Talk:Harry Potter fandom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Harry Potter fandom was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Conversation conclusion[edit]


  • No site shall be frivolously added to the External links section, or the prose of the article, without either discussing it on the talk page first or asserting its notability through referencing with verifiable and reliable sources. A comment, using the <!-- and --> markers will be inserted into the markup of the article to alert editors, but not readers.
  • A site shall appear in the External links section only if it is mentioned in the article. As per WP:EL, no external links shall appear in the prose of the article. This will show that all external links have their notability proven, because in order for it to appear in the article it must be well-referenced.
  • Fan sites with Wikipedia articles have already had their notability proven through the fact that they do have articles, and if this is disagreed with they should be sent to WP:AfD. These fan sites shall be listed in the See also section and the URLs of their web sites will also appear in the external links section.
  • In general, the mention of fan sites throughout the article shall be kept to a minimum. Any attempt to mention a fan site in the prose only to have its URL appear in the external links section will be reverted.

Main arguments:


As one of several folks who worked hard to try and get some sort of notability standard for this article, I'm happy to have you blow our work up and implement this standard as it is much easier to enforce. Furthermore, when you rejig this section, may I recommend that you change the title from "External links" to "References"? That way, it makes it more clear that any links to fan sites must have been mentioned in the article first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm just happy to blow your hard work to smitherings! ;-) Since the whole article was in desperate need of a rewrite anyway, I decided it would be best just to start a new draft of the page, working to enforce the policy above. I've started it at Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite and was able to work on the top two sections of the page, fan sites and conventions. However, I don't feel experienced enough in the fan fiction world or the RPG world to contribute well enough in revising those sections, though I'm happy to cover podcasts and possibly music later. Anybody want to work on it?--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The list of conventions seems a little much (and it certainly doesn't need a list of "future conventions"). That's just my opinion, though, I'd like to hear from more folks before I shrink that list down. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it's a little long, just wanted to put them out there for possible removal, rather than omit them and leave it incomplete. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter fandom/Rewrite[edit]

I'll just make it plain and clear: anybody who thinks they can write a well-sourced, NPOV entry on roleplaying and/or wizard rock and/or "iconic landmarks tours" (the tours of the sets, Edinburgh, etc.), be my guest! I can write them, but it would be a lot more work since I'd really have to go search for sources to write it from scratch, rather than using my own knowledge and hunting down sources to cite with. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Conventions should be held to Web site standards[edit]

The conventions listed in the external links should be held to the same standards as for the web sites: if they're mentioned by J.K. Rowling (possibly as some sort of "winner"), then they'd be worthy for inclusion. Otherwise, we should not be providing these conventions with free advertising (and certainly not for the future events). Thoughts? -Deathphoenix ʕ 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree -- I just wanted to be wholesome over uninclusive so that we could remove rather than add. I'd say, of the two, Accio and Lumos were the most notable -- the latter drawing 12000 people, I believe, and due to the attendance of PotterCast and MuggleCast. Rowling herself hasn't talked about any, but at least one should be mentioned, methinks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, I just wanted to write this down before I do it myself. I'll delete all but Accio and Lumos. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Fansites...[edit]

What's up with the total lack of any proper information on fansites? You've got a big section on Podcasts, Ship Wars and Conventions, yet only small bio's of the main Harry Potter sites. Much as you hate to link to other potentially smaller sites, fansites are the very essence of Harry Potter fandom, and the fact that 99.9% of them aren't even going to et a mention is a travesty. You're ending up repeating yourselves in all the sections. It would be easier to have a short Bio of Mugglenet, HPANA, TLC and VTM, and then a little on 'The Work of other Sites'. As a webmaster and author of a book on Harry Potter fandom, i'm well placed to suggest that this article is ignorant to the true heart of Harry Potter fandom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NickHilton1 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd hardly call the Podcasts nor the Conventions section big, and the ship wars section is large because of the attention it received in the press and by Rowling. The fan sites section mentions all the winners of the fan site award, which makes them the most notable fan sites. If there's another notable source about another fan site, it may be added, but getting into biographies of the fan sites (their history, specialties, etc.) either belongs on the individual article page (like MuggleNet) or not on Wikipedia at all for bordering on WP:WEB guidelines. Incidentally, what's your book, it may be helpful in citing the article? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, as you'll see above, the article is undergoing a rewrite. Feel free to contribute your suggestions, but know that it may not be agreed upon per the conversation conclusion above. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My books called FANORAMA: The Birth of Harry Potter Fandom, you can find out more at —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHilton1 (talkcontribs) 18:16, Jan 21, 2007 (UTC)

I must rather agree, the article pretty much confines itself exclusively to those fansites recommended by Rowling, about half a dozen, though it claimed (before I deleted it) that there are millions. I notice there is just about nothing discussing the rather huge debate about the events in the books, which is the main content on most fansites. Bit of an omission? Sandpiper 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have added a short section on "discussion" as I too feel this lack. (Hope this is okay for a newbie!) Feel free to expand on it... TruantMuse (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest some sort of rules or guidelines concerning fansites being able to edit in their own advertisements? A link to one very child-unfriendly site was just taken out. It doesn't look like it on the front but I made the mistake of joining said site a while ago, and know what's actually inside it. Also they were making more claims to having invented things than Gene Simmons in there. Might I suggest keeping it to known safe / educational / JKR-mentioned sites instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonsFlame (talkcontribs) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't think that fan videos, or "songvids" as they are known, merit mention in this article. It is not a remarkable aspect of the fandom, and I'm questioning what action to take on the article songvid itself -- between clean-up tags and AfD. It doesn't seem too notable yet, and a page of YouTube search results is, as far as I know, not a valid source, though do correct me if I'm wrong. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Status Passed[edit]

I must be honest. I was real leary upon seeing the title of this article. I have been duly impressed, however. Based on the criteria at WP:WIAGA, this article passes good article criteria with flying colors. All articles should be so well written, so well referenced, and have such good free images. I would recommend a possible nomination for feature status, though the voting process there may get contentious given the "crufty" nature of this article. I would vote for this article as a featured article as well, so take that into consideration. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual relationships in fan fiction/shipping[edit]

I'm probably treading dangerous ground here, but I think it needs to be said. I've been an avid watcher of several types of HP fan fiction, primarily on FF.N for quite a few years. Coming to this article, I was rather leery of the information I found here, but I found it to be generally accurate and up-to date. The one thing I see missing, is the lack of homosexual relationships that are common (At least that I see) in fan fiction. One of the more noticable relationships would be those Remus and Sirius (which were quite privalent when PoA came out). Yes, I did go look up the other articles on Wikipedia about shipping, and how Rowling (or her Lawyers, etc) sent on cease-and-desist letters against those of an "adult nature". Whether or not those were specifically against homosexual shipping fanfics or no, I did not look up. If someone can clarify that for me, awesome. Another relationship that I see commonly popping up, is Harry and Draco.

No, I'm not asking you to like these. I'm not asking you to read them. What I am asking, is for mentioning of these shippings. I think they deserve just as much mention as any Harry and Hermoine pairings. I am also asking that if anything is included, that we make it unbiased and if possible, referenced. Those are the qualities which make a good (if not great) article. Thank you for your time. Disinclination 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not treading dangerous water there. I am a large supporter of the GLBT community and have actually been searching in the past few days for a verifiable source that would enable me to put i at least Sirius and Remus, as on PRer suggested. The citation I used for all the couples there is from a MuggleNet "Possible Relationships" page, so I'm trying to find something similar that would mention Harry/Draco, or Sirius/Remus, or, as we continue into non-PG territory, Snape/Hermione, etc. It was the X-rated stories (not necessarily the slash fics) that were sent cease and desist letters, so no homophobia there from Rowling's lawyers (so far as I can tell). But please, search for a reliable citation and we'll add it! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've found one, and have mentioned two pairs in the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at this for FAC, and I was struck by the particular mention of homosexual relationships only alongside mention of cease and desist letters. While I suppose it would not be terribly surprising to learn that any mention of homosexual relationships has resulted in cese and desist letters, I also doubt that this is the case, though the current wording suggests such. It might be better to mention "slash" fan fiction separately from the cease and desist letters. (The letters seemed to be geared toward sexually explicit material in general, which I would imagine homosexual fan fiction need not necessarily be.) —Cuiviénen 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean that implication. I'm rewording now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You say about slash: "Famous pairings include Harry with Draco Malfoy, and, weirdly, Remus Lupin with Sirius Black.[41][42]" This seems to me to be unbiased and, honestly, wrong. If you read essays and debates from the fandom proof can be found for why the Remus and Sirius Black relationship is far more plausible than Harry and Draco Malfoy. The fact that you denounce it to be 'weird' seems to be out of place. Thanks - Green emeralds 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "Potter fan fiction also has a large following in the slash fiction genre, stories which feature homosexuality that does not exist in the books" shouldn't you make it clear that it means apart from Dumbledore/Grindewald? They seem to be quite a sucess since Rowling outed Dumbledore, and it is canon based. Diana Prallon (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Edits for Wizard Rock[edit]

I don't really know what exactly I'd put, but... the wizard rock section seems a bit lacking. I know the developments of Wizard Rock fansites have come about, the first being (according to - I can't find any other source). Others being and (the encyclopedia of wizard rock). This might be a good thing to include. Also: Harry and the Potters are kind of just randomly mentioned. It would be better to note that they are considered the "originators of Wizard Rock" (there are a bunch of sources out there for that), although the band that is considered to have the "first Wizard Rock song" is the Switchblade Kittens (otherwise known as The Weird Sisters-- That's just my take, anyway. I could be wrong. Foreversecret 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including wizard rock fan sites, however, is that they have to pass WP's notability standards for web sites. That's why we can include Leaky and MuggleNet and all those guys up in the "fan sites" section (because JKR has acknowledged them), but not just any old web site, as large as its following might be. However, if you can find a source for Harry and the Potters being the creators of the wizard rock movement, then by all means let us know and we'll add it in. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

millions of fan websites[edit]

Are there? that sounds rather a lot, even to me. How do we know there are millions of them, not just thousands of them, or even hundreds? Sandpiper 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

books about HP[edit]

I also notice there is no mention about books about HP. Whether associated with fan sites or otherwise, there are now dozens of books written discussing Rowlings books. Sandpiper 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph seems to have a tally of 190 books about HP [1] and mentions a few examples. Sandpiper 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Sandpiper. I'll look into it when I get a chance. --Fbv65

I found a quite good reference book that is fre for download. It talks alot about aspects of the creation of fandom, and the tools used by fansite owners and designers, you can find a link to it here and download it free, or buy it but i think it is too expensive: (link deleted to appease spam filter) edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a link that was from a blacklisted URL ( The comment itself (the green one) is odd too, judging by the spelling & grammar displayed on their user page. Looks like their account got hijacked or something. Squareintheteeth (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Can we have a disscusion to determin if this belongs in the article, before a revert war starts? Thank you. --Smokizzy (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Children who attend summer camps are unable to go to release parties or even have easy access to the new book because the last three books, as well as the next one, have all been released in the middle of summer. For the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which will be released this summer, camp counselors are taking different measures to allow their campers to experience the book at the same time that the rest of the world does; though camps won't allow their kids to be removed by their parents for the night, many of them order mass copies of the books, and some are planning a field trip to a local bookstore.

Harry Potter versus Twilight[edit]

A passionate debate has raged online and in many teen circles about which is the "better" fantasy book series: Harry Potter or Twilight. Team Read, an after-school literacy program in Seattle, recently conducted a student debate where two teams hashed it out. Afterward, a panel of judges and the standing-room-only audience voted 120-40 that the Harry Potter had won the debate. In a separate vote not related to the debate, the audience also voted overwhelmingly that Harry Potter was the better series. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeGGGG (talkcontribs) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter courses at college[edit]

I'm not sure if this belongs here at all, but I remember when I was registering for courses at Eastern Michigan University, they were touting a new course they had created that was about Harry Potter. Several people from my orientation group registered for it. Check it out here

I found it noteworthy because it's not every popular series that gets a college course created for it... Ilyeana 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fandom link to be added.[edit]

I would please request that the link for The Wizarding World of Harry Potter be added, as it is a growing fan website about the new Harry Potter theme park.

by Kirtay. 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Small error re one specific site.[edit]

Hi - I feel awkward editing something about a site I manage without saying so in advance here, but the line about FictionAlley in the fanfic section isn't accurate - we started the site (ie within the first two weeks of its existence) with specific sections for four types of fic, but in late 2005 we merged the sections within one submission-and-search system, and nowadays the "house" sections are only used as a sort of default search engine. I'm not sure what to change it to, though, except perhaps "FictionAlley, which is the largest Harry Potter-specific fanfic-fanart-fan essays site, has subdivided categories for different types of fics, such as romances or comedies." But other wording would be great - my request is just to remove the implication that the site was divided into four because it got too big, which isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidi8 (talkcontribs) 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all right, thank you so much for telling us! Perhaps the sentence would work if we knew approx. how many stories FictionAlley holds — could you tell us that statistic, and point to a page on the website that confirms this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Should PS, SS, CoS, CS, PoA, PA, GoF, GF, OotP, OP, HBP and DH be noted?Arry 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean should the fact that the books are abbreviated to two- or three-letter abbreviations by fans be noted? No, I don't think that's notable. We make abbreviations all the time. We don't mention in the Wikipedia article that people often refer to it as WP. --Fbv65edeltc // 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wizard Rockumentary[edit]

Since the film is now completed (I was even at the premiere), I changed some info in the Wizard Rock section, and added a bit more as well. I went ahead and included it for the time being, but is the info about screenings noteworthy enough for inclusion? I primarily thought to add it because the documentary has spawned a parody documentary of its own, The Wizard Schlockumentary, which will be screened alongside it at one showing. Squareintheteeth (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Harry Potter Fandom Documentary[edit]

Through googling information about The Wizard Rockumentary, I came across another documentary film about Potter fans: We Are Wizards [2]. It's still touring the festival circuit (it only just premiered at the South by Southwest festival a few weeks back), but it includes Potter fan fiction, fan sites like the Leaky Cauldron, and even profiles Brad Neely of Wizard People, Dear Readers in addition to covering wizard rock. It's well-covered in online press, as well as a ton of reviews from SXSW.

Anyway, I'd edit and put it right there with The Wizard Rockumentary, except it covers multiple realms of fandom -- maybe a new section is called for: Fandom documentaries? I'd rather let the more experienced hands sort it out, in any case. Squareintheteeth (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AP article[edit]

Here's a good source: the Associated Press did an article on wizard rock. --Masamage 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro Photo[edit]

Nice photo for the intro paragraph, but it may be a bit dated. I have one that shows a trolley half sticking out of the wall, taken in September of 2006. Would it be acceptable to replace the current image with a newer one? Dp76764 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No objections apparently. Changed photo. Dp76764 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ship Debate Section[edit]

This section needs some work. It reads very biased an not very objective. JCgirlandlegal (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments about Emerson Spartz are nothing short of outrageous. "Coincidentally, he continued to ignore the fact that he had indeed intentionally offended fans, and never in the statement made a real apology." If they are still here next time I look in, I'm removing them. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the kings cross station fucking retarded?[edit]

"Because students in the novels board the train to Hogwarts at Platform 9¾ at King's Cross railway station in London, the real King's Cross has erected a sign at a wall between tracks 8 and 9 to commemorate this."


Unless I'm mistaken, platforms nine and ten are nowhere near each other, so they had to settle. By the way, your tone and language aren't exactly constructive, I'd try to express myself better in the future if you want to be taken seriously. faithless (speak) 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My memory of its position is that it's more alongside several platforms, than actually between any 23:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter fandom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

I'm surprised to see that there's no edit war or frequent changes made to the article. However, this does not mean there aren't any problems existing in the article.

  1. There is a statement tagged with "citation needed"
  2. More references needed in Fan fiction - discussion section
  3. Roleplaying games have non-uniformed references, and contains only 2 references in the entire section
  4. Some references are not uniformed
  5. References section looks more like a collection of external links, and even if it's external links section, it has way too many links
  6. Numerous use of weasel words (such as the use of "some")
  7. Usages of peacock terms are found. One is the first sentence of lead section ("The Harry Potter fandom is a large international and informal community..."). Other peacock terms are found throughout the article.

OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am now delisting this article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizard Rock?[edit]

Why was the WRock section removed? It seemed good enough to me.. ~Sana (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

American spelling[edit]

I'm seeing some American spelling here. I even changed something to the British spelling and it was reverted as "vandalism". (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


The Muggle Quidditch section of this article seems to leave out an important detail, the IQA. . Some parts of this article also have outdated language, such as one of the documentaries. Bassoon Man The Freak (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are the fan books?[edit]

A few books were mentioned, but there were a number of high-profile, high-selling books that aren't in this article. Where are 'The Sorcerer's Companion,' 'Ultimate Unofficial Guide,' and the biggest selling one, 'The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter'? Is this an official page? The fandom was such a huge part of the story, and so much is missing. I will look to see if there is an official page covering the fandom somewhere else. Number.6.freeman (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Should this page mention Wizarding Independence Day (AKA International Harry Potter Day)?[edit]

I've already starting creating an article about this unofficial holiday, and I've gathered some sources. This is my first try at making a wikipedia article, and I'm not sure if a whole article is best for this topic or if it would be better as a section within the harry potter fandom article. (Although other fan-based unofficial holidays have their own articles though, such as Star Wars Day, Towel Day, Hobbit Day..) It was originally an April Fools joke from Mugglenet, and as since gathered supporters in the form of facebook groups, tumblr pages, and blog posts. There's a slight debate about the day it should be celebrated (May 2nd, which is the anniversary of the Battle of Hogwarts, or July 31, Harry Potter's and JK Rowling's birthday). Ladwholived (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can find enough sources to establish notability, then by all means create an article. And, if the event is that notable, then a mention in this article would certainly be warranted. DP76764 (Talk) 17:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


If you want to make claims about Potter religions, please make them via reliable sources. Both of those you mention in your edit summary fall way short of being reliable for Wikipedia.

WP:RELIABLE would be a good place to start to make sure your sources are up to scratch. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Potter fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^