Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.170.101.65 (talk) at 15:56, 23 November 2010 (Misprint). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Good articleHarry Potter has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 1, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 4, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 16, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
Archive
Archives
  1. Talk:Harry Potter/Archives 1-10
  2. 9 December 2007 - 1 January 2008
  3. 1 January 2008 - 27 April 2008
  4. 27 April 2008 - 16 November 2008
  5. 16 November 2008- 10 May 2010

OWL-levels

Surely they shouldn't be referred to as OWL-levels, because OWL stands for Ordinary Wizarding Levels, so OWL-levels is Ordinary Wizarding Levels levels. They are just OWLs. George.millman (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO Harry Potter

There should be a link under the Games section at least mentioning Lego Harry Potter.

Done--Birkenburg (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO IN CONTROVERSIES SECTION

"The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's sections...." Should read "The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's books...." 76.90.10.191 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit updates

Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity,'. I have updated the entry to read 'Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, (retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States) the books have gained immense popularity,'. Putting brackets around 'retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States' as it should be.Twobells (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Best Practice

I don't understand why criticism has been worked into the second paragraph of the main article AND has it's own section? Seems a little npov.Twobells (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and came to this discussion with the intention of making a similar point. I suspect the two odd-looking references to criticism in the introduction probably come from persons with some sort of misplaced agenda (any ideas what?). From my incidental observation of the mainstream views of the series, the broad consensus view is a more healthy one that the (junior or otherwise) audience for fantasy fiction can make up their own minds as to how well it fits its purpose of entertainment, and it is simply misguided to judge it as something else. In my opinion, minority critism of the series does not justify any mention in a short introductory section, but it is reasonable to include it in a small sub-section. My impression is that the negative criticism (reported in the article as appearing after the fifth novel) must to some extent be a response to the series' status as the most successful ever (a reflection of the views of its readership). I consider my own views on these points as being fairly neutral as I have not completed any of the novels, and consider myself a few decades too old to accurately judge their quality.  :-) Elroch (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Black

There should be two changes for the Harry Potter page about Sirius Black. First, in the section of the page telling the plot of the third book, it should be said that Black is Harry's only living relative, as he is his god-father, and is very important to Harry. The second change should be in the section of the page telling the fifth book's plot, about Black dieing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.29.245 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misprint

Hey just so you know, on the right side near the top when the series is listed, Harry Potter 1: is the SORCERER'S stone, not "PHILOSOPHER" haha not sure how that came up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.37 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdoms, where the Harry Potter books were first written and published, the name of the first book IS Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone when published in the United States. Yiosie2356 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically since this is the American article it should be the American version.-unsigned