and the overall tone was very negative, to my mind. I think it could stay. 126.59.94.250 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

LEGO Harry Potter

There should be a link under the Games section at least mentioning Lego Harry Potter.

Done--Birkenburg (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a 3D Harry Potter video game coming out, i believe that everyone should try it. there should be a link under the games section about it too. ~the cupcake that fell from heaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenly stranger (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

I'd like to add in addition to introduction of the Pottermore website. The beta period of the site has extended beyond September until the end of October, which is when the website will begin to allow all users who register themselves to access the site.

source: http://insider.pottermore.com/ 24.185.7.22 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate for the Pottermore article, which is not protected at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree and its already there. I take it the site can also be seen (linked) at both Harry Potter, an external wiki and Harry Potter fanon, an external wiki that are linked here. As per WP:ELOFFICIAL Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website- More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked' from other official websites."Moxy (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

sir,I think you should add in snape's page that his loyalty lay with harry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepatronus (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

HP Redirects

Should the HP 1-7 redirect to the respective HP book, or a disambig page with the postal code area? The HP7 was made into a disambig page. I dont think that is neccesary. A This article is about the book for ..." notice should suffice. Thoughts? i said 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the validity of having HP1 - HP7 directing to the relevant HP book, this is an encyclopedia and lazy redirects like this should be avoided. Also they create needless hatnotes on numerous HP articles when it is extremely unlikely the reader has been directed from an HPx link. Zarcadia (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article

Do you think this article should become a good article as I think it should be. Anyone agree? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the box at the top of this talk page. The article already is a good article. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

TV

BBC will plan a television programme called "The Adventures of Harry Potter" based on Harry Potter Series and going to aired on BBC on 2014. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.180.221 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great. What's your source? Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt this information. Cannot find anything on the web and news like this would be all over it in a matter of minutes. Geert Rinkel (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Similar photographs

Both the photographs of HP complete book sets are British editions. US edition is missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_Potter_Books.png is better than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hp_british_books!.jpg. I feel latter can be removed and replaced with American edition. I don't have American edition photo. Whoever has, please upload and replace the latter with new photograph. ~Divij (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Both images are currently in the article? The US books are under the "Plot" heading, and the UK books under the "Literary Criticism" section. a_man_alone (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked again. Both the images (in Plot and Literary Criticism) are of British edition. Both the images that I mentioned above have "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". US edition name was "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Further British edition was published by Bloomsbury and Scholastic in US. My point is that US edition picture is missing and since the image present in Literary Criticism is not as good as in Plot, it can be replaced by US edition photograph. I do not have US edition books nor their photograph. ~Divij (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have all 7 U.S. editions, with Goblet of Fire and Deathly Hallows in hardcover and the rest in paperback. Would that be okay? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

to the sirius black person

he shouldn't be listed as harry's only relative because he isn't. Petunia Potter (now Dursley)is infact his only living relative, which is why harry moved in with her. Sirius Black is Harry's godfather and under the circumstances, Harry could not live with him. He was in azkaban for accusigly passing information onto voldemort. but i agree the information about him dyeing should be added if not alreafdy existing in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.224.107 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is Petunia Evans not Potter. Lily's maiden name is Evans!

71.244.111.250 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sirrius Black was falsly imprisoned for the murder of Peter Pettigrew and 13 muggles...not for passing information to Voldemorte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.250.218 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Animated Television Series

Millimages and Southern Star Group plan to Produce a TV Show "Harry Potter" aired on TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.131.58 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back this up? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit updates

Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity,'. I have updated the entry to read 'Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, (retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States) the books have gained immense popularity,'. Putting brackets around 'retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States' as it should be.Twobells (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, I am really confused after reding the guidelines. Can I just say I completely agree with this person without offending anyone? I hope so. Sorry otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.196.20 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Attractions - Warner Bros. Studio Tour London: The Making of Harry Potter

Warner Bros. Studio Tour London - The Making of Harry Potter, attraction is now opened to the public, which opened on 31 March 2012, which also had a grand opening event, attended by the Harry Potter film series cast and crew members Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Bonnie Wright, Evanna Lynch, Warwick Davis, David Thewlis, Helen McCrory, George Harris, Nick Moran, Natalia Tena, David Bradley, Alfie Enoch,Harry Melling, David Heyman, David Barron, David Yates, Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell. Here are websites links about information about the opening of Warner Bros. Studio Tour London: The Making of Harry Potter. http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/cast-list-revealed-for-harry-potter-leavesden-tour-grand-opening-88860/ and http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/cast-and-crew-attend-warner-bros-studio-tour-the-making-of-harry-potter-grand-opening-88915/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.199.116 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal Studios: Harry Potter Attraction

There is also Boarshead, which is one of the major dining facilities at Universal. They serve platters of food in a tavern-like atmosphere, and they also have Butterbeer, Pumpkin Juice, and Boarshead beer. They also have what is called "The Feast," which has roasted corn, racks of pork ribs, etc.--it has a medieval feel.

Additionally, there is Olivander's, a wand store. Right outside of Olivanders is a place with wizarding clothes, wands, and quidditch balls.192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are these your own observations, or can you refer us to reliable secondary sources describing them? Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll note also that these locations are already included in the main article, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Islands of Adventure) Elizium23 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A New section should be added

There's a lot of books out that actually try and connect Harry Potter to Christianity.

Here's a list of books that may help support what I am saying. http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Harry-Potter-John-Granger/dp/1414306342/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-4 http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Harry-Potter-Spiritual/dp/0664231233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Potter-Harry-Christ-Fascinating/dp/0615430937/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-6

We all know that J.K. Rowling's is Christian herself and that she had always loved the Chronicles of Narnia, which are Christian based. Actually if you look at the 2 alone there's a lot of similarities there (not trying to say this was purposely done or anything or accusing of plagiarism just pointing out): 7 books each, both Harry and the Lion sacrifice themselves to save others from the sins of evil, the main characters grow in each book, etc. But I do have reason to believe that these books are based off Christianity just another way to tell the story. So I think a section should be added that talks about Harry Potter's possible connection to Christianity. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, i am surprised to know of the christianity part, because it happens to be a fact that the pope has termed Harry potter as satanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear God, no. Original research. I see it more as a re-enactment of Star Wars myself. Dumbledore as Obi Wan, Harry as Luke, Voldemort as The Emperor, and so forth. a_man_alone (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see it as a slight re-enactment of Lord of the Rings - enemy who has tied himself to life, and (unwittingly) given the hero the means to destroy him, plus a slew of mythical creatures, and grey/white-bearded wizards... Anyways, it's all still Original Research. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is less similar to the Tolkien work than 80% of fantasy (and it is my OR) Bulwersator (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know that existed lol! My bad! lol! JamesAlan1986 (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter Games

Should it be mentioned that, while there are 11 named Harry Potter games, there are numerous versions of each one? Each movie tie-in game was built for and released on several systems, and save for the scenario, very little is the same between them. 216.164.39.166 (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Harry Potter" logo vs. Hogwarts coats of arms

How is Hogwarts a good free alternative? Why is it an infobox? Why not "Harry Potter" logo? --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What Harry Potter logo? You mean from the films? That would be awful, these HP articles are far to focused on them as it is. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GimliDotNet is right. The only logos I can think of are film logos. This image looks like the closest free use image that could have a chance to replace it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a set of the books as the main image...and also the logo was on the American books before the movies. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I remember now of the set of books. It was fair use though right? Also when it comes to the logo I am sure this is what the editor that started the discussion had in mind. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think it was. And that is the same logo that appears on the US books. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The film logo was also the (American) Scholastic logo BEFORE the film, proven by first publications of the first book in 1998. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, someone else here mentioned it already. Anyway, is the logo replaceable or something? How does it fail NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you use {{Non free logo}} license and provide a proper rationale along with using the image in low resolution. I don't think you should have a problem. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what logo we're talking about, anyone got a link? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out my second comment on this section. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 

— Mr White 16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As confirmed, this logo is of American work because it was first used in American editions. Therefore, I'll use the logo to replace that Coat of Arms. --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

American Book Covers

Why are the covers of the American versions not displayed anywhere? In the articles for the movies, the British and American posters are both displayed together on the right. But the books only display the British version. Mightygiant (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because the UK is the country of origin, and the films are British-American, unlike the books. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Techincally you people are all stupid. Its both the philsophers stone and the sorcerors. So suck it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itbreaksmymind (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's both The Philosopher's Stone and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not to mention L'École des Sorciers, De Steen der Wijzen, 賢者の石 and sixty other translated titles. But we'd better stick to one title: the original. Geert Rinkel (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling IS British, and the book is set in England, but 'The Philosopher's Stone' title has been in far more countries than just England. I think that it should remain 'The Philosopher's Stone' but explain that in America it was printed as 'The Sorcerer's Stone'. I honestly don't see what the big deal is about, because really it is either or, depending on where you come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Lullaby (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Misprint

Hey just so you know, on the right side near the top when the series is listed, Harry Potter 1: is the SORCERER'S stone, not "PHILOSOPHER" haha not sure how that came up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.37 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdoms, where the Harry Potter books were first written and published, the name of the first book IS Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone when published in the United States. Yiosie2356 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well technically since this is the American article it should be the American version.-unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.101.65 (talk)

Technically, this is the English language article...not the American article. --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Then to be completely correct, and so as not to throw off either British or American readers, it should be written Harry Potter and the Philosopher's [ Sorcerer's ] Stone or visa versa. any opinions? / does anybody know how to change a semi-protected article? 71.33.135.11 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)anonymous

Move to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone. If only one title is used, choose Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I think it's more commonly known as the British titling, although American Wikipedians may not prefer this. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Hillcrest98

There was also a misprint in the first print of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, where the Prior Incantatem had James appearing before Lily in some versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoFo Oedipus (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Translated languages

The article says it has been translated into 67 languages (which is not really incorrect) but the J.K. Rowling website says 73 - http://www.jkrowling.com/en_GB/#/harry-potter/the-books if anyone feels it could be worthwhile to update it. 203.219.14.53 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And in the Translations sections, it say 67 still, but 73 in the summary. 206.174.0.181 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OWL-levels

Surely they shouldn't be referred to as OWL-levels, because OWL stands for Ordinary Wizarding Levels, so OWL-levels is Ordinary Wizarding Levels levels. They are just OWLs. George.millman (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The same happens with the N.E.W.Ts (Nastily exhausting wizarding tests) They are refered to as newt tests. Although this is wrong this, and Owl levels sounds better 27/7/21011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.153.110 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But does anyone here know what N.E.W.T. stands for? i mean, i AM a huge Harry Potter fan, but i just don't know what it stands for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenly stranger (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people say it's 'Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests' but I mean, would they actually name it that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.40.109 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

N.E.W.T. Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests. Vision Insider (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sirius Black

There should be two changes for the Harry Potter page about Sirius Black. First, in the section of the page telling the plot of the third book, it should be said that Black is Harry's only living relative, as he is his god-father, and is very important to Harry. The second change should be in the section of the page telling the fifth book's plot, about Black dieing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.29.245 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sirius Black was not Harry's only living relative. Aunt Petunia,Uncle Vernon,and Dudley are his BLOOD relatives. Sirius Black isn't even Harry's blood relative, let alone his ONLY living relative. But he was very,very close and important to Harry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.40.109 (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)