Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 3

Article restructure

The article needs information on how harry potter was created, interviews with radcliffe on his portrayal, a section on the character in popular culture, and a massive trimming of the characteristics-type information, it's just way too much and is bloated with cruft. It probably should only be a 3 paragraphs long. Judgesurreal777 05:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- most emphatic yes. Currently the article is written entirely in "in-universe" style -- actually currently it's one of the worst examples of that kind, an example of how thing should not be done. 131.111.8.103 20:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am not sure of that. While I respect you, Judgesurreal, I think that the article is about Harry Potter the character. The discussion about the development of Harry belongs in JKR's page, and Radcliffe's comments on his protrayal belongs in Radcliffe's article. I don't mind some sort of direct for more info about that, but as the article is about a fictional character, the info about that character is the only thing that should be in that article, imho. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well....could you outline for me then what the article would look like, say, if it was a "Good article"? Cause if that stuff went in the other articles, what would go in this one? Judgesurreal777 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) well, i think we are well on our way as it is. Note how, in certain HP articles there are times when there are links to discussions about, say, Death Eaters, or wands, etc. Maybe we could handle it that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold rewrite + GAC

Hi there, following the my template in Hermione Granger (a good article), the talk above and the consensus of WP:Potter, I just boldly rewrote the article to make it a good article, if everything works. I firmly enforced WP:NOR and WP:WAF (bye bye, in universe cruft) and made my article so it is to at least 80% out of universe, with real life refs. Feedback and wikignoming are appreciated.

To all the in universe editors: I really assume good faith, but I am afraid that only little of your input is lastly Wikipedia-worthy. Probably the Harry Potter Wikia is a better place for you.

REMARK: a lot of refs go to "accio-quote". Technically, it may fail WP:RS, but they are transcripts of radio / video interviews. These interviews are available, but linking to them is a violation of WP:EL. —Onomatopoeia 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

Again, fantastic work! Review in just a second...Judgesurreal777 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now stable, having been vastly improved, it is very well sourced, most of the article coming from JK herself. It has pictures, including a free use image (for Harry Potter, that's kinda cool). It is complete, as it is only supposed to summarize his life/loves/characteristics, and any more would not be encyclopedic, and after all, that's what the books are for.

Thoughts heading toward FA.... expansion, expansion, expansion. It is all very good, but as such an important fictional character, I think this article could use a bit more of everything. More development if there is any, more popular culture references, and perhaps some of his non books non movies appearances... also, is that family tree chart necessary? Might get cut during FA....But other than that, great GA, another success for the harry potter wikiproject. Judgesurreal777 06:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoohoo!! Thanks for the analysis, and for the green plus. —Onomatopoeia 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I agree this article needs work. There's some good content, but it also tends to gloss over many points and other portions are vague and unclear. I've already started working on "Deathly Hallows" and I'll be working on the rest as time permits.PNW Raven 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice that i've excised a number of these expansions. In addition to bloat issues, we skate a bit too close to OR for comfort. I think if the points you find unclear or glossed over can be said succinctly, then rock it, m'man (or m'woman, if you are of the other gender). If my edits seem harsh, consider me the bean counter of the edit. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the original new version was that the each book's section focused on just a few points, mainly Harry's emotional state, and then there was a bunch of quotes from J.K. Rowling about it. That seems to be the "bloat." Do we need to know that Rowling was " . . . really, really, REALLY moved" by a particular scene. About half the qoutes could go. Don't get me wrong, I actually think it's important to include character analysis and Rowling's feedback about it, but it should show how it relates to what is happening in the story, and that seemed to be lacking. There was actually little about the plots in general. There was also too many sentences beginning with, "Rowling says", or "Rowling has Harry do this", "Rowling feels", "in the book this happens", . . . and so on. I appreciate wanting to keep this "out-of-universe" but not every sentence has to be structured that way. As long as something's stated as fact, it fits the O-O-U style. I agree about cutting the family tree thing. Put it somewhere else. Wizard One 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to hew pretty close to the GA granted version, as it is very much what is needed, and very little more "in the sixth book, harry did xyz" is needed. Judgesurreal777 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason at all to stay with the GA version as long as the edits converge on an FA version that sticks with Wikipedia policy on fictional character articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's full name?

Just out of curiosity--is there any source (canonical or semi-canonical) telling us what Harry's full first name is? Is he "Henry Potter", "Harold Potter", or something else? (I doubt he was christened "Harry"...) If we know this (say, from an interview with Ms. Rowling), we should note it on this page. -- Narsil 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Harry as far as I can recall. I can't put my finger on where but I'm sure she mentioned in an early interview that Harry's name was just Harry. Aula ^TPN 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said he was christened? According to some of the detractors the entire series is Debbil wuh-shippin'. Maybe he was Anti-Christened, instead. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christened? Like up side down? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry has a godfather, so he must have been baptised, unless "godfather" means something very different in the Wizarding world. Still, it's not inconceivable that their priest let them baptise him under the name "Harry". -- Narsil 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even we non-Christians have godparents. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry is never referred to as anything else but Harry, and I am almost positive JKR has never said anything about his supposedly "full" name. I know people whose full names are Harry, never gone so far to ask them if they were actually christened Harry, but it's not an unacceptable full first name. We have to accept that it is just Harry. Just as we've never heard if Charlie (Weasley) is actually Charles or just Charlie, we have to accept his first name as Charlie. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read somewhere that "Harry" is the short form for "Harold", JKR's favorite male firstname... (as a matter of fact, one of her great grandfathers was calle Frank Harold Rowling...)

On a couple of occasions in the last two books, Harry's full name is given in situations where they would not use a shortened form. The most recent of these is in Deathly Hallows when Scrimgeour reads Dumbledore's will. He refers to "Hermione Jean Granger" and, more importantly, "Ronald Bilius Weasley". He doesn't say "Ron", he says "Ronald". So if Harry wasn't his full name, you'd expect him to say something other than "Harry" when he got to Harry's part of the will. But he doesn't; he says "Harry James Potter".

So Harry's full, complete first name is in fact "Harry". SFT | Talk 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'On a couple of occasions in the last two books, Harry's full name is given in situations where they would not use a shortened form. The most recent of these is in Deathly Hallows when Scrimgeour reads Dumbledore's will.'

Ah, excellent catch--thanks! Yup, I'm convinced. He's a Harry. -- Narsil 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone still interested, in this interview JKR confirms that Harry was christened (about halfway down the page, a question asking if Harry has a godmother). faithless (^speak) 11:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]