Talk:Harry Potter

Archives
10 December 2001 - 4 July 2003 4 July 2003 - 2005 May 5 2005 May 5 - 13 October 2005 13 October 2005 - 27 July 2006 27 July 2006 - 19 November 2006 19 November 2006 - 29 March 2007 29 March 2007 - 31 May 2007 31 May 2007 - 11 July 2007 11 July 2007 - 29 August 2007 29 August 2007 - 9 December 2007 9 December 2007 - 1 January 2008 1 January 2008 - 27 April 2008

Error in Overview

There is a point in the overview which says that the enchantment which protects Harry was produced by his mother to last until his 17th birthday. In fact, the enchantment was produced and sealed by Dumbledore. This is mentioned in both HBP and DH.

Reference no.27 has expired. Please add another one--117.196.160.20 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry's mum made the shield for Harry as she sacrificed her life. However, it was his mother's. Dumbledore added extra protection; as long as he stays with relatives he can't be touched. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Secret Keeper

I'm only into the 3rd book at this point, but I'm pretty sure that James and Lily's Secret Keeper is Sirius Black rather than Peter Pettigrew. This is stated under Overview, Plot Summary, 2nd line. Thanks! Qingram (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep on reading! :) Sorry you stumbled upon this plot spoiler, but the article is correct. Malinaccier (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're a troll! — chandler — 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel dumb now, I got there last night. I'll keep my comments to myself until I'm done with all of the books. Probably should remove the unnecessary spoiler from the main Harry Potter page though.Qingram (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not "spoilers" as the last book has been out for over 1 year. They are important plot points which are description in the plot section — chandler — 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its Peter. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

X-Men

Does anybody beside me see parallels between Harry Potter and X-Men. Think about it. Both concern supernatural creatures (wizards/mutants) who hide from society. The main setting is a school for these supernatural creatures (Hogwarts/Charles Xavier's School For The Gifted) run by benevolent mentor-like figures (Professor Xavier/Professor Dumbledore). And both feature an evil person (Voldemort/Magneto) with an army of followers who hates normal people (Muggles/Humans). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence contains the word heptalogy. Its usage is perfectly correct but I doubt if more than 5% of readers will know the word. IMHO this will disrupt readers just as they start the article because they will be tempted to follow the link in case they miss something vital. I have changed it to "series of seven" to solve this problem. Abtract (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This has been discussed before, but it always seems that someone comes along and thinks they'll show everyone how clever they are by using a "big word." That isn't to say we should dumb down the writing of the encyclopedia, but in this instance there is absolutely no good reason. Like Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." faithless (^speak) 07:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see this turning into a revert war pretty quickly, so I put heptalogy in brackets in the lead, but without linking it. That way you keep it user friendly, but also educate people too! However I'm not so sure it reads that well... Do you think this would be a fair compromise if we can get it to read better? Options would be:

• Harry Potter is a series of seven (heptalogy) fantasy novels
• Harry Potter is a heptalogy (series of seven) of fantasy novels... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am all for compromise, if one is needed (either of your suggestions would do), but why is one needed? I have seen no rationale for the use of the word heptalogy; what does it add that "series of seven" doesn't do just as accurately and in a more readily understood way? Abtract (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main reason for a compromise is not necessarily because it is needed for the article, but more to prevent disruptive edit wars. There are obviously some people who think heptology should be used and some that think series of seven should be used. Rather than just going for one over the other, it is possible to include both. In this way, it also defines what a heptology is, which is surely only a good thing? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think heptalogy is the appropriate way to go here. Aside from that, however, I strongly oppose the two compromises listed above. Having such a qualification in parenthesis is silly and does not befit an encyclopedia. It really seems to be a dumb-down. Just like whichever of the forms is decided upon(series of seven or heptalogy) and be done with it. That's why we have links. It's what makes Wikipedia so much fun. seresin ( ¡? ) 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What I haven't grasped so far is the rationale for the use of a little known word ... could someone enlighten me as to what it adds that "series of seven" doesn't? Abtract (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess because it is technically the correct word to use. But, as you point out few people likely understand what it means... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

MMMM there is a difference between being a word that technically means "series of seven" and being the right word to use ... and it is the latter that we need a convincing argument for, imho. Abtract (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: we write 'series of seven' and pipelink it to heptalogy; in other words, Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels.... Both sides make a good argument, but while 'heptalogy' may be technically correct, there is just no good reason to use such an obscure word. We're here to inform, not to boost our readers' vocabularies. :-) faithless (^speak) 20:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a seriously good idea. Abtract (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I just put that idea into practise. Anyone have a problem with it, just respond here. Garet Jax 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. Don't you love it when discussions actually work! Nouse4aname (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is most likely that people will know. But do put it in brackets. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

As the plot summary is mostly about the plot at the start of the book, why does the summary (at the end) explain some of the stuff during the first book. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Change Release Date

We need to change the release date of the next HP movie to July 17, 2009 as per the wiki page for the movie --Shipsonfire (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)slayer13

It was already done by myself earlier (unless there is another spot that has the date besides the movie section). --13² 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Troll (film)

I think it should at least be mentioned that a very similar character, with the same name, in a fantasy-type work, predates this Harry Potter by several years. See Troll (film). 98.221.133.96 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the name of the character (Harry Potter) and the genre (fantasy) there really isn't all that much that is similar. And no, it should not be mentioned as there is not a strong enough connection and any addition trying to make a claim of connection would be original research. --13² 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply noting the fact, without directly saying there is or isn't a connection, isn't noteworthy in your opinion? I think it may be. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source can be found discussing it. faithless (^speak) 09:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Auto PR

Hi there,

I'm going to work to get this article to FA status - so here's an auto PR to tick things off when they have been done.

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

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] --  Done The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

Seems OK length wise? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

If the setting of Hogwarts is in the UK, why are magic wands measured in inches and the hedges (that were planted for the Maze of the Triwizard Tournament) measured in feet? If this another example of an American modification -- are the measurements in metric units in European texts? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about in the articles or in the books? Jammy (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an answer to the question, but I did have a comment. When I was in the UK a month ago, I saw quite a few instances where measurements were not in the metric system, as they are in the rest of Europe, but used the US system, as backwards as it is. I don't live there, unfortunately, but what little I did see over the course of a few weeks seemed to be a mixture of the two systems, so that might help explain it. Grey Maiden ^talk 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed very odd to me that, a British national like Rowling herself would write a book about Britons who were using US measurements, that's all. thanx for your suggestion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, when Rowling was at school, she would have used inches and feet —— RyanLupin • (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)