Talk:Wizarding World Digital

Style

This is written like an advertisement, probably not enough to flag it, but it definitely needs some edits. 49.195.156.159 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --65.9.135.174 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pottermore.com is proof enough. The writer is right! It is an upcoming project!

This page should not be speedy deleted because it's true! It's just one sentence about JK Rowling's project but that's the only information we have!!! IT'S NOT A HOAX! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.189.117 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --97.73.64.172 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC) this is ''not a hoax. by visiting http://www.pottermore.com/ , you can see that it is a legitimate upcoming project. The Pottermore Project was announced recently, and a big reveal of what it is will take place in approximately five days with an announcement by J.K. Rowling.

Text-adventure game?

Is Pottermore a Text adventure game? The video didn't offer much in the way on whether or not it will be a second-person narrative.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The press relesase (PDF) has more information. All we know is that it is some kind of interactive reading experience, not strictly text-based as it's being done by Sony, company pretty famous for integrating technologies. iamlilyy (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not limited to Text. Screenshots of the functioning website were kept on the (now removed) "Press Releases" page. However, one can still access the screenshots remain through the URLs: Gryffindor Gate Hogwarts Express The Chessboard Chamber Christmas at Hogwarts.61.17.194.62 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

First Million Registrations?

Was it announced anywhere in the press release that it will be the first million people to register who get the special early access? The site only says to return on the 31st to find out how to get early access, not that registration will be open that day for the first lucky people. In fact, the citation says that fans will compete in an online competition that day to gain access. Icefall5 (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A few of the other refs mention the million number. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The references state contradictory things:

Time:

The site launches on July 31 (Mr. Potter's birthday), when one million fans can compete in an online challenge to gain early access.

Ars Technica:

Pottermore will be first opened in beta on July 31 (Harry’s birthday) to a million fans, who will be required to find a Magical Quill in an online treasure hunt.

TH_NK:

Also on that date, an online challenge will be launched, whereby the first million people to complete their registration will gain early entry into the website, and help put final touches to the experience.

The Guardian:

The website will open first to a million users who register first on 31 July – Harry's birthday.

Pliigi (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that TH_NK are the ones that supposedly built it, I'm likely to take their word on it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On the introductory emails sent to users, 5 million is mentioned, not one 49.195.156.159 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Are we sticking with the British date format or the American date format? It seems that both are on this article and it isn't consistent.--DisneyFriends (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Time Zones to stay in BST, please, as that is the timezone used on the website. Seaweed4 has reverted this to EST Twice, after it was reverted, being told that the article was of a British Website using the British Time Zone. They also imply that EST is the correct time and that BST was another time zone; "On August 1, around 5 a.m. (or 10 am BST)". EST is no more accepted as the international date line as BST is. If we are going by the international Date line, the time would, in this case have been Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which was 9 a.m. Any chance of blocking the User from editing, on the grounds of repetitive Vandalism?--

Mimitakashi16 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2011 (BST)

I agree that the times listed should be given in BST. Also, when I wrote the article, I listed dates as YYYY-MM-DD, as that's pretty common- looks like they've been changed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that - when I read through the article yesterday, there were three different date formats throughout (YYYY-MM-DD, MDY and DMY), so I standardised to DMY for consistency. Refreshing myself on MOS:DATEUNIFY now though, I realise that it would have been perfectly acceptable to leave the YYYY-MM-DD dates in the references, so please feel free to revert back. Frickative 22:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not that concerned by it. :p —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.34.141.64, 4 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

i would like to edit the page on pottermore because i have information that would benefit the page. 24.34.141.64 (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

please put in the info for day 5 form http://insider.pottermore.com/2011/07/magical-quill-some-questions-answered.html UPDATED: So far, all the clues have appeared in the early hours of the morning in my time zone. Will this continue for the remainder of The Magical Quill challenge? We know that Harry Potter fans around the world are taking part in the challenge, so we will be varying the times that the clues are revealed. We can tell you that today’s clue (Day 5) will be released between 4.30pm and 8.00pm BST.166.70.16.57 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.75.38.126, 4 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} We can tell you that tomorrow’s clue (Day 6) will be released between 1:30pm and 4.00pm BST, and the final clue (Day 7) will be released between 12:30am and 3:00am BST on Saturday 6 August.

from http://insider.pottermore.com/

173.75.38.126 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Not an appropriate reliable source  Chzz  ►  20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's Pottermore's official blog. --DisneyFriends (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 4 August 2011

Today, (August 4, 2011) Pottermore Insider (the official blog for the site) announced the times registration will become available on Day 6 and Day 7. "We can tell you that tomorrow’s clue (Day 6) will be released between 1:30pm and 4.00pm BST, and the final clue (Day 7) will be released between 12:30am and 3:00am BST on Saturday 6 August."

Done. Xxcom9a (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request recent deletion

Recent edit by the following user:

15:27, 6 August 2011 U-Mos (talk | contribs) (9,116 bytes) (→Early registration: The Magical Quill Quest: hideous over-detail

is ridiculous and downright absurd and the information deleted should be reinstated. 'Hideous over-detail' should not be a valid reason to delete an entirely informative section, seeing that a lot of people has contributed to adding the information that is suitable for the Pottermore Wiki page. The information that currently remains is utterly lacking in content. The user above has misused the privilege of being able to edit/delete contents from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumaFerrari (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That you have said "too much detail" is not a valid reason for removing a section pretty much says it all. What was encyclopedic about this section? How does it pass WP:V (especially noting the complete absence of relevant secondary sources)? Seven sections covering every minor detail of the method of entry to the site is what's absurd. Are we going to copy every word of the site itself verbatim onto this article? I certainly hope not. U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You have outlined a good point there. Some of the information given were perhaps quite unnecessary, particularly the specific timings of release of each questions/ how many minutes it was open for registration/ and such. However, do bear in mind that the whole page is not entirely up to what you personally think is appropriate, because the HP craze is of a global scale, and even this particular issue involves a minimum of a million people/fans. I am speaking as a keen observer of the Pottermore Website, and based on my own experience, having registered on Day 6, as a fan I was curious and was interested to know what the previous days' questions were, and I'm sure some of the other fans out there would be too. Perhaps wait until the website itself is opened to the public in October will it probably be much more ideal to compress the information currently given into what you think is necessary and sufficient. What is perhaps better in this case is if each of the days' questions were summarised so as to be sufficiently informative yet not exceed the limits of, to quote yourself, "hideous over detail"., Had I been given permission to do so I would have, so as to benefit others rather than selfishly to benefit of my own eyes. PumaFerrari (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if we should keep the following things: day, time released, the clue, and what episode users were directed to. I don't really think we need the answer or how long registration was until. We probably don't even need to include what they had to do on the specific sites. Also, I don't really think having separate sections is good for the days. Maybe just combining Days 1-3 and Days 4-7 into sections. --DisneyFriends (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As a fellow Wikipedia reader and Pottermore follower, I was thankful for the information written about the clues and specific details of the contest. I liked the idea of each day being a different section, but if there was less information in each section it would sort of defeat the purpose. Certainly, though, you should not just delete an entire 7 sections because you don't like the way it is written. -- Anomynous

I'm thinking a condensed table could work. Xxcom9a (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:USEFUL and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding sections are relevant. I didn't not like the way it was written, I didn't like that it was unverified and (more importantly) unverifiable. I didn't see anything in all seven sections that was worth keeping. U-Mos (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You did`t like? You didn`t saw?. That`s not like Wikipedia works. The table idea sounds good, specially in the long run since eventually much more information will come and the early registration will be less and less important. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well in the hope you might actually pay attention for once I'll rephrase: It *is* unverified and unverifiable, and there *is* nothing in the seven sections worth keeping. Happy? And after writing this I've noticed you changed what I wrote to give part of it the opposite meaning! That is not on, my friend. U-Mos (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've created a table with condensed information. There are several news articles with information about each day, from reliable sources. Also, on a tangent, should the section say "Early registration: The Magical Quill Quest", "Early registration: Magical Quill quest" or "Early registration: The Magical Quill quest"? --DisneyFriends (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

U-Mos: As I have told you before, it's not entirely about what YOU ALONE think looks better. In this small thread alone, 5 are supporting the idea of having the added details stay, and only you are objecting to it. Get the hint, we don't care what you think and what you like to see. Enough with your selfish and immature acts of constant deletion. Might I quote WP:TASTE .Enough said.

DisneyFriends: Well made. It seems much more organised now. PumaFerrari (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Looks better"? Have you even read what I've written? Have I directly opposed the table format that's been added now? Have you even bothered to check how many times I removed the text from the article? Not sure what you're trying to achieve with that patently ridiculous response. U-Mos (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote yourself, "I didn't like that it was..." pretty much shows personal preference in your decision to delete the article contents (which of course I have checked how many times and can in fact be regarded as 'constant deletion', fyi). Seeing that you seem to quote much about Wiki protocols in regards to deletion discussion, might I once again link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TASTE for you to check, because sadly it's apparent that you seem to have not acted in accordance with it being one who I wrongly assumed to be too knowledgeable about these issues. Furthermore, I never specifically said that you 'directly opposed the table format', I was rather suggesting that you opposed that the "added details stay" as opposed to what some of the others here suggested, which I have mistakenly put as 5 when in fact it was 4. To quote yourself once again, "Have you even read what I have written?". PumaFerrari (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If I really have to spell out my meaning of the clearly regrettable "I didn't like" phrase, here it is: I was specifically refuting that the issue was a personal dislike, the problem being that it was unverified. And again, constant deletion? Two times. Twice. U-Mos (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If I am correct, 1 million people have registered for early Pottermore entrance. Each of these people can verify for the questions and answers. I was there presonally for each day, and I am by far not the only one. If that is not enough verification for you, perphaps you could go do some research and find some of these people who were there. ~ Anomynous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.213.158 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want an "Official" reference, here, straight from the official Pottermore blog. http://insider.pottermore.com/2011/08/magical-quill-challenge-clues-and.html Xxcom9a (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

DisneyFriends had mentioned in their edit summary after adding this reference that 3rd party/news article references were also needed, so here's one "third-party" reference that could be added: http://pottermorehype.com/clues.html Xxcom9a (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As Xxcom9a stated above, Pottermore has officially released the questions and answers for the Magical Quill Challenge. That is verification, plain and clear. Now, I believe it is safe to say that this matter has been settled. JettaBaby (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) JettaBaby (previously Anomynous)

Enough said and well done. I hope U-Mos wouldn't come up with yet some more Wiki protocols to shove into our faces. PumaFerrari (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.120.27.167, 8 August 2011

Please change "Clues on days 1-3 were more difficult than the clues on days 1-4" to "Clues on days 1-3 were more difficult than the clues on days 4-7". Reliable Source: Memmott, Carol (1 August 2011). "Pottermore's Magical Quill Challenge underway". USA Today. http://books.usatoday.com/bookbuzz/post/2011/08/pottermore-registration-underway/179498/1. Retrieved 8 August 2011. A quote taken from the article: "On Days 1-3 the clues will be harder, and on Days 4-7 the clues will be easier." 46.120.27.167 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sorry about that, it was a typo. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I may be wrong, but I think the wording for the following should be changed. 'While many accounts were created by fans, some fake accounts created by hackers to mislead people by using false advertising.' Could you change it to 'While many accounts were created by fans, some fake accounts were created by hackers to mislead people by using false advertising.' I am sorry if this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.213.158 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.23.167.27, 10 August 2011

pottermore wheres my email!

92.23.167.27 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, 10 August 2011

Today, Pottermore users who succesfully completed the early registration were sent emails confirming that the user had been selected for early entry. Pottermore confirmed that these emails were sent by them here http://insider.pottermore.com/2011/08/magical-quill-challenge-clues-and.html The email said the following:

' You have been selected for early entry into Pottermore! We’re really excited to confirm that you are one of the lucky people selected for early entry into Pottermore, ahead of when it is open-to-all in October, to help us add finishing touches! We will activate your account between mid-August and the end of September, so keep checking your inbox for our Welcome email. When this arrives you will be able to enter Pottermore. In the meantime, you can check the Pottermore Insider for all the latest news, updates and announcements. We look forward to welcoming you to Pottermore. '

I think you should include this somewhere in the article, maybe near the ende of the magical quill paragraph. Thankyou, JettaBaby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaBaby (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"On 10 August, Pottermore started sending a "congratulations" email to the registered users, confirming that they would get early entry." Saw this on the main page and just a thought, is it really necessary to state this? PumaFerrari (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be necessary, but if we have reliable information that is true, somebody might want to know about it. JettaBaby (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, 11 August 2011

One section is called 'The Magical Quill quest' but Pottermore calls it 'The Magical Quill challenge' on their website http://www.pottermore.com/ and on their twitter page http://twitter.com/#!/pottermore so it would be logical to change it to 'The Magical Quill challenge'. Thanks! JettaBaby (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) JettaBaby

 Done Babar Suhail (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Features, eBooks, Images

Hey guys! I am just making a todo list of what we have to do for this page. I feel like it may be a long list because the site has so much to offer and it's pretty unique.

• We have to add images such as:
  • Screenshot of homepage when it is released in October (If the gateway is the homepage, then the gateway.)
  • Sorting process
  • Screenshot of some new content by J. K. Rowling
• Information on eBooks - There have been a lot of articles recently on the eBooks matter, especially with the Sony Reader. We should probably add a section on the selling of eBooks exclusively on this site, because Amazon and other sites have had a bad reaction.
• Features - I think this one should be expanded the most because there are so many different things that the site already has to offer that some other sites don't:
  • Photo sharing (This is what the author meant when the reader creates the story.)
  • New content
  • Going to Diagon Alley, Gringotts, and various other places
  • Choosing a wand
  • Sorting Hat
  • Dueling
  • Potions

I hope someone can do these because there haven't been a lot of people editing the page with useful information lately and by October I'm sure the entire world will want more information. --DisneyFriends (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should add the new content, the Sorting Process, ect. on here, as it's something the users should experience on their own. However, just mentioning what can be done on the site at the moment, (even if it's not as dramatic as we expected, in terms of Diagon Alley, Grongotts and the stores, I'm expected some updates in the future) might be a good plan, just to briefly hint at the features to be officially released in October. I'm in the site, and I assume you are too, so perhaps just generally clarifying some information would be best. 74.215.18.173 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of users in beta

Hi.

While only a screenshot or giving my username and password could prove this but i`m a beta user, as such i can see the number of users specified as "Hogwarts students" in the Great Hall section of the page; could this be approved as a valid source for the number of users allowed in the beta? Zidane tribal (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources, which this is, are generally allowed for limited uses, and I think this could be an appropriate use; however, we have a bit of an issue because the site is in very limited beta right now. If you take a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS, I think that's the applicable policy in this case. My interpretation of it is that we shouldn't use information from inside the site as a source until it opens to everyone. I don't know what's been done in past cases, though. If anyone knows of a precedent, I'd like to know.

This goes for a lot of other things about the website. Even though we as beta users can see things inside the site, anything that needs to be sourced (which is most things) needs to wait until secondary sources discuss the site, and a lot of that won't happen until October. On the other hand, it would be nice to expand the article as much as possible before the site opens so that it can be done in an orderly fashion instead of a bunch of IP editors seeing missing information and wanting to expand.

Even when we have secondary sources, there has been a lot of suspect information in the news related to this particular article ("One million users get access July 31!" "Site opens to everybody on the first of October!"), so we do have to do a bit of sifting the wheat from the chaff and figuring out what is worth citing even among the sources that you would expect to be trustworthy. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Beta users

There are a great many 'positive' reviews of Pottermore on this Wikipedia page, but no criticisms. Many Beta testers, myself inlcuded, have complained about the lack of music, the need for greater challenges, poor playability and a tendency towards tediousness. Can this be included?( Myosotis Scorpioides 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)).

It can, of course. It`s not all sunshine and rainbows; But like with everything else, we need a references, we can just say "Some beta users complain...." it needs to be published somewhere. (And it lacks music indeed) Zidane tribal (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reception among gamers.

The general consensus on youtube among older fans was that they expected Pottermore to be an MMORPG. Gamers were psyched, but the hype fell when that turned out not to be the case.

Source: Youtube, game forums, & the amount of search results when you google "pottermore rpg/mmo/mmorpg" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

General release

Pottermore insider just released a post that the site will be open to the general public at the end of October. Someone should check it out to improve the article. 68.32.38.50 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody already did. Diff between yesterday's and today's version of the article. Take a look at the article: the post that you mention is cited in 4 places. Princess Lirin (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK! 68.32.38.50 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC) pottermore opened on april 14,2012 http://insider.pottermore.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankni525 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets and House Cup

Should info about the house cup and the release of CoS be added? - Silver Diadem (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of stories?

Considering all the news that JK Rowling will release 12 stories on Pottermore, I was curious if we should have a separate article for lists of names and specifics of individual stories? Right now, details are pretty hard to find, and exist only in the paragraphs about the Pottermore versions of the HP boooks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Half-Blood Prince

didnt they release a half blood prince book in pottermore? if so, can someone help me put that there on the list near the bottom of the article? thx, Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When I saw the edit yesterday, I logged into Pottermore and the sixth book was there. I didn't care to research further. Kirin13 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ok but pls tell more people 2 help. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit made

I have added the patronus quiz to the section on the post-2015 update of the Pottermore website. Crcelone (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Closed/Replaced

The website seems to be entirely closed now and replaced by the Wizarding World website. Or it can be considered renamed. The e-book publishing part still seems to be running. Nclm (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)