Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Possessions lists in character articles

What are some opinions on the lists of possessions that appear in many character articles? To me, they appear to be glorified trivia sections. John Reaves 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some possessions, such as Harry's Invisibility Cloak or Hermione's Time Turner, are quite notable because they are important plot devices. These, however, should be mentioned within the context of the rest of the character biographies, not in a separate little "Possessions" section. Others, such as Ron's Broom Compass given by Harry as a Christmas gift or Hermione's Revealer have no discernible importance other than as a small mention in the novels. If they aren't important enough to have their notability asserted in the main article, I don't think they'd be important enough to be mentioned in a separate section. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would only keep the ones that are important in the plot. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs

Tagging pictures

I just wanted to let everyone know that I taged all the book cover pictures that were not taged yet, as well as a lot more pictures. I hope that helps. Have a good day.--C J King 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CJ King! Do you think we should add an "image" class to the template, and add an if: operation that will change all instances of the word "article" to "image"? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a new template or suggesting somehow modifying the template so the changes are transcluded?John Reaves 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That would mess it up a bit - all of the redirect pages are tagged with NA too. RHB 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, modifying all pictures so that they appear as {{WPHP|class=image}} and that would make the template read something like "This image is part of the WikiProject Harry Potter…" etc. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about modifying the template to remove NA and replace it with image. RHB 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. No, as you say, we shouldn't do that, because we don't want all the articles with class=NA to change. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BE warnings for user talk pages

These templates can be used to warn users about British and American English.

John Reaves 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Harry Potter fandom

I was starting to completely rewirte this page over break, but as I start back at school tomorrow I may not have enough time to focus on this. See the details at Talk:Harry Potter fandom#Further thoughts and the draft page of the rewrite at Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite. I've taken care of the sections "fan sites" and "conventions" and would like to handle "podcasting" and, if nobody else wants to "music," but as for "fanfiction" and "roleplaying games," I'm not involved enough in those fields of the fandom to write well about them. This rewrite is in the hopes of proposing an easier way of maintaining the external links in the article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category Issue

I noticed that some of our characters have been listed in cat 'Fictional English people', and cat 'Fictional British people'. They are all listed in cat 'HP characters', which is a sub cat of both the other two. Now, having every possible english or British fictional character as a direct member of 'english' or 'british' is just impossible. How many fictional characters are there? So they all ought only to be in a sub cat of either of those. Ok, they are, in 'hp characters'. The trouble with that, is that some HP characters are not English or even British. It seems to me the best quick fix is to delete all cat entries for HP characters into both of 'British' and 'english', but this still leaves some characters who are wrongly included. The difficulty is that dividing our characters by nationality is not very usefull as a brand new category. Sandpiper 11:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the two categories Fictional British people and Fictional English people so that the cat. Harry Potter characters is no longer a sub cat of the two. Is it all right? PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

it is rather the opposite of what I would have done. The difficulty with it is that all HP characters therefore ought to be entered individually as British/English. To paraphrase the commentary to the hitchhikers guide to the universe, 'this is, of course, impossible'. Not specifically, but in general it is impossible to add every fictional character individually to the category. Particularly a work like Hp which has maybe 100 entries, needs to be entered as a sub-category. So do you plan to create these? Sandpiper 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cat. fictional English/British characters for the simple reason that they are erroneous categories, as you had pointed out not every HP character is English/British. Frankly, I don't think it's important to label every fictional character with their nationalities. But if this must be done, it shouldn't be a big problem to add the cat. directly. HP has lots of entries, yet not all of them are articles for characters. After all, a number of HP major characters have been individually included in the cat 'fictional English' for some time. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I didn't notice the above until the below came to light… :-/ --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat: Fictional English people

I don't know where to propose this idea so I decide to talk to you. I have recently found this category in every character's article related to Harry Potter series and I see it such pointless information. Categories supply us the most remarkable characteristics, not a paragraph describing every minor detail about the character, and the "Fictional English people" one looks very crazy and sweeping. Thus I think we should remove this cat from all articles because it's really unnecessary. Moved from User talk:John Reaves. Originally posted by: _AbelinC A usesobad

Well, the HP articles certainly belong in the category, otherwise what's the point? If it's the category you don't like, take it to WP:CFD. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know these articles belong to the category, but it still looks preposterous. "Fictional English people" is a very general conception and plays no role in depicting the characteristics. This is a totally useless category. I suggest that we should remove it from all articles of HP first and I'll nominate it to "Category for deletion". Everyone agrees?_AbelinC A usesobad 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the general category 'fictional english people' is useless, but it is definitely not an invention of HP. It spans all fiction, so deleting it is not an issue specifically for us. I agree, I don't see the point of listing every character as a member of this cat separately, it just muddles the cat list at the end of articles, which is becoming rather full of not very exciting categories in some cases. Having too many cats listed makes the link box unhelpfull. Sandpiper 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki of information from "Harry Potter in translation series"

I'd suggest we transwiki all information at wikia:harrypotter:Harry Potter in translation series to Wiktionary, if there's consensus (and the energy) to do so. I don't think much of the Wikia HP site; it's not very well maintained. The info can of course remain there but I feel it belongs at a stronger source. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wiktionary's policies, but would this be acceptable? Does Wiktionary take lists of non-English words (which the article essentially is)? John Reaves 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't accept lists, but each of the words would receive its own entry. And yes, just take a quick glance around Wiktionary (it's a lot of fun), and you'll see that words of all languages are on the en site. The only distinction between the "en" and all other subdomains is that the definitions are written in English. The only question is whether they'll accept all these proper nouns from a fictional series. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know I'm not going to do it. You can go ahead though. John Reaves 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hermione Granger

From background below, the article has completely disappeared? Its not being hidden with those <-- > things. Can anyone point out/fix the problem? RHB 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. John Reaves 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just a <ref> link not being closed, cut off some of the article. Thanks anyway. RHB 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

There, destroyed the rest of this page :/ RHB 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Black

Would we be able to semi-protect this article, to stop anonymous IPs editing it? I'm getting sick of these constant references to him being sodomised with broomsticks and having affairs with Barty and Bella. Michaelsanders 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it - theres been relatively few instances of vandalism - I would say a candidate for protection might be HP7 because of the general spam/OR/unverified claims/vandalism, but I haven't looked at the history. RHB 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Can I just point out the To Do list on the Harry Potter talk page. With that and a bit of prose checking/copyediting it should be good enough for FA. Thanks, RHB 13:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see its previous application for FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter. John Reaves (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Character template addendum

This is, in part, a response to the discussion at the top of the page concerning the possessions lists that seem to work there way into HP articles. Would anybody be opposed to adding a section for Wand (i.e. length/wood type/core) and Pet(s) (i.e. Crookshanks, with a link to its article if it has one)? This would eliminate two pretty common things from the lists that aren't easy to work into the text. John Reaves (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would really be too much information in an infobox, if you ask me. An infobox should be short and succinct. Information that really gets into the details belongs in the prose of the article. That information could easily be mentioned at the end of the lead, or, when we finally break down the biography part of characters from sections by book into sections by action, the information could be mentioned then. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to get some opinions. John Reaves (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Useful link to archived J.K. Rowling material

Hey folks, while glacing through my favourite Harry Potter article, I noticed that the first reference in Horcrux had a quoted definition of "receptacle in which a Dark wizard has hidden a fragment of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality.", with the reference provided as Author's website, Diary entry, Sept 29th. Of course, the current entry (December 19 at the time of this post) does not contain a definition of Horcrux, so I set about looking for a real citation and found this gem of a web page: [1] This message thread contains a record of many (if not all) of Rowling's updates to her web site. We can also try using the Wayback Machine, but this page should definitely help us to find a cached version of Rowling's page (however, the latest version is "Jun 02, 2006", so the Wayback Machine would have been useless here). This should help us find citations for other Harry Potter articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting message board, and I suppose the Lexicon's Ultimate Guide to Jo's Site would be a reliable source to cite in case we can't find anything using Archive.org. I agree, it's rather frustrating that there's no official record of it now on her site as it currently appears. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that archive. Since it's a more notable site, I decided to change the link to that one instead. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FUR for Image:HarryPotterCovers.jpg

Can someone stick a detailed FUR for this? Grab some ideas from other book covers if you need some help. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a nice image, but is it qualified for fair use in that article? Perhaps in an article comparing/contrasting the book covers, but I wouldn't too readily tag a rationale onto that one until we feel it's necessary in the article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hogwarts seal image

Someone insists on changing the JPG versionof the Hogwarts seal SVG version. The JPG version is obviously a better choice (as the SVG is bland and cartoonish). Does anybody know a way to circumvent the issue of "SVG superiority" and include the JPG instead? John Reaves (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there something stopping us from converting the JPG image into an SVG file? I don't have a clue how to do it though… --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, maybe, that the new image is what happens when you convert. I could be wrong though, I know very little about images. John Reaves (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My gross stupidity and laziness on article assessment

Hi folks, I did a few maintenance tasks related to the HP watchlist, and among these was adding {{HP-project}} to a whole bunch of talk pages to link them to the HP Wikiproject. Now, I'm not on the article assessment team, so I figured I wouldn't be in the position to make a judgement of these articles. Or rather, I'm too lazy to perform assessments, and I also made what might be a grossly stupid assessment of "NA" to the templates without really knowing where templates lie in the assessment scheme of things. FYI, I've summarised the articles I added to the Wikiproject below. Also, just a friendly reminder that if you see any articles related to Harry Potter, please add them to the HP watchlist. Thanks! :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the ones I marked as "NA" (this includes templates, I'm not sure where templates lie in the assessment)

Here are the ones I didn't assess (ie, are left "Unknown")

--Deathphoenix ʕ 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'NA' stands for "Non-Article" or "Not an Article" (or something like that), so I'd say it's a correct label. John Reaves (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Deathphoenix was looking for the appropriate rating for the second part of the list – the seven articles of mostly soundtracks. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Family parameter in character template

I didn't even know it existed, but 209.244.188.194 has added a whole bunch of family members to the infobox on multiple character pages. I'm questioning most of the parameters now, like "eye color" and "hair color," which (though I can't find it now) Wikipedia policies on infobox suggest keeping only the most important information in an infobox, leaving out details exactly like those. I really like the WP Narnia infobox, and, though we'd need to adjust some stuff to make it fit for us, I wonder if we would consider remodeling. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that info box too, though changing all of the pages is a very ambitious project. Do you think we should roll back 194's changes? They only put the info in for 10 or so pages, so it makes for an incomplete feel. John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"family" was inherited from {{HP Elf Character}}, one of the several templates which were merged into {{HP character}}. On Template talk:HP character it explains,

"family: The family to which a house-elf belongs."

Maybe we want links to a character's relatives in the infobox, but "Unnamed father/mother" isn't useful, and the formatting is wrong: to put multiple names on separate lines, they should be NAME_1 <br/> NAME_2 <br/> ..."

—wwoods 02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it was misused. Family is only meant for a house-elf's family, not a character's family… Anyway, I'll try to start designing a renovated infobox for discussion. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows rating

Does anyone else think this article should be rated higher than 'B-Class'? John Reaves (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the next rating above that is GA-class, and the article is definitely not stable as the book hasn't been released yet. I'd wait until the beginning of August or so. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was A-class. Though this is one of the most well-referenced articles we have. John Reaves (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) is extremely well-referenced too but they suggested to wait until the movie comes out. I guess in the mean time we should really focus our attention to books and films that have come out… :-) --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Harry Potter

Does anybody think this is worth keeping around? It's hardly ever updated and not really useful. John Reaves (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. At least Portal:Harry Potter/Harry Potter news is frequently updated. Pea ceNT 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Move of "Differences" articles

I have med all the book/film differences articles (Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, etc.) temporarily out of the main namespace, until we can cut down all the information and cite it. Then, it will probably be moved into the main film article. There was an AfD which only kept the articles for being torn between delete and merge. It was in August but I didn't learn of it until about a month ago, and I haven't really had the time to put any effort there. The pages can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/PS Differences or whatever the two-letter book abbreviation is. Hopefully we can work on getting this information back up soon -- I didn't want to delete because of all my research that went into this, but then again, it was my research. So it's a good reference personally, but not encyclopedically.

If we can also start to remove all links and references to these pages, that would probably be good. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be pretty hard to incorporate this info anywhere. Also, the cross-namespace redirects need to be deleted. John Reaves (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of the stuff is rather important and many film articles have sections about differences between the source material and the film. Also, I already re-redirected the articles to the main film article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that a least one of the talk pages redirects to the Project namespace, which I assume is the result of a move. I don't have time check/change them all at the moment, but the talk pages should also redirect to the movie pages, not the Project. John Reaves (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this sounds as if it is rather after the fact, but looking at two sources notionally about the same thing and making a list of the differences between them is entirely encyclopedia building and not original research. Sandpiper 09:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Err again, why exactly is this going on? where can I see the drelevant deletion debate? all it says on the page, tracking it back is that there was no consensus for deletion. So why are we deleting it? Sandpiper 09:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know that as well. If the articles need to be rewritten to ensure that they are properly sourced or formatted, that's one thing, but moving it off the main articlespace when the result of an AfD was no consensus? When an AfD is closed as no consensus, that means that the AfD defaults to a "keep" (or whatever is the non-delete "second action" in the AfD). Moving the article and redirecting it to another article effectively erased the article history from the main articlespace, which requires a clear delete consensus in an AfD to do. Instead, you should have copied and pasted the article into the temporary version in the Wikiproject directory structure while leaving the article (or at the very least, the article history) in the main articlespace. I think I need to undo this damage by undeleting the article or merging the article histories, actions that take some time to do because of the complexities involved with moving an article back to an old article with an article history (and requires admin access), and providing a copy & paste version of the article (with no article history) into the new version. That way, the temporary article has no article history, while the original article still retains it. If we decide to keep the temporary article, we can then go through the effort of merging article histories from the temporary article to the main article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article back to the main articlespace. Since Fbv last had these articles redirecting to the main "book" article, I also did so since I'm not objecting to Fbv's decision to redirect the article (though not necessarily endorsing it), but at least now the article history is still in the main articlespace. As is normal for a usual merge and redirect result, I've left the talk pages intact (not redirected). Sorry for my testiness, but moving articles can take some effort to undo. What we do with these articles is up to us: As I usually note down when I close a keep or merge AfD (and as the AfD closer here noted), whether an article is kept or merged is a discussion that can be held outside of AfD. So let the discussions resume. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Major apologies to Deathphoenix for making you undo all of that, and further apologies to the WP for the confusion in this whole matter. I had seen an overwhelming AfD with only a half !vote for keep, and then it was prodded, so I figured action was really geared towards getting it away. I have absolutely no idea how to cite this appropriately – besides the fact that it is really difficult to reference occurences in films (since you don't cite a time in the film that a scene appears), do you have to cite a source that analyzes the critical commentary? Is this in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:OR? I certainly am hoping not, but I had seen so many others speak to the contrary that I figured it was. Sorry for the mildly hasty action, and I do hope that we can keep the info! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. What it comes down to is that everything can be undone (except for the dreaded Wikipedia:Office Actions and Wikipedia:Oversight, of course), so there's no lasting damage done. I should probably work more on being less of a grumpy old man, especially when I'm not actually that old (I think). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well… Sandpiper restored these pages, what action are we now going to take on them? We should try to make it among our top-priority articles to work on. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did restore them, because I don't think they should be nowhere and quitely forgotten. But I do see the point that was being made about them. Logically, they could be part of the film articles. They are big though, and I think that was why they were farmed out to their own articles in the first place. I have also inserted the whole of 'PS differences' into HP and the philosophers stone (film). See what people think about leaving it there just like that. I don't know about the other articles, but this one is not ridiculously long. Sandpiper 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reassess how important some of those plot lines are, and then transfer it from list to prose. For example, in that table, the most important differences are Climax, Quirrell's Death, Snape/James, Tasks leading to Climax, and then maybe second priority is Neville's Role. While I thought it was cool at the time, a listing of all students who appear in the book but not the film may not be necessary. The same goes for the deleted scenes, though we should probably check with the WP:FILM on what their guidelines for that are. The omission of Peeves is important to keep, but the locations list may not be.

It's basically just a matter of assessing how much of this important is too fandomy, which a lot of it is, and how much is encyclopedic enough that a general audience would be interested. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what 'encyclopedic' means when used in that sense. Are you saying that an encyclopedic entry must by definition be short? Whatever happened to wiki is not paper? The advantage we have is that we do have the luxury of including small details for those who are interested. Articles should not be written for the lowest common denominator, rather for those interested in the greatest detail. Sandpiper 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand this is a near-unlimited amount of space to use on Wikipedia. However, the question of notability arises when you wonder how important it is that only five students are Sorted in the film, compared to the near 30 in the book. An article will never reach FA or even GA status with that type of trivial information, which, as I said above, is too much geared at only devoted fans. Only great differences from the book, those that affect the plot or those that are quite notably contrasted to the source material, should be written about. Per your edit summary, I'm not removing because less people are interested, but rather because this has called to my attention that my original efforts, when I was still new at Wikipedia, were not entirely the most beneficial to this encyclopedia. You're of course welcome to save this work on your own computer. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all articles need to reach GA or FA status. Some are just there to be useful to those that want to know the information. This sort of information, whilst not necessarily useful or interesting to all readers, will be so to some, and as such should be retained. Michael Sanders 14:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FBV, what you seem to be saying is that some things are too trivial to be included in wiki. I'm afraid that is not my idea of what wiki should be. Certainly arrange information so that someone who wants a quick short version can get that, but there has to be extended information for those who want that also. This is a completely general principle. The fact that some people may hate the particluar subject under discussion and the inclusion of greater detail here does not alter the fact that others will be looking for it. Sandpiper 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Given that we now have a Good Article in Lord Voldemort (and a belated well done to Onomatopoeia for that), I think it would be a good idea to choose another article to rewrite in the same fashion (rather than either everyone running off and creating poor/unnecessary/contradictory rewrites, or the progressive desire losing momentum). And then, if that one works, choose another. Et cetera. Anyone have any suggestions? Michaelsanders 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Harry Potter is very close to FA standard. A couple of us have been doing some editing on that one, and its down to 47kb. Theres a to do list I created earlier too. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers! Harry Potter looks good indeed. Concerning chars, I propose Hermione Granger: main character in books and films, enough material to write about, appears in interviews by JKR, possibly also interesting to analyse as prime example of real-life "shipping wars". —Onomatopoeia 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Severus Snape? Pea ceNT 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends whether we're up to the challenge. It would be very difficult to write an article to these standards on him without treading on peoples toes. And it would need substantial revision once we found out from HPDH whether he is truly evil or truly good (or whatever). On the other hand, if we could pull off a GA for him, especially under such circumstances, it would certainly be impressive... Michaelsanders 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about Harry Potter, I've just realized, is that since the article has a "future" section, there's no way to get it to FA before July 21. But we should certainly try to get GA- and A-class articles in characters, all set to go to add on information from DH, like Onomatopoeia (further congrats!) did for LV. I think that the only articles we could hypothetically have at FA standard now would be those that don't deal directly with information found in DH, namely, the first six books, the first four movies, and J. K. Rowling. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

This issue has developed out of a comparatively minor one on the Deathly Hallows page. And since it is going nowhere there, it needs to be discussed here, separate from the original issue. So here it is.

What do we define as a Reliable Source for use in Harry Potter articles? Where do we draw the line between wiki-OR and expert-OR? And to what extent do we allow Speculation if we are not the ones speculating? Michaelsanders 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, can the word "expert" in the Wikipedia context (that is, "professional researchers in their field of expertise") really be applied to unknown fans attempting mind-reading (ie guessing the content of a book that have not yet been publish) on JKR ? Folken de Fanel 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My view would be that experts on the HP books are just as good at analysing them as any professor in an ivory tower. And I would hve to say that that some of the people running these webistes are precisely 'professional researchers' writing about their own 'field of expertise'. Sandpiper 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We're speaking about speculations, here, absolutely no one can be an expert on an unpublished book, except the author.

Analysing is a thing, trying to guess the content of the next book is another.

No one writing for these websites is a "professional researcher" (meaning that it's their official job to study literature, and that they have all the knowledge to do it, a knowledge that was evaluated and recognized by official professors and all) in their "field of expertise" (ie having studied HP for years and having presented various works to academic authorities).

"Expertise" is not defined by how many times you've read the book and searched on the web for etymologies. It's defined by studies supervised/approved by an academic expert.

As the rules of Wikipedia say, "anyone can pretend he's an expert", so it takes more than a few etymologic researches and a thorough compiling of facts from the books to be called an "expert". Any fan that has time to lose can reference the 6 books and do some minor etymologic researches.

And even if these persons were to be concidered experts (which is not the case), the speculations they write would be out of their field of "expertise", since the said field is in that case, the referencing of published books and not reading the mind of JKR about book 7 (and mind reading isn't officially concidered as a competence yet). Folken de Fanel 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion a little, and though I haven't participated and read absolutely everything, my feeling is that there is no verification for listing connections to "deathly" and/or "hallows" unless the author of the speculation (research) has deliberately linked them to the Deathly Hallows in JKR's seventh book, which is not possible yet. I think only the brief definition of the words is all that can be included without creating original research – original research because, though the speculation has been done by others and has been published, it is we, Wikipedia editors, who are drawing the parallels to the book. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think most professional researchers would be very disappointed to learn that it is impossible to research something which does not exist yet, or write respected, accepted, referenceable material about it. No rocket to Mars, then. Since it doesn't exist yet, obviously no one can write anything worthwhile even about how one might start to build one. Sandpiper 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, DO NOT even try to compare kids making guesses about the end of Harry Potter, and scientists who have studied many many years.

And please, try to understand that your comments, if they do not contain any valid argumentation, but merely nonsense fueled by frustration, are absolutely uninteresting and do not help us in any way. Folken de Fanel 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the subject does not interest you, then perhaps you might find your time better spent working on articles which do interest you. I also think you will find that the sort of research which goes into creating rockets to Mars is precisely the same as that required to develop a good scenario of the necessary content of book 7. Except, as i said somewhere else, you only need 6 books to work on extracting HP information, not a fully equipped physics lab.Sandpiper 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I return the comment to you : obviously you have absolutely no interest in Book 7 whatsoever, you're just here to boast about how you and your friends have solved the secret of HP, and you're just trying to make Wikipedia your own personal blog in order to spread your Gospel, the Gospel of those genious fans who can see the future.

Since you're interest here is clearly not providing Wikipedia with encyclopedic content, but merely writing your own unsubstanciated personal theories, I suggest you to leave Wikipedia and to start your own website.

By the way, speaking about your comparison between book 7 and scientific research about rockets on mars...Haven't you forgotten than it's not the fans that are writing book 7, but only JKR ? And that it has already been written ? In that case, original-researching about the content of book 7 is useless.

By the way, if you pretend the fans that are writing theories about book 7 are equal to people researching rockets on mars, then I suggest them to drop HP and to work on something more serious than that. Because if they have such a scientific knowledge, their really waisting their time, and instead of writing about children novels they should work on a way to solve famine and poverty problems in the world. Folken de Fanel 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I don't claim to have originated anything I have ever added to wiki. Sandpiper 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have stated your personal opinion several times, indeed. And that you're using outside unsubstanciated and unreliable original research doesn't change the problem. Folken de Fanel 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, precisely the problem. It is your opinion that the sources are unreliable. I generally use those recommended by Rowlings, at least for inclusions here. Sandpiper 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. I merely follows Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Because you see, it's not us who decide which source is good, which is not. It's Wikipedia itself.

As for JKR, when she'll go public about "Lexicon being right in every single of their theories", I will take it into account. But for now, she has never said anything of the sort, and you should stop trying to alter her words on this subject. She has praised Lexicon for being accurate about published material, and only that. And Wikipedia is very clear, sources must be "in their field of expertise", and theories on book 7 aren't lexicon field of expertise, since they aren't expert on book 7, since they have not read it. Folken de Fanel 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point about theories. Theories are called theories because they have not been proved. Lexicon would not claim their theories have been proved, either. It would be incorrect to state something about the forethcoming book from them as being definitely correct because they have said so. But it is right to say that people are arguing about whatever it is, and that a reputable source has suggested that something may be the case. We are not talking about certainties, but what is believed now. It is no different to writing up a news story. The police arrest someone, they claim someone is a terrorist. Might be true, might not. But we say they believe this, and that they made the arrest. Then maybe we say the suspects mother claims something different. We explain all the circumstances. Sandpiper 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point about theories. There are NO reputable source that suggested anything.

If, as you say, "no one is claiming to be right or wrong", then there's no reputable source, because all the sources are the same, and "reputable" means that a hierarchy has been established; "reputable" can only exist if there's "not reputable", but as you're saying no source can be above the other as far as proofs are concerned, then any attempt at claiming that a particular source would be reputable is vain.

Please do not use irrelevant comparisons.Folken de Fanel 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

Regarding Template:Harry Potter characters, I moved Dumbledore and Snape to Main characters, besides Harry, Ron, Hermione and Voldemort. Hope no one has any objections. Pea ceNT 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter fandom -- another call

Hello all, I know I've brought this up before, it's just that I started this a month and a half ago and haven't finished yet, due to being busy with school. I'm trying to rewrite Harry Potter fandom and so far, the parts that I've finished could easily be GA status. However, the Roleplaying, Podcast, and Music sections I haven't completed. You can see the rewrite page at Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite. I know a fair amount about Podcasts and Wizard rock, and if necessary I could write a section on them. But I honestly know nothing about the roleplaying aspect of the fandom, and for somebody to write that would be tremendously appreciated. You don't really have to know too much, just a basic knowledge, and be good at Googling for references -- that's all it takes, if you know something is true and have a decent idea where you can find information on it. If you want, you can go ahead and write Podcast and Music sections as well. (I've also created, but not written anything in, an "Iconic landmarks tours," referring to the tours that go through England and Scotland that point out locations for the films and the café were JKR wrote PS, etc., so working on that too would be great.) I just have a lot of work, and would love to see this finally get done! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, I've got the day off tomorrow, I'll have a go at it. TonyJoe 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron Weasley

I recently rewrote a lot of Ron Weasley to match the new, out-of-universe design on Lord Voldemort, but the Ron article is still a little lacking in stuff besides role in the book. With just a little more time we could get it up to GA level. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks very solid. Some minor points: 1) it probably needs a copyedit in "Attributes" (as a GA patrol guy, I can say that sections with only 1 sentence are frowned upon), 2) a dedicated "Appearances in Film" section would be good, 3) as you said, more out-of-universe statements, from JKR or Rupert Grint, if available. But these minor things aside, it is a big step towards

. —Onomatopoeia 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't have time to flesh out those one- or two-sentence sections, but I wanted to create at least a foundation. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do with Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter?

I'm debating whether to send this article to AfD. When the proposal to create the article was tossed around, I was all for it, but now I'm seeing that, if an actor is only notable for small appearances in Harry Potter films, they probably don't pass WP:BIO. I don't think anybody on that page is currently notable elsewhere, so they wouldn't be lost if the article was deleted. Besides, they're all mentioned on the individual cast pages and List of Harry Potter films cast members. The article also posed some problems with having a plethora of FU images, which I eventually just got tired of and temporarily put comment markers around until something was figured out. Any thoughts on this? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I say send it to Afd, it's especially redundant given the main list. John Reaves (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, nobody else has anything to say so I'm going to send this guy to AfD… --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm rather surprised to see that this passed an AfD. I really didn't count on that happenning, and was expecting a deletion. So, what do you want to do with it? If we can't delete the article as a whole, we can keep the more notable of these already minor actors, and delete the ones where the only information on them is one sentence, redirecting their individual articles to List of Harry Potter films cast members. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Harry Potter characters

I have added NavFrames to {{Harry Potter characters}}. Comments? John Reaves (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Borgin

Hi, why is there no article about Mr Borgin? / 81.226.194.196 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Borgin and Burkes, its merged into that article. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New GA!

Hey guys, Harry Potter fandom has been promoted to GA status! Thanks for your help with it! It's now currently in peer review. Any changes you can make to the article (specifically expanding the lead) would be most appreciated.

In the mean time, Controversy over Harry Potter is a GA ~~nom~~. This article was just listed as a GA! Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And on a slightly unrelated note, let's offer our congrats to John Reaves, whose RfA was recently passed! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter video game articles in major need of help

All of them (with the exception of Order of the Phoenix, which isn't out) are just mainly made up of lists. Has anyone played them enough to help clean them up? RobJ1981 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, never play video games. I do agree that those often go ignored though. Perhaps we can recruit from the Videogaming WP. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows film article

It's been created again. I just checked WP:CRYSTAL and technically, since it's been announced, there's no problem with it. But there's not much to say, except that the trio will be back, and Heyman and Kloves are involved. Can we just move it into a subsection of the book article? Or do people think it should stay? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Move it into the book??? Isn't there enough hassle there already? I don't mind if it exists or not, but if you are set on deleting it, well it is something which is going to happen. Sandpiper 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been (appropriately) redirected to the book article for such little information on production. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan art

Harry Potter fan art is up for deletion on Commons. Harry Potter Fan art. Bryan 12:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

This article's been nominated for AfD. Please check the article page, and then go over and assess neutrally whether it should keep or be deleted, or something else. What might be best is to source the page right now: note how the filmmakers use dates, and Jo checks them, and it is generally important. We don't need to up it to FA status, but at least show that it's worthy of keeping, in my opinion. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

As there are so many links, i have created a starter disambiguation page for Harry Potter. Simply south 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast Members

Separately, i have put List of Harry Potter films cast members up for WP:RM. Simply south 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dates in Harry Potter / Chronology of Years - What is Next?

Well now that the Dates in Harry Potter article has been deleted, we no longer have any sort of traceability or reference anchors for any of the years provided in HP articles - birth years, etc. We only have a few Rowling-based anchor references (eg: Draco Malfoy's birthdate). Kids and vandals frequently randomly change birth years and such around to correspond with their own life events, and Internet trolls run around shifting and changing the years for fun, just to be an irritant. It will be difficult to defend any of the years without the analysis and anchors provided in the Dates article. We'll have to depend on an external source to provide that service now. If we cannot find a similar reliable source for Dates and Years in Harry Potter, then it doesn't seem to make sense any more to pretend that HP years are relevant in-universe or in the real world. We needed the Dates in HP article as an anchor to keep things from shifting, and for restoring the vandalized articles. The next hassle we will face is to cite sources for the hundreds of year-references currently provided in the articles. I would recommend that we just uniformly delete all references to fixed years in the HP articles, since we cannot cite an internal source or reference without engaging in a lot of original research and mathematical gymnastics, unless we find a reliable source that serves the same purpose. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Use the chronologies provided in the DVDs...Folken de Fanel 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

which just got deleted? We can't delete the dates. They are referenceable on any of the recommended websites in character biographies and we need dates too. Dates are an important part both in simply recognising what sort of person you are dealing with, but specifically in solving some of the puzzles in the books. Sandpiper 21:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

However, I am still unclear as to exactly on what grounds the article was deleted, and whether it might be sensible to take the deletion decison to appeal. The debate was rather muddled, and while several people clearly wanted it deleted, I am not convinced they made an actionable case. Sandpiper

I really can't see what would be so "essencial" with dates...If that's the case, why didn't JKR include them in her books ? Folken de Fanel 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

She did, just not obviously, which is why it is helpfull to readers to list them. Don't you find it ironical that an article which talks about real-woeld happenings with regard to Hp, and provides a list which is more then a simple plot summary, gets dweleted 'because it is a plot summary'? Sandpiper 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The explanation and "voting record" for the deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter. Please review that for an eye-opening alternate perspective of the value of HP-related articles, outside of the HP Project contributers. A lot of hostility. Anyway the deleted article itself is no longer redlinked, but it also contains no information other than the deletion info template. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note: the article was re-created: Dates in Harry Potter. I think a protection delete is in order. It's simply not needed here. Stick it on a Harry Potter Wiki, not here. Fancruft doesn't have a place here. Look at any popular series: there is many dates (I havent seen articles for them listing all the dates). Point me to other examples of date listings for books, and this might be notable enough. RobJ1981 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is needed here - it is an article essential to the project, since it is a timeline of the events in Rowling's novels, properly sourced per wikipedia standards. It isn't 'fancruft', but a thoroughly sourced and thoroughly necessary article for this project. Also, wikipedia articles aren't written and kept based on precedent in previous articles - it doesn't matter if there are 50 or no date-listings for other books in wikipedia, if the article fits wikipedia criteria, it is suitable. Michael Sanders 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is cruft. Obviously Harry Potter fans think it's interesting... but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every Harry Potter date. RobJ1981 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Define how it is 'cruft'. And 'interesting' has nothing to do with it: it is an integral part of WP:WPHP, of this encyclopaedia's coverage of Rowling's novels. This encyclopaedia is both spacious enough and thorough enough and involved enough to have room for all subjects, and to cover them in sufficient depth. The topic is an encyclopaedic subject, it is properly sourced, so tell me properly why you believe it should be deleted. Michael Sanders 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think I should point out, if anyone cares to find and read the explanatory article on this term, that whether or not it is 'cruft', cruft is not a ground for deletion. Sandpiper 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a personal note, can we please stop using the word "fancruft." It gives a negative connotation to saying that something I care about is not deemed appropriate here on the encyclopedia. If that's what you mean, then say it. But "fancruft" sounds more like knowing the exact hair length of Harry Potter, or the color socks he wore at his first day of Hogwarts, etc. Something that is even vaguely important within its context should at least be respected, even if other editors don't think an article about it belongs on Wikipedia. And dates are most definitely important to any story. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood purity AFD

Blood purity is up for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

I am petitioning to have this page altered to rmeove the restriction against using succession boxes for fictional characters. I think this group has an interest since several related pages for fictional characters are already using these boxes. Please Vote Here.--Dr who1975 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New template

I've created {{HPAFD}} so that current AfDs will now be placed on this talk page at the top (see the top of this page). That template currently transcludes Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. I was wondering what people would think if we deleted that project page and just automatically put all AfDs on the new template. We might also want to consider putting GA noms, DRVs, FACs, etc., in this noticeboard.

This could also be placed on your user or talk page, if you wanted. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:RMs? Simply south 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, all those project-related activities and the like. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'll delete after some more input. John Reaves (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Final preparations for Harry Potter fandom's FAC

Hey all, Harry Potter fandom is almost all set to go to WP:FAC! There's just a few things left over from its peer review which I could use your assistance on, besides a general fresh eye on the article:

Perhaps one more paragraph in the lead (right after the second one would work) summarizing the rest of the article, unless you think that's adequately done in the first paragraph. It's pretty hard to summarize, compared to other articles, because this is basically a list of subsections of the fandom with paragraphs on them, whereas other articles are about one topic broken down into sections. I think it's all right as it is, but maybe you guys think it could be longer.
Check for American spellings in the article. As I am American, I don't know what they'd be.
If you can (on a personal request from one peer reviewer), can anybody find a reliable citation for fans of a Sirius/Remus 'ship?
The last two paragraphs of the Roleplaying section could use with citations, but it's so hard to cite since it comes from playing them that you know this. If they go uncited, it probably won't be called into question and is one of those things which don't need references, as they aren't controversial, but if we can find a good cite that would be nice.
Is there anything major missing?

Best, Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do books written about Hp count as fandom, or something else? Are they included here? Sandpiper 10:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is kind of more general people reaction, but I suppose there could certainly be a section on books, or at least a mention of it. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered the question because someone asked, but I had been wondering where to properly categorise and mention books written about HP. Fandom is perhaps not quite right, but then 'derivative works' has an explanatory tag saying 'ie parodies', which isn't right either. Strictly speaking, there are by now quite a lot of books written discussing the books by Rowling. User:Sandpiper 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then again, there are plenty of books about a number of other topics, though there aren't articles listing every book about them. You could make a "Futher reading" section on the main Harry Potter article, actually. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Countdown Timer

Does anyone know if the Wiki system can support a countdown timer for fixed future events that can be displayed on User pages and perhaps articles? I think it would be pretty cool if someone with the skills could set us up with a user template or something with a count-down timer for Midnight (GMT or user-selected time) July 13 for the OoTP film, and July 21 for the DH book. Just a thought. Or maybe it already exists and I have just not found it yet. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could we not have a part which lists the various incantations depicted in the book series,with a backgroung information on what the spell/incantation can do,with reference to which series in the books it appears in and what page.(Also maybe a bit on potions used with ingredients) Wongdai 10:46 11 April 2007, (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter (2)

Dates in Harry Potter - I've recreated the article. I've done some major rewriting, and a lot of sourcing, and I've readded it to the main section because I think it's in good enough condition now to pass muster; however, I haven't reached the bottom yet, which consequently is still in bad shape. Please could you help if you get the chance? Michael Sanders 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, since the article was speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G4), why don't you rewrite the entire article either on a subpage of your user page or on a project subpage, and when it's ready to go into the main namespace, move it in with the template {{hangon}}. If you've sourced it, whether it was already deleted or not, it's fair game. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreated at Dates in Harry Potter, complete with template, and talk page explanation. Thanks for the advice. Michael Sanders 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only seeing a template on the deletion at that link. The deleted article itself is no longer redlinked, but it also contains no information other than the deletion info template. As far as I can tell we still have no verifiability or traceability on birth years and such for any of our Project articles, with the exception perhaps of Draco Malfoy, for whom Rowling set a specific birthdate I think in 1980. Other than that, we have no reference or citation capability for the years we have posted for events in the HP universe, which means we are still in grave danger of an unrelenting "citation needed" attack by the same sort of folks who voted to delete the timeline in the first place as OR and whatnot (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter). So our problem remains. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted again on the same day. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6 for the Deletion review, and give your opinion on the matter. Michael Sanders 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The appeal against deletion has now been settled as a relisting at AFD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter_(second_nomination) Sandpiper 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth Dates Etc.

URGENT: One of the justifications for deleting the Dates in Harry Potter article, raised by an outside admin, is that hardly anything linked to the Dates page, according to the What Links Here tool. Most of us know that virtually every article in the HP Project, that had an in-universe Date mentioned, was linked back to the Dates in Harry Potter page for reference as a reliable check. When the Dates article was deleted (first round), many well-meaning editors deleted the resulting red-links to the Dates page. The article has been re-established for the time being, and is now called "non-notable" because hardly anything links back there any more, and is subject to re-deletion. Please help with re-establishing the links to Dates in harry Potter on the character and events pages! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a lot of the old links. However, there are no doubt still dates that should be linked to the chronology article (which is more appropriate than linking them to a real date article, e.g. 1477), so anyone who finds any unlinked or inappropriately linked dates, link them, and hope it doesn't turn out to be a waste. Michael Sanders 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The admin that closed the original afd removed all of the links when it was deleted. We can probably go back and try to revert/undo those removals.John Reaves (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

Editors will be pleased to know that the Chronology of the Harry Potter stories AfD resulted in a healthy keep decision. Michael Sanders 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quidditch Article

See my comments on the Talk:Quidditch page, under Regional Teams. It seems to me that with the exception of the UK teams, that all of these are made up. There is no sourcing for any of them. What is the policy for inclusion of a team? Someone added another one just today. Tuyvan 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)