Talk:Harry Potter

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Archives
Talk:Harry Potter/Archives 1-10 9 December 2007 - 1 January 2008 1 January 2008 - 27 April 2008 27 April 2008 - 16 November 2008

diagon alley?

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

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

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

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

Statement needs correction - 20 highest grossing films

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

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

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

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

Incorect Statement

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

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

Multiple names Name

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

Semi-Protect

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

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

List

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

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

Dated musical information

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

correction to summary

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

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

£7 billion equals $15 billion??

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

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

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

Bloody Semi-Protected

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

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

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

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

Stamp picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophers stone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

date harry potter begins

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

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

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

Inconsistencies

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

Update needed - 20 highest grossing films

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

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

Titles of the books

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

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

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

Vandalism revert

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

Female fantasy writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awkward sentence

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

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

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

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

What was the box called?

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

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

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

Suggestion to replace image

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

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

1st title in Harry Potter series...

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

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

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

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

Theme Park

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

Edit page notice for Harry Potter related articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harry potter fan

This is just a harry potter fan speaking but who agrees with me most people are scared to read the harry potter books because there so big but really its just when you read you get so sucked in you turn the pages so fast your done with the book in no time.--Taria99emmy (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)