From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as Top-importance).

Edit Request on 3 October 2012[edit]

In the Herbology section, I suggest changing:

... a variety of magical plants of varying degrees of lethality.


... a variety of magical plants of varying degrees of utility, lethality or both.

as I believe this would describe the course more accurately (I'm thinking of plants like Mandrake here. Please see: List_of_fictional_plants#Plants_from_J._K._Rowling.27s_Harry_Potter_series). Dick Kimball (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've actually taken out the entire phrase, as lethality (while being a valid word) is not a good choice - if soemthing is lethal, then you're killed by it, and you can't have varying levels of being dead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: phrase removed, so request no longer applicable.

Bracket needs removal[edit]

Section 8.1 (Student Life > Food) ends with a lone closing bracket, despite there being no opening bracket preceding it. The article is locked, so I can't change it. Small issue, I know, but it looks untidy. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Edenc1Talk 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

" Nynorsk keeps "Hogwarts" "[edit]

Hello! I haven't heard that Nynorsk keeps "Hogwarts" instand of "Galtvort" (norsk bokmål), is this true? Is there a source for this? Sorry for bad english. --Silver Stone (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not as of this writing. Nynorsk has "Galtvort" just as bokmål ([1]). Should be recitfied of course. (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hogwarts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Some first comments:

  • Prose Style could be improved
  • Wiki links could be added (i.e. to many of the school heads, the house titles)
  • Some externally links are unreliable or broken
  • Though fictional, I believe the page would benefit from a style ressembling a real school's wiki page (I believe a history section would be interesting, and I believe the subjects could be made into their own wiki page. The Hogwarts express section should be made a subsection of arrival. The Secrets of Hogwarts section could be made part of a larger "Grounds" section and include things like Hagrid's hut. Perhaps a section about books referencing Hogwarts (within the Harry Potter Universe) could also be added.
  • A fair use rationale must be added to the Chamber of Secrets picture, or a different picture must be selected.
  • If you are stuck trying to rearrange things, you can look at both major university pages (i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard), and the Harry Potter wiki for ideas.

I will do my best to address some of these issues where I can, but as my time is limited, I encourage the nominator and collaborative editors to address the above points. Reviewer: Thedropsoffire (talk · contribs) 08:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just popping by to note that WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction may be helpful during the course of this review. I had been considering reviewing this article when Thedropsoffire picked it up, and in doing an initial check of the article I noticed that a pretty significant chunk is written from an in-universe perspective. Also, there are quite a lot of places missing referencing, especially when referring to opinion, statistics or potential controversial statements. Thedropsoffire, it might be helpful to the nominator for you to list which links you consider unreliable (and I'm assuming you mean references, as external links are not required to conform to the same reliability guidelines as references). Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dana, yes I was referring to the references. Specifically, there are several dead links within the references, including many Accioquote references, and many J.K. Rowling official website references for which I presume the links have changed. Here are the references at issue (listed by their reference number at the time of this comment):
*Reference 3 - 1999 Accio Quote - dead link
*Reference 4 - 2001 Accio Quote - dead link
*Reference 8 - Online chat transcript - dead link
*Reference 11- How do you remember...- dead link
*Reference 12- About the books- dead link
*Reference 13- The Leaky Cauldron and Muggle...- dead link
*Reference 15- J.K. Rowling official site F.A.Q.- dead link
*Reference 16- J.K. Rowling official site extras- dead link
*Reference 18- We haven't heard- dead link
*Reference 21- This is reference to a specific piece of information about the Hufflepuff common room, the reference link takes you only to the Pottermore homepage
*Reference 24- same as reference 21, but on the topic of Alchemy (and why is alchemy capitalized??)
*Reference 31- Can prefects...(official site)- dead link
*Reference 35-2001:Accio Quote - dead link


  • Additionally, there is rather heavy reliance on Accioquote - not sure whether this is an issue for a GA.
Upon taking a further look at AccioQuote, I would say that it is a reference to be used with care, because in some cases, we are linking to copyright violations, which is a bad thing. For example, the copyright to this Telegraph article is, I'm certain, not owned by AccioQuote. It would really be better (and much more legal) to instead link to the Telegraph article itself, or format the reference as a paper reference, once we've verified the dates/title/etc are correct. If all of the AccioQuote references to newspapers were changed to straight newspaper references, the existing references would be in much better shape already (although, the issue of missing references is also a significant one). Anyway, I'm not trying to take over your review, but if you don't mind I'll hang around and maybe pop in a comment now and then. Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out Dana; this will have to be fixed before I approve this do GA. And do stick around by all means - thedropsoffire|talk
Hey, The problem with 21 is that you have to have an account on Pottermore I think. Anyway I'm deleting the dead links and will try to add new ones. Thanks! §h₳un 9∞76 15:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Not done  Shaun9876 is doing... Prose Style could be improved
  •  Done Wiki links could be added (i.e. to many of the school heads, the house titles)
  •  Done Some externally links are unreliable or broken
  • yellow tickY Half done Though fictional, I believe the page would benefit from a style ressembling a real school's wiki page (I believe a history section would be interesting, and I believe the subjects could be made into their own wiki page. The Hogwarts express section should be made a subsection of arrival. The Secrets of Hogwarts section could be made part of a larger "Grounds" section and include things like Hagrid's hut. Perhaps a section about books referencing Hogwarts (within the Harry Potter Universe) could also be added.
  •  Done (It has one)A fair use rationale must be added to the Chamber of Secrets picture, or a different picture must be selected.
  •  Done If you are stuck trying to rearrange things, you can look at both major university pages (i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard), and the Harry Potterwiki for ideas.

§h₳un 9∞76 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I need some help deleting dead links as I can't seem to do it without crashing the Reftag template. Thanks! §h₳un 9∞76 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You should not just delete dead links - they either need to be fixed, archived or replaced with entirely new references. If the reference was a journal or book and the url was just a courtesy link, it can be removed, but only after a thorough check to make sure it hasn't just had its location changed. Just removing dead refs is a very bad practice, because then other editors don't know that the information was originally sourced, and they don't have a place to start looking for a ref (as they do if there is a reference with a dead link). Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't heard of archiving References/Dead links. Could someone tell me how or direct me to somewhere where I could learn how? §h₳un 9∞76 00:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. There are a couple of archiving services out there. You can use the Toolserver Checklinks tool, which gives you all sorts of neat options, and will help you figure out if there are archives of the dead links out there. Also, sometimes, links are just moved to different spots within the same webpage, so that's a good thing to check, too. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dana, is there a way to give me a link not to the secure server? My computer says can't connect whenever I try to load a page. §h₳un 9∞76 01:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That link shouldn't be to the secure server, just to the main toolserver. Here's a link directly to the results for Hogwarts (instead of to the main page): Hogwarts results. Can you access that? Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I get an error message, Safari can't open the page because it can't establish a connection to "Toolserver" §haun 9∞76 23:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried again and it works now... It didn't before. §haun 9∞76 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Ok, the other areas have been improved, where could I start with prose improvement? Dana/Dropsoffire, any Idea where I could begin? §haun 9∞76 01:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to poke Dana and have her look through the prose to make any fixes; Thedrops hasn't edited since the 6th so waiting for him may not be the best idea. Wizardman 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There are still a bunch of dead links and links that go to copyright violations, and the article is significantly underreferenced. Honestly, if I were picking this up for GA review at this point, I would fail it based on these issues alone. There is also repetitive prose (bits of trivia mentioned two or three times), unnecessary lists, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've actually read through the article, I agree entirely, didn't notice how much needed to be fixed. As such am failing it for now. Wizardman 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2012[edit]

The Hogwarts Motto: "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" translates to 'Never Tickle a Sleeping Dragon' (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Edenc1Talk 10:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


I have suggested the merge of the Hogwarts subjects into this article. I have also written a Draft to give you an idea of how this article would look like without all the classrooms and offices and cruft, and with the subjects already merged. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After 4 years, I think this should be discussed anew. I am reviewing this page for GA, and I believe that given the length and descriptions of each subject, and the uniqueness of Harry Potter school subjects in general, that Harry Potter subjects really do merit their own subject page. Simply listed on this page, in my mind, they are rather cumbersome. As such, I have created a Subjects at Hogwarts page. But I have not removed the current subjects section, as I would like feedback. If I do not receive feedback within a few days time, though, I will proceed to remove the subjects section, and simply write a "for more, see.." or something like that. If I am given feedback against the new page, I will put that page up for deletion again. User:thedropsoffire|talk November 19, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm against the new page. While I agree with the removal of the section in order to achieve GA status, I do not think that the subjects are as notable as other Harry Potter topics to merit a whole article for them. The Harry Potter Universe is covered by specific topics (Magic, Objects, Places, Creatures), while really notable individual topics have their own article (Quidditch with all its real world versions, the Ministry of Magic and its political commentary, and Hogwarts itself). Out of the many Hogwarts topics (subjects, staff, houses, founders, etc), only the Hogwarts Staff is notable enough to have its own page. The subjects should be discussed in the section, not as a list but as text and without in-universe information and fan cruft. The staff is already discussed in the Hogwarts staff article so there is no point to list, again, all DADA teachers or to mention incidental characters like Kettleburn or Vector. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps we can merge the subjects page with another page in the Harry Potter Universe. I do not, however, think it merits a detailed description on the Hogwarts page, nor do I think the bits on subjects should be cut out entirely - they are useful descriptions and have many wikis linking in. So the task could then be to decide on the appropriate page to merge Subjects at Hogwarts with, and then make sure all the links are properly moved. BR, --Thedropsoffire (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Having many wikis linking in has never been an argument to keep a page, it doesn't establish notability at all. The description I was suggesting is not a detailed one. I think that two or three paragraphs with sources and real-world commentary would be more useful and encyclopedic. If people want to know every single detail on those subjects, they should probably go to the Harry Potter Wikia. Many years ago we had lots of crufty lists, i.e. a lists of every single classroom and room in the Hogwarts castle, or lists of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, etc. Since those were in-universe-only articles and lists, they were trimmed and merged. If you needed to remove the list of subjects in order to improve the Hogwarts article, perhaps it is because the list of subjects itself does not fit Wikipedia standards in any form (individual article, section, table, etc.) --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012[edit]

under Care of Magical Creatures "...Harry's first two years, the class is taken by Professor Silvanus Kettleburn"

change "taken" to "taught" (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012[edit]

The dates on Dumbledore's term for headmaster conflict with Dolores Umbridge's. His for that year needs to end 1996, not 1997. Also, Headmaster Black was of Slytherin house. This was referenced many times in the Deathly Hallows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pol430 talk to me 23:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Heads" subsection[edit]

I think that, in order to achieve GA status, we should remove that section, or to re-write it entirely to meet encyclopedic criteria. As it is right now, it is pure in-universe and fan-cruft. Most of the characters on that list do not even have a section in the List of supporting Harry Potter characters, which means they are irrelevant. I tried to remove that section but one user said that people "may need" that information. I think that if people want fan-cruft lists, they should go to the Harry Potter Wikia or any other fansite. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good riddance. Cruft on HP-related articles grows faster than bamboo in the monsoon. On the other hand there should probably be a description of the headmaster's office and the business with the portraits in there as that's quite iconic. Mezigue (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Portraits are already detailed in the Magic in HP article. As far as I recall, headmasters' portraits are mentioned there. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

School Template[edit]

Hey, I need some help/advising to fix that School Template for Hogwarts. Honestly it looks bad and I'd like for someone to help fix it. §haun 9∞76 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think is wrong with it? Earlier you put a real school template, which is not appropriate so I changed it back. (Sorry for not saying anything about it on the talk page - I hadn't spotted the discussion above.) Mezigue (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a checklist And just a question, Why was a school template not acceptable?

  1. Enrollment is spelled "Enrolment"
  1. Enrollment section is overly long
  1. We could at least put a Classes section and a few of there other things that the real school template has.
  1. Seal isn't there and there is no space to put it.
  1. The "Head" section has 4 people in it and instead of years it uses books as a measurement of time.

Fix those and It should be fine. I'll help too! §haun 9∞76 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so: a real school template is not appropriate because it is not a real school. For the same reason, it is fine to have the various headmasters listed by book. Unlike in a real school, there isn't one headmaster *now* and former headmasters. I wouldn't think the classes are necessary in the infobox either because they are detailed in the article and would rather clog up the box. What does everyone think? On the other hand, the picture used now is a bit big. Perhaps we could move it down to the first section and replace it with the seal. Finally, 'enrolment' is actually correct - it's the British spelling of the word. But you're right, the second part of that section is superfluous there.Mezigue (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's smaller now and in response to the headmaster/books thing, why not have books, and years they were head. §haun 9∞76 01:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It says now what book they are headmaster in. Having it by year is not really necessary. There are almost never any years given in the books, I think the tombstones in the final book and N-H Nick's death date are the only years ever mentioned. Mezigue (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Makes sense... Anyway good job, it looks a lot better in my opinion. §haun 9∞76 15:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Burrow Link Repair[edit]

The link under School Location and Information for "The Weasleys' House" redirects to when it should redirect to

Any help in this regard would be appreciated. (Mocon19 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC))

Done. Edenc1Talk 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 4 December 2013[edit]

In the Houses section, the "mottoes" should be removed completely.

The Gryffindor motto is "Their daring, nerve and chivalry set Gryffindors apart.
The Hufflepuff motto is "Those patient Hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil.

These supposed "mottoes" are just blurbs from the first Sorting Hat song.

The Ravenclaw motto is "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure.
The Slytherin motto is "Slytherin will help you on your way to greatness.

None of the Hogwarts houses have official mottoes.

Zekethegypsy (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Evanesco! Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express edit[edit]

This is my first time making a suggestion for an edit so please excuse me if I do not do this correctly.

I am a model railroader. I've been doing research on the "Olton Hall." I recently found out that Hornby is coming out with the GWR 4-6-0 "Olton Hall" 4900 Hall Class sometime in 2014. I believe it is OO scale. Here is a link to their order screen for the actual train:

Cinnamoncheryl (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cinnamoncheryl. That does indeed look quite like the Hogwarts Express, but to conclude that it really is the Hogwarts Express would be speculation. It would count as original research, which we have a policy not to include. What we would need is a reliable source stating in so many words that the Hogwart Express is based on such-and-such a model. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ministry of Magics role at Hogwarts[edit]

Original text in wiki: "It is unclear how Hogwarts is funded. Various passages suggest that families pay to send their children to the school. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Tom Riddle says that he cannot afford to go to Hogwarts, to which Albus Dumbledore replies, "There is a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes," as students are required to buy their own textbooks, uniform, and other supplies. The Ministry of Magic's efforts to take control of the school in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix imply that it is a publicly funded school, though no mention of where the Ministry receives its funds is made."

The Ministries efforts to take control do not imply that the school is publicly funded. Taking from this page: , "The Ministry passes Educational Decree Twenty-two, allowing Fudge to place Dolores Umbridge to the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher (after Dumbledore failed to find a suitable candidate). Through her, Fudge gradually gains power over Hogwarts and Dumbledore, who he fears is building an under-age wizard army to overthrow the Ministry." When Dumbledore is removed from the the role of headmaster, it is by a "board" that then appoints Umbridge as headmaster under fear of being cursed by Lucious Malfoy.

The Ministry controls issues dealing with the use of magic within the wizard world. Therefore, they would have the ability to create laws affecting private institutions. Also, it could be assumed that the Ministry of Magic is an arm of whatever wizard government exists, as they are talking to the governments and officials of the muggle world and are probably funded through taxes that are collected within the magical world.

I think the text "The Ministry of Magic's efforts to take control of the school in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix imply that it is a publicly funded school, though no mention of where the Ministry receives its funds is made." should just be deleted.

--Copilot602 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence should be deleted, and quickly. It makes an implication which is nowhere near being an actually implication; in addition, it is unsourced.
Fact: the Ministry of Magic made efforts to take control of the school.
"Conclusion"?: the school is publicly funded.
No it isn't - I mean, whether or not the school is publicly funded, we cannot draw this conclusion. - There seems to be this prejudice around (e. g. in American conservatism) that the State can and does control what it funds and cannot and does not control anything else. I can only understand the said "conclusion" on this prejudice; but it is wrong.
What is actually happening is that the Ministry is issuing decrees which the school finds itself ever more difficult to comply with. This it does because it's the government, not because it is funding. The point of governing is issuing orders on those unfunded, also.
If anything, the happenings prove that the school is not publicly funded - or only by way of subsidy; it appears here as not a government school under the direction of the Ministry. If so, the Ministry would have replaced Dumbledore without waiting so long, and the replacement would not have been judged an usurper by natural law (reflected magically in the fact that Umbridge cannot enter the Headmaster's room). It only part-time becomes a "government school", possibly, during "Deathly Hallows" (and probably Snape could only enter the Headmaster's room because unknown to all others he had had Dumbledore's okay for it). That said, there's nothing to rule out that they received government subsidies - though the idea of four powerful (and presumably wealthy) loremasters setting up a school during the Middle Ages hints, to me, rather forcefully at a foundation. Anyway, the idea of school fees is never presented anywhere else - though they still have to buy learning material, uniform, and supplies.-- (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014[edit]

Please edit the phrase:

The Ministry of Magic's efforts to take control of the school in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix imply that it is a publicly funded school, though no mention of where the Ministry receives its funds is made.

Reason: No, this, besides being unsourced, does not happen to be implied at all - unless we follow the prejudice that the State will naturally shrink back from controlling everything it does not fund. This is simply not the case; and, in addition, the very reverse is true: the very efforts prove that the Ministry does not have complete control.

Solution: either delete the sentence completely.

Or: Something along the lines of (I'll give a suggestion, admittedly somewhat speculative, but no more so than the current version and other than it correct):

The school is goverened by a collective board of "governors" who elect the Headmaster (see Chamber of Secrets). The election of governors is never mentioned. As to the school's funding, there is a suggestion that it was initially provided for from the Founder's private wealth; at any rate students do not pay any fees (although they do pay for material, unless indigent). It cannot be ruled out that it receives ministerial subsidies, yet it is apparently not a state school, as the independence of the Governors from the Ministry (in Chamber of Secrets) prove. The Ministry does try at times (as in Order of the Phoenix) to subject the school to itself by rule by decree, but only achieves this goal under the dominion of Voldemort (in Deathly Hallows).

Note: already touched in the talk page by a request of the dear user Copilot602, answered in the affirmative by myself under probably a different IP address.

2001:A60:1531:EA01:A9F7:9DAB:3D4B:E3F (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted all that - it was speculation as you point out. Mezigue (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hogwarts Castle Image caption.[edit]

The image of the Hogwarts model used in this article has the caption of "A studio model of Hogwarts at Leavesden Studios"

The model on display is the final model that was constructed for the film series (used in movie 6 only) as the last film only used a completely 3D CGI version of the castle.

I have proceeded to change to caption to read "A studio model of Hogwarts at Leavesden Studios used in the 6th film adaptation" However user @Kirin13 demands a source saying otherwise. I have provided evidence of the castle changes throughout the films course, yet its not "sufficient" for this user. These details can be seen here: User_talk:Kirin13

Can another user please help back up my "correct" claim so the correct caption can be used for the image.

Here is another reference.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Davis2003 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What you posted on my talk page was WP:OR and direct links to random images all without any sources. The first source you've given was the link above, which basically says model was used in all the films. Per your source, "The Hogwarts castle model ... built for the first film ... was then rebuilt and altered many times over for the next seven films." The fact the model was altered through the films was never in dispute. Kirin13 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2014: film settings[edit]

The settings for the Hogwarts scenes are hardly even mentioned in passing in the article, as far as I can see. I couldn't believe my eyes; I believe they are enough sought after to deserve their own heading, whether on-location, studio or something else. One location seems to be Alnwick Castle ([2]). (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hogwarts[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hogwarts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

House crests[edit]

Under the section for the four houses, it offers only a checker-pattern of the house colours to act as a crest. Shouldn't these be replaces with the individual house crests from the film versions? They are more recognizable as such. Iheartthestrals (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Showing the crests used in the films would go against Wikipedia's fair use policy. The article already includes two non-free images. Four more would be a bit too much. Moreover, it wouldn't significantly improve readers' understanding of the topic either - they would just be visual identifiers. There isn't really a reason to use that here. ~Mable (chat) 09:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How to be Topp[edit]

Most people know this book as Molesworth or The Compleet Molesworth, when several books were published together. Should be a note here? Slightnostalgia (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source stating this? If not, than probably not. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I just needs a note in the references, just to give clarity. Slightnostalgia (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As the sources say that the book in question in "How To be Topp", then as any fule kno, we should use those titles, not others. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

In the Houses section, I suggest changing:

The houses compete throughout the school year, by earning and losing points for various events, for the House Cup...


The houses compete throughout the school year for the House Cup by earning and losing points for various actions...

As I think that it makes the sentence's meaning clearer. Owlcon53 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016[edit]

So-sorafiq (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No request was made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016[edit]

Hogwarts School Song[edit]

  • Hogwarts,Hogwarts,Hoggy,Warty,Hogwarts
  • Teach us something please
  • Whether we be old and bald
  • Or young with scabby knees
  • Our heads could do with feeling
  • With something interesting stuff
  • For now they're bare and full of air
  • Dead flies and bit of fluff
  • So teach us things worth knowing
  • Bring back what we've forgot
  • Just do your best,we'll do the rest
  • And learn until our brain all rot

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be copyrighted content. Is it alright to keep it on the talk page like this? ~Mable (chat) 13:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:LYRICS says that lyrical quoting comes under the same Non-free policy as everything else, and as the policy states "how much of a song you can quote is open to interpretation". However, I would say that to include the entire lyrics on the article page would fall foul of the policy, but to leave it here for a couple of days while the editor has chance to re-submit their question does not. It's entirely possible that they may come up with a blindingly brilliant suggestions that although may not require all the lyrics to be quoted, perhaps some of them that would be highlighted form the entire list above.
Just my surmising. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not a song lyrics anyway as the song does not exist. It's an extract from a novel. Mezigue (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017[edit]

Peachesrcool7 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017[edit]

Under the Discipline header, it says that the Hufflepuff house jewels are Topazes, but JK Rowling herself has stated that it's actually diamonds. (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER 10:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hogwarts. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Education not compulsory?[edit]

Education in the UK is compulsory - attendance at Hogwarts is not. The reference to "Education at Hogwarts is not compulsory, with some students being home schooled as stated in the seventh book" is therefore misleading and incorrect.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)