Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Impending doom

As July approaches, we need to start thinking about the massive amounts of vandalism that will occur. I think one of the first things we need to do is create a boilerplate message that we can crosspost to various places (e.g. WP:AN and WP:CN) that informs the community that we will be reading Deathly Hallows and will be unable to keep watch on the various HP articles. John Reaves (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Also, as I brought up at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Immediate Edit Lock, we could assign certain editors to watch (more closely than usual) certain articles. We could take a look at User:Deathphoenix/HarryPotterWatchlist to get a list of articles (though it might be more productive to take an equal amount of articles by quality, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Assessment) and start choosing which ones we'd like to cover. (By the way, very amusing section name, John.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(I thought it would be a good title) I think the idea is that most of us will be completely inactive for however long it takes to read the book so we won't be available to watch any articles. The assignments would be useful for once we come back, because I'm sure the vandalism will keep on for a while. John Reaves (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Agree. In addition we need to be careful not to feed the trolls by telling them what we will be doing and not doing around "D-Day" the weekend of July 21. I do not have any statistics about the X killed Y trolling and other early spoiler vandalism that happened after Book 6 came out, but I would estimate that it will be an order of magnitude larger this time around - as the Wikipedia user base has probably doubled and redoubled since then. I am still unsure exactly what should be done about the possibility of editors who get hold of "illegally distributed" or stolen early copies, obtained from unscrupulous book store owners or employees, who might then start to reveal plot details which are temporarily unverifiable. And who will be the sacrificial lambs, willing subject themselves to monitoring and reverting the spoilers and vandalism, and "approving" plot details for truth and verifiability? How can anyone do this job without first reading the books? I am tempted to request that JK and the Publishers to please send a few copies to some trusted key speed reading wiki-editors and administrators a few days early, with the understanding of an iron clad confidentiality agreement, just to keep the articles "clean" right up to "D-Day", and then to monitor and maintain the appropriateness of the articles after D-day. The only alternative I can think of is to lock the articles down perhaps a day or two in advance of the release date, to avoid embarrassing publicity from the inevitable vandalism, spoilers, and trolling. The Wikipedia is already a laughingstock worldwide after falsely reporting and spreading the death rumors of Sinbad a few days ago (see). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion (for what it's worth) would be to totally block pretty much all the major articles from about the 18th (and politely request that admins think about anything they add), and ignore the talk pages (talk pages are less important in terms of vandalism, so we can just not look at any alterations there). Set up a list of available editors. When we have 'enough' available, or willing, editors (10 or 20 or 50 or whatever), or (if no-one bothers) it reaches 1st August (nice dividing line), the unimportant articles are unprotected, the hotspots moved to semi-protection, and we start integrating new information. And then, when about 2-3 weeks more have passed (and the vandals and over-enthusiasts have lost interest, or are prepared to work sensibly), and we can be sure of being in control and up to scratch, we (provisionally) unprotect all the articles, and get on with adding in the new information. I mean, it's hardly the best way of doing things, but I don't see how we can otherwise cope with the days surrounding the 21st unless we simply prevent damaging additions (I mean, really, how many people are going to be here on 21st?) Michael Sanders 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A complete lockdown is a pretty radical thing. We'll have to get some outside community input on this. I think it will probably be best to semi-protect and have people aware that full-protection might be needed. I for one will probably not be available on the 21st, I might take a break and check the pages, but spoilers are a pretty big worry of mine. I'm starting a list of the core article to be protected in a subsection below (feel free to add to it). John Reaves (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I read HBP in a day and got around to fan site discussions and Wikipedia updating within the next day or two. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But if you're reading a book solidly in a day, I'd assume you won't be on wikipedia at all that day (I know I won't...) - and the same could be said for plenty of others here. And many people I talked to after OotP and HBP took more than a day. So we need to make sure we are on top of the issue. Michael Sanders 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people actually can read that quickly, though. I remember reading HBP in nearly 3 solid hours the night it came out. I know not everyone can read that quickly, but a lot of people will finish it within the first week, so I think that allowing editing around July 27 should be reasonable enough. Sonya 20:48, 27 March 2007

I'm afraid I think you guys are getting a bit carries away here. Perhaps I have a different slant on wiki than you do, but it is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I agree there is an issue about pre-publication leaks, but I can't really agree about the post-publication position. The moment the book is officially released, then our articles will almost certainly all be totally out of date. Never mind whether anyone is trying to vandalise them, they will be wrong anyway. So why exactly are you requesting special protection to prevent anyone correcting them to conform to the new book? There may be an issue about tactfully writing articles so that people have a chance to bail out and stop reading because they havn't read the last book yet, but honestly, think about this. No one is going to be unaware that the book has just been published. What would they expect to find here if not information about what is in the new book? Sandpiper 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If anything, I think imposing full protection on the pages would hinder their being properly brought up to date. I hadn't planned this, but it sounds horribly like I shall be queuing at midnight. So suppose I'm insane enough to read it by the next day. Then I'm prevented from editing? Sandpiper 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If protection isn't imposed on the crucial days, then the pages will be flooded with vandals, and there will be no-one here to deal with it - because we will all either be reading the book, or too afraid to check for vandalism in case it contains spoilers of the book we haven't read yet. I don't know about you, but if I were the casual reader - coming here fully aware of the spoiler risk - I'd prefer to read non-updated but at least trustworthy encyclopaedia entries, than discover that the Harry Potter wikipedia pages had collapsed, leaving chaos reigning.

As for editing the next day - might I venture to suggest that a few days of reflecting on what we want to add would do more good than diving straight in (someone, after reading HBP, hurriedly added to the Luna Lovegood article that she wore turnips as earrings. Took over a year - and a trail of misinformation sprawled across the internet leading back to wikipedia - before anyone noticed, or bothered to correct it.)? Michael Sanders 20:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So we should leave the article blocked for a year in case the turnip poster is lurking out there to make their post? If the articles are out of date - frankly hopelessly out of date in a sense which was not true after publication of HBP, because the series will have reached its ending - then they can not be described as trustworthy any more. If someone wants to read the pre-publication page then they can look it up in the history. People need to learn how to use wiki as an information source, and that includes understanding that any page at any time may be in the middle of a vandalism attack. And as to that, many pages get vandalised, and most are simply reverted by people who look at the the new stuff and make a quick decision on 'dumbledore stinks'.

Now, as an alternative suggestion, how about a tag on the pages saying that they are a 'current event' and may be subject to change/unreliable? Sandpiper 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your logic, Sandpiper, and I am tending to agree with you. Everybody will know the pages are undergoing a lot of changes, and, after all, we're not the only reliable people who can edit HP articles. Don't forget, besides the vandals, there are plenty of non-registered users (who, even if they did register the day the book came out, they'd have to wait 4 days until they could edit semi-protected pages) who are actually trying to be beneficial.

Also, if there's not already a template for it, something like the current event template except for "newly released book" might make sense to have on most articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the decision, it might also be a good idea to protect/template/whatever, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Their pages may be subject to vandalism as well. -FeralDruid 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Core articles for protection

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
2. J. K. Rowling
3. Harry Potter
4. Harry Potter (character)
5. Lord Voldemort
6. Severus Snape
7. Hermione Granger
8. Ron Weasley
9. Albus Dumbledore (maybe? probably have to wait and see)
10. Horcrux
11. Bellatrix Lestrange
12. Peter Pettigrew
13. James and Lily Potter
14. Draco Malfoy
15. Hogwarts

Spelling in HP pages

Would it be possible to put together a list of words that are spelled different in UK English and American English, and post it on the project page. It is my understanding that UK English spellings are preferred in the Wiki articles for Harry Potter. An example would be Defence instead of Defense. I have seen many edits reverting spelling back and forth, and it would be good to see a comprehensive list that people could be referred to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuyvan (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

It'd be possible, but tedious. You're welcome to start one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Spellings or something like that. John Reaves (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put something together on the suggested link because I'm bored and I enjoy pain. Or something like that. This is my first wiki article created from scratch that isn't a redirect or copied from an existing template :(

At the moment it's pretty sparse - could only think of three examples. But I'll personally add to it as we continue to revert changes. The only definitely incomplete part to the page is the template substitution thingy, I can't find it from this computer. Knowing me, the text probably has spelling and grammar errors as well. I think I've caught most of it, though. Daggoth | Talk 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger at Talk:Controversy over Harry Potter

Please read the situation at the talk page about merging Laura Mallory into Controversy over Harry Potter and voice your opinion there. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RAB nominated for deletion on french wiki by Folken de Fanel

Contributors may have noticed that a disagreemnet has arisen largely over the issue of horcruxes in certain articles, including R.A.B.. In the process of arguing my corner with Folken de Fanel, I checked the French version of the article (he says he is French) to see how he had edited there, and I noticed that he has just nominated the french version of the article for deletion[1]. While the french article is somewhat smaller than ours, and perhaps suffers from the difficulty of sourcing when the original author speaks a different language, it seems to me that an editor who felt the article ought to be deleted there, would also think it should be deleted here. Anyway, my French is not so good, at least attempting to write it, but I would invite anyone interested and able to chip in there explaining some of the reasons the subject is noteable. Sandpiper 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be heading towards no consensus, it's a shame that the French WP has fallen victim to his lunacy too. John Reaves (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So now, the no OR policy is a "lunacy" ? (by the way, John Reaves, don't try to attack me personally).

The shame is more that non-french speaking people try to involve in a debate in which they can't understand a single word, only for the sake of playing their favorite "let's revert Folken !" game. What I tagged for deletion was undisputably blatant OR, and it's indeed a shame that people who don't speak a word of french, but who have a personal disliking for me, should get involved in such disputes, more for the sake of displaying their hatred toward me than for the improvement of the articles...John, you can't even understand what the others have said on this, why do you comment about it ? Why do you automatically post negative comments about me while the debate has clearly proven many people think there's a problem with this article ? You don't even know what is in the article...Folken de Fanel 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where John is from, but while I have never used any French since leaving school, I did go to quite a good one and even passed the exams. While the English are notorious for not speaking other languages, that doesn't mean they can't understand them. Personally I find understanding foreign languages much easier than attempting to be understood in one. Particularly when it is written, rather than spoken. I would imagine that you have found this also, Folken. Sandpiper 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you should know wha you're doing there is wrong...If you claim you understand french, then it means your motives are merely personal. Folken de Fanel 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious from looking at the little icons you guys use that it's heading towards no consensus. And it's kind hard to refrain from negative comments about you since there is absolutely nothing positive to say. John Reaves (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had read the comments you'd have understood we're starting to head toward a consensus. Well, if you can't refrain from personally attacking me, it proves you're worse than me...Folken de Fanel 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? John Reaves (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Folken, the version of the article you nominated for deletion isn't even the correct one. You proposed deletion of an article which had been chopped up by an anon, and doesn't actually read sesnsibly. Then you merrily criticised it. Sandpiper 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change much, what was previously reverted was a bunch of OR.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean bits like hermione having looked up the name in HBP, Rowling being asked about it being Regulus? That is your definition of OR? Yet you chose to leave in the article some of the wilder theories about RAB, some stuff about Regulus without any introduction explaining why he might be RAB, and then nominated it for deletion on the grounds it was entirely OR?? Sandpiper 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean all the things either you can't understand or you pretend you're not seeing, just because you're looking for an excuse to insult me.

What do you mean, "I chose" ? Are you mad ?

By the way, you should try to learn french so that you might have a chance to know what's going on (that is, if you're not -as usual- trying to distort the truth and to spread lies just for the sake of insulting me). Folken de Fanel 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted book cover Galleries

What is our and wikis position on galleries of cover pictures? A user seems to be going round and deleting them all. Sandpiper 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not allowed under the fair-use policy. Our position isn't really relevant. John Reaves (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They seemed to be allowed up to three days ago Sandpiper 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the guideline again. Which bit are we offending by having them? Sandpiper 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NONFREE#Images: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). Simply having a gallery to identify the different editions of the book but not comment on them (the editions) is unacceptable. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought ... would that rule out using the images *anywhere* in that format/context? In particular the Translations article? Reason I ask is, I reckon that by us removing them from further down in the article (in particular the American cover), we might see more infobox cover reversions to the American version, due to the total absence of the image anywhere else in the article. I agree that we can't use them as is, but I fear what might happen next. Daggoth | Talk 07:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, personally I have a mildly liberal view of the WP:NONFREE policy, so I don't know about both British and American versions. Probably best to ask at the policy page for a wider view. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How is having a collection of cover pictures for 'identification and critical comment' different from having just one? If one is acceptable, then a million are, since the article refers to all the pictures equally. Sandpiper 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is exactly that: if one is acceptable, then one will do. There is no need to be superfluous, especially when it comes to images to which the copyright is not free. If you still don't buy this, then by all means inquire at WT:NONFREE. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter themed MOS?

Tuyvan and John Reaves mentioned Spelling in HP pages just above here *points*. I created the page out of boredom.

I've done a bit of expansion to also cover our logic for the infobox images, and I'm wondering ... is there any value in expanding the page to cover *all* conventions for the Harry Potter articles, and refering to it from the front project page / edit summaries from the article history? As a specific MOS for the HP articles, which we can possibly point people to as a definitive guide for why the article is written in a certain way. Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 02:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Consensus appears to be emerging that {{spoiler}} should not be used very often (if not at all). Since most HP articles contain this template, we should be aware of these discussions. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warnings and Template talk:Spoiler. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Percy Image

One of the images I uploaded in 2005 is up for deletion. I'm not up on how the whole thing works now so I'll leave you guys to decide what to do with it. --Sonic Mew 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD - Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter

Article is up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter 2nd Nomination. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC – Harry Potter fandom

I've put it up, at last, for FAC. If you like, read over the article carefully and neutrally assess it. Hopefully, if it passes, it may be on the main page in time for the release of Deathly Hallows! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Harry Potter is similar to book/movie/comic book X or Y because..."

Hello. Just a headsup that if anyone finds any unsourced material comparing Harry Potter to any other books, comics, games movies or anything else with the implication, naturally, that Rowling "ripped off author X or Y", I've been gathering together every such mention I find on a subpage for Works analogous to Harry Potter, a page I created to address these issues. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'drew upon traditional sources for ideas'? Sandpiper 08:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM for Fawkes

Talk:Fawkes#Requested move. Simply south 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Second Wizarding War

Eek, this article was created about a week ago and it's entirely in-universe. If anybody has any time, would they mind looking into toning this article down, perhaps merging it somewhere? I feel that after Deathly Hallows is released, we're going to need a big rewrite of all the articles, which includes limiting our use of the Lexicon, as well as a reconsideration of the location of all our articles (i.e. consider merging many of them). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a quick stopgap on some of the paragraphs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent more time than I'd planned because of the sheer in-universe of the article, and I pretty much just did a hackjob. It definitely needs further work, because I pretty much limited my work to saying "As described in Harry Potter and the Example Book Name ...", which is a bit of a copout. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

HP Character Articles and Birth Dates

I am attempting to clean out the use of fictional character birthdates as if they are actually alive "Ron Weasley (born March 1, 1980) is a ...." is incorrect. Also, I have started, with the smaller articles, to clean up the in-universe style (see Pansy Parkinson - I will further clean up this article and add more specific quotes from the book in the near future). I think we need to establish guidelines for this (as at least one user is reverting my changes consistently...both the use of dates and the in-universe style of the articles). Ccrashh 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely have far to go on our articles; thankfully we can really start to work once DH comes out. The one major thing is: don't use the Lexicon -- or at least don't plagiarize from there. I have had an email conversation with Steve Vander Ark personally apologizing for the amount of stuff on Wikipedia which is stolen from the Lex, so hopefully we can eradicate -- sloooooowly, within the next year or two -- all the text we've taken from there, all the in-universe and nit-picky only-interesting-to-die-hard-fans stuff, as a long-term goal. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay...sounds good. I like the original Harry Potter (Character) article, though a lot of in-universe crap seems to have made its way in there. Maybe I should just let the edits continue, and then publish whole, new articles all at once (one article at a time) AFTER the book comes out :) Ccrashh 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences articles

I find that we really need to come to a definite consensus on these articles (I am referring to Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and its four sequels). They were nominated for an AfD in August of last year, and not a single vote was keep – they were torn between Delete and Merge. The information is still original research because there are few to no citations in each article, and the notability of the actual differences between books and films, not of the books and films themselves, has barely been established. As an entire article, it stands a very weak chance if it were to be nominated for an AfD again.

Trivial comparison of sources is not original research. If version 1 says one thing, and version 2 says something else, it is a simple fact verifiable simply from the book and film. Reporting sources, and differences between them is exactly what we are supposed to do. Sandpiper 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So, I propose that the truly significant differences be kept and merged into the main film article, but nothing more. This would mean leaving out all the characters who have been omitted. In the CS differences page and beyond, there is a section for "Previously cast characters who did not return"; I feel that this could be eliminated as it is now quite visually apparent in List of Harry Potter films cast members.

I hope we can come to some consensus on this that will be agreed upon by the wider community. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with merging. -- John Reaves (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent Digital Spy article, which meant I could construct a Differences between the book and the film section on the PS page, with out it being OR. The article also discussed changes to COS, POA and GOF as well. So if they were to be merged with the film pages, points could be cited. Gran² 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image at Harry Potter

The image presently in the infobox at Harry Potter – Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg – has been nominated for deletion because it lacks a fair-use rationale. I thought I should inform the proper Wikiproject about this. Cliff smith 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows and Protection

A couple of things now the day of reckoning draws near... :P
Is HP pervasive enough to merit a mention in ITN?
And what was the end result of this discussion? RHB - Talk 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell there wasn't really any consensus reached. Seeing as how I've already seen what I think is a spoiler in my watchlist (change was reverted) I personally think that there is good reason to protect most HP pages until the book comes out. After that I think it's to be expected that they are active documents that will be spoilered. Mrobfire 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we just go ahead and blanket-protect every book article that's tagged with {{WPHP}}? If not, at least the main ones: the book, major characters, primary "subject" articles (like characters, places, wizarding world, magic, spells…). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit over the top, though admittedly already there have been many edits revealing potential plot spoilers deliberately, on both talk and article pages - some are already semi-protected. If levels of "vandalism" continue and even increase as probable full protection would be a given. The problem would be convincing admin(s) that there is a case for preemptive protection for what would be the a very high area of viewing during the coming weeks, with the potential to cause embarassment to Wikipedia. RHB - Talk 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

An AN:I discussion is taking place here. So far, it's not looking favourable towards protection. Daggoth | Talk 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. It's the same thing as featured articles and many pages that are shown in the Main page (except for images). Those articles are rarely even semiprotected, let alone fully protected, because they usually benefit more from edits. Full protection is a bit much, just take a look at the types of articles that go through a full protection. I am somewhat in favour of semiprotection for now, but when it gets published, it will benefit much more from being easily editable by everyone, even with all the spoiler vandalism because most anyone looking at that article after it's released will already know that Harry is dead/alive/the-Half-Blood-Prince, and would not suffer from knowing it through the article. Just deal with it the way most of us deal with vandals: revert, block, ignore. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

There are a lot of redirects between the many Harry Potter related pages. Could these be worked on?--Tempest115 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter beasts

A few niggling issues. Originally, to clear up some misunderstandings from less knowledgeable editors (vis a vis Rowling having "invented" such creatures as the basilisk) it was decided that the Minor Harry Potter beasts article be reserved only for those creatures that were specifically invented by JK Rowling herself. Any references to actual mythical creatures such as the fairy or the re'em could be kept on their own pages. Dragons and winged horses, however, could be kept on the minor beasts page, as the various breeds were Rowling's own invention. This idea worked for a while, but recently people have begun a crusade against "unimportant" fictional references (though how they decide which fictional references are unimportant I have yet to determine) in mythical or folkloric articles. To this end I created a new page, Mythical creatures in Harry Potter, to deal with those creatures from myth and legend that Rowling includes in her stories.

Now, every beast in the Harry Potter universe has a home somewhere on Wikipedia. Except two; the poor diricawl, since it was neither invented by JK Rowling nor is it a mythical creature, and the pogrebin, because I can't determine whether it is mythical or not. I have read of a monster with a similar name appearing in Russian folklore, but I can't track down any solid refs. Any ideas on what to do?

Oh, and another thing; I can't decide whether Nundus or Erklings belong in the mythical creatures or minor beasts articles, since they are apparently based on actual legendary beings, the nunda and the erlking, respectively, though Rowling has never said as much. Serendipodous 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment?

Resolved

I've just completed an extensive rewrite and cleanup of Marauders (Harry Potter). How can I go about getting it reassessed? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox book titling above the cover

Is there any particular reason for including this? It matches the colour of the cover in each case but, I think, looks a bit off and is a bit repetitive considering you either already know the name, see it in the title in large font, the image in smaller font, or the first few words in the lead. Any opinions? RHB - Talk 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Second Battle of Hogwarts

The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article is littered with referenced to "The Second Battle of Hogwarts when in the book it is just called "The Battle of Hogwarts". I intend to start cleaning this up and sorting out the redirects - any objections? Sophia 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. I've been wondering where the "Second" came from as well - it's pure OR. PageantUpdater 11:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Sophia on this one - the book specifically calls it The Battle Of Hogwarts - therefore it is obvious that Rowling doesn't consider it the second battle. Some are considereing it the second battle due to Malfoys attempt in book 6 (which some believe is the first battle). A note in the first sentence that it can also be considered the second battle would, IMO suffice. (Adapted from my post on the Deathly Hallows Talk Page). 03swalker 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong agreement here. I'd be glad to help clean this up. (The HBP incident is really just a skirmish by comparison, and I'm pretty sure it was never called "The Battle of Hogwarts" except in (admittedly widespread) fannish discussion. Perhaps we can agree on an alternate term for the first fight?) Claudia 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree as well. The only canon reference to any "Battle of Hogwarts" is in Deathly Hallows. The Half-Blood Prince skirmish, to use Claudia's word, does not (for lack of a better explanation) fit the requirements of a battle in the Wizarding War. I intend to clean up some as well. Please feel free to change this article's name. Angleterre 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna need a new name. "Draco's/The Assault on Hogwarts"? Claudia 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't make up a name. You'll have to get around it by just describing it. Put it all into Second Wizarding War, as long as we can refrain from making that in-universe. The AfD police are out to get every article we was just created yesterday before we have the time to look through them all. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows the incident that happened at the end of Half Blood Prince as the battle of hogwarts, the real battle presents us with a problem. There should be some type of discussion as to what to call the first incident. I suggest the Assassination of Albus Dumbledore or the Death Eater raid of hogwarts. Carlitos 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stunning as it may seems there are HP fans who avoid fan sites like the plague as they are a hive of made up stuff. So no - not everyone does call the HBP fight "The Battle of Hogwarts". The only way to deal with this is to use references from the book. The chapter is "The Flight of the Prince" as it really isn't a battle but an escape after Dumbledore's murder. Sophia 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More than one chapter in HBP covers the events of Draco's invasion, so there is no obvious title, which is why people have invented a descriptive one 'battle of Hogwarts'. The solution has to be to explain what is meant, where. It is equally wrong to adopt Rowling's chapter title from book 7 as definitive, because other chapters also cover the events. If it was the intention to create articles, such as might appear in 'a history of Hogwarts', then headings of first battle... and second battle... would be entirely sensible. There is no definitive official answer. Sandpiper 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant that the battle happens across multiple chapters. What is relevant is that one chapter gives the event its proper name according to the author, which is as definitive as it gets, as we are not writing an in-universe history. Claudia 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability and non-free images

It is my opinion that there are a number of Harry Potter related articles that can only barely stretch to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and these need to be either merged into other articles or deleted. Similarly, there are many non-free images which hardly meet the non-free content criteria, particularly NFC 8. Those suitably knowledgable about the various Harry Potter articles (far too many of them, in my opinion) need to do something about it. I'd be bold and do it myself but I have not been involved enough to figure out where things should go.

Just because Harry Potter is a fan phenomenon doesn't mean Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be violated... on the contrary they should be strictly enforced. The same rules that apply to other articles and media need to be applied here. PageantUpdater 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust us, we don't believe that the policies should be violated either. However, due to the popularity of the series, there are thousands of anonymous and inexperienced users who greatly outnumber those that are aware of the policies, so the next month will be a lot of work cleaning up all our articles to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. We just have a mountain of information to get through. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hanging fire at the moment as everything is so unstable - give it a week or two and hopefully things will settle and we can get rid of some of the nonsense that has been added. Sophia 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Hallows symbol (on both the book and objects page) a derivative work or public domain? RHB - Talk 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely which pictures you are worried about, but an image from the films is immediately recognisable by several million people in a way which any amount of description would not be. It also immediately demonstrates how the film developers have chosen to present that character. I would have thought that any outsider asked whether the pictures were relevant and increased understanding of the charater, would say that obviously they do. The articles are better with the pictures than without, and the inclusion of the pictures is legal. Sandpiper 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep number of articles at a minimum

It's essential that we start to condense the number of articles on HP on Wikipedia now. I merged Xenophilius Lovegood with Luna Lovegood; but have just discovered now Teddy Lupin, Aberforth Dumbledore, Ariana Dumbledore, and there are probably plenty more. We must remember now that this is not the Lexicon, but Wikipedia, and everything must be notable and cited through reliable sources, and all that jazz. I think that, far into the future, we must consider merges like Hogwarts faculty and Minor Hogwarts teachers into Hogwarts. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

surely the rule is that if an article becomes overly long then it is split. Having one 1Gb article isnt helpfull, but a list of all faculty members would be sensible if there isn't much to say about them. I can't say that I find it essential to condense articles now, rather that this is a particularly bad time to try to do so. Perhaps discourage article's major expansion? Sandpiper 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the guideline, I'm just saying we don't need to get out of hand with a horde of articles, nor do we need a 1GB article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright concerns

I felt I should move these here so that they might get some attention. Fair use images on wikipedia need to have a detailed fair use rationale that meets the non-free content criteria policy. Thanks for your time. -Malkinann 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added fair use rationals for all of the images, so they should be fine.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - there may be some more of your images up for deletion that I've not seen - I'd suggest checking the others too. If you were to put the images in a Category:Harry Potter media or something, then you could use the "Related changes" function as a watchlist. Making mention of fair use rationales and the policy on the image tasks page might also be helpful. -Malkinann 04:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fred and george weasley hp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fred and george weasley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aunt marge hp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt marge hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dudley dursley hp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dudley dursley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aunt petunia hp.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt petunia hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncle vernon hp.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uncle vernon hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More suggested merges

I agree that it's probably best to wait for things to calm down a bit, but I would also suggest that the articles on Charlie, Bill and Percy Weasley and their parents to be merged into a "Weasley Family" article. I don't think that these characters justify having their own article. PageantUpdater 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you stick any possibles here so theres a list of possibles? RHB - Talk 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Foo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The image Dumbledore.jpg is used through out Wikiproject Harry Potter. It seems to me that this is a derivative work of the Harry Potter series, namely of the copyrighted character of Albus Dumbledore. Even though it is fan-made, if it is a derivative work, it is considered non-free, and should not be in the Talk, Template, User, or Wikipedia namespace, as per Non-free content criteria #9. I'm posting here to gain a consensus on whether or not this image is a derivative work, and what should be done if it is. Thanks, --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This deletion request on the Commons determined Dumbledore.jpg was not a derivative work. I am a bit unfamiliar with derivative works, so I have no personal say in this, just directing you to that link. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm..... someone seems to have deleted this image. Why did it get deleted?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a derivative work of a copyrighted character, which cannot be uploaded on the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that someone mentioned this and someone else said that it was already discussed and agreed that it wasn't?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They didn't look at our policy on derivative works, which drawings like this fall under. Plus, it doesn't help there was an WP:OTRS email associated with it and was answered by a recently elected Board member. Anyways, don't upload this again or use this for the template of the wikiproject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where we are on this, however....The image on wikicommons has been deleted on the grounds of being a derivative work. I have uploaded a temporary picture of a book saying 'Harry Potter' which I created in place of the Dumbledore pic, rather than having un-rendered calls to the picture everywhere. What do people want to do about this? Sandpiper 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

A suggested move has been opened at the above link; petitioner is suggesting that the page and references be updated to Sorcerer's Stone.

The logic being used is that Warner Bros. produced the film (which was created by a mixture of American and British houses), and therefore it should be named after the American version. IMDB and many other pages apparently have it listed as Sorcerer.

Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem I've run into that is similar is: Which movie poster for should we use for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) ....the UK/England verison or the American version? I want to use both, but people have been objecting to it.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An idea to solve this problem has come up....once a definite tite has been decided for the article, someone can merge the two images to have a poster for the page.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, having two separate poster images would not have been fair use, one would count as decorative. But having both posters as one image would be fine in my view. Gran² 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would it not be fair use? fair use applies to illustrations which are relevant to the text. Two posters showing the same thing might not be fair use, but since the posters are specifically illustrating the changed title between countries, then inclusion would be justified. Sandpiper 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have "created" an image that combines both the posters, but have not uploaded it yet. Should I wait until both the images are deleted and then upload it or what?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I thought about that, but that is the only claim of fair use that there would be. And having another fair use image to show that the film had a different title in America is a very weak rationale, as a sentence can do the same thing just as well. As for the image, there's no need to wait for the other two images t be deleted, if you want to upload, upload. And the vote has now been closed, Philosopher's won.Gran² 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OR and deletions

Just a note to say that I've started afd nominations for what I believe are some of the most clearly non-notable articles that have cropped up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter family tree, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Lupin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malfoy Manor. I anticipate more to come but that is at least a start.

I am wondering how people think we should combat the rampant original research in many of the Harry Potter articles? I must admit that I hadn't checked out many of them prior to finishing the last book, but I am kinda surprised about the number of articles and images that violate policy at varying levels. Obviously it's worse since the last book was published and hopefully things will settle, but I forsee a lot that needs doing. I think we need to come up with some sort of notability criteria, because WP:FICT does not cover many article I have been discovering. As an example, I don't see why Crabbe and Goyle need their own articles, this is yet another thing that needs merging. PageantUpdater 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By nitpickingly sticking to canon there will not be enough material left to form fancruft articles such as these. As Prof Trelawney would say "I forsee months ahead of being called a miserable b*****d because you will not let people add obvious facts". Sophia 10:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally foresee a future of many merges and deletions, but we just have to wait for the Deathly Hallows hype to settle, hopefully within a week or so. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Busy template

Thought this might be of interest to some of you for your userpage. Morphh ^(talk) 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is busy reading the latest Harry Potter novel and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Just as a really big WARNING to people, users have been leaving random messages on people's pages that have the above template on them and changing the link to a different link with spoilers of the book. Many admins and others are trying to reverts it but...just a warning.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)