Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by Harry Potter task force.

Attention: Potions in Harry Potter will be placed for AfD on June 4, 2016[edit]

In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.

Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.

Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Done. Please, those of you who are fans of HP do not just vote keep because you are a fan of HP. We're an encyclopedia, not a Wikia host. HP has a wikia. We're not it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Harry Potter in the real world has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Harry Potter in the real world, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Harry Potter. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rename articles[edit]

With the imminent release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the time has come to begin the great debate about whether to rename the following articles:

--not an exhaustive list, there are some redirects floating around as well. I humbly submit to you that all of these, including Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts, fall under J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World and as such, we need to officially widen the scope of existing articles from Harry-Potter-centric to Wizarding-World-centric. Perhaps Wizarding World is a good shorthand for the franchise name. Perhaps "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World" is too long for article titles and disambiguations. Let's open the discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a very premature idea at the least. It might be that in years to come that new tag becomes as widely known as Harry Potter, but frankly that is unlikely. Wikipedia has no business jumping the gun to fit with a film studio's attempts at rebranding. Mezigue (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a question of scope, not branding. The questions before you are: are we going to allow characters from outside the Harry Potter film series to proliferate in articles named "Harry Potter"? Are we going to narrow the scope and create a separate, parallel system of articles for Fantastic Beasts? Or are we going to acknowledge the shared universe, rename the articles, and thereby widen the scope to properly include all of the Wizarding World in the same articles? Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Article fork alert[edit]

This article has been created ostensibly to distinguish the Fantastic Beasts film series from the Harry Potter (film series) and to keep content out of the latter. However, the scope of the former article is all-inclusive, and this means that the scope is inappropriately large, given the continuing existence of the latter article. I think the time has come to discuss the scope of such articles and whether my proposal above should be given some consideration, being that we are poised at the outset of a series of five films set in the Wizarding World that threaten to bloat Harry Potter-related articles beyond recognition if scope is not addressed forthwith. Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


There is insufficient participation to make a move of this magnitude, and no consensus to move even if this had enough participation. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the scope of these articles be widened to include the entire Wizarding World universe? If so, should the articles be renamed to reflect that wider scope? Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment The scope of the articles should definitely be broadened to encompass the Fantastic Beasts film, which is essentially a spin-off from the Harry Potter series. The real question is how you go about it. If they only do one Fantastic Beasts film (in the unlikely event it tanks) you probably don't need to restructure the articles but if they do a whole new series of films then obviously the structure of the Harry Potter articles needs to reflect this. One good example to follow would be the Tolkien's legendarium, Outline of Middle-earth, Middle-earth, Middle-earth in film, The Lord of the Rings (film series) and The Hobbit (film series), which takes a hierarchical approach to the subject matter. As for the names of the articles, this needs to be assessed on an article-by-article basis in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME in regards to the article content. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would expand the scope but stick with "Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter universe" for now. While Wizarding World is technically the more correct term, it's not a household name (yet); Harry Potter is. DaßWölf 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - and it already is. Just one Fictional universe here, e.g. map, settings, history, character, and basic premises. It's just one canon here, just one universe, and WP:COMMONNAME would seem 'Harry Potter' universe for it. Plus there is some precedent of fictional universes become known by the first works and/or pivotal character. Anyway, in Google the 'Harry Potter Universe' hits 500 thousand times, while 'Wizarding Wordld universe' hits 11 and a half. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think whether it is "one canon" (a meaningless word imho) and one universe is that relevant. This is more an editorial decision and I would suggest that keeping the HP primarily book series and the Fantastic Beasts film series separate would probably be best, at least for the list articles. Anyone who keeps an eye on the List of Harry Potter characters page for instance will know what a hard slog it is to keep it in a readable state from the endless additions of trivia (look at the state it was in a few years ago. Once there are five FB films out (that's the plan), the task will become impossible. Mezigue (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No Fantastic Beasts is based on the textbook used in the school. It is its own universe. I agree with Mezigue, I don't think it's one canon. It's not like the Star Wars series where you have episodes and a continuing story line with the same main characters. Likely, and I certainly hope so, JK Rowlng will focus on other aspects from her Potter books and enlarge them into books and films. Each of those aspects deserves to stand alone and not become some unwieldy Harry Potter universe. These are fresh new worlds she's creating, not a continuing series. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No Summoned by a bot. With up to 5, maybe more movies/books/etc coming out under the FB "canon" I think at some point in time the scope of maintaining all of these articles could become incredibly daunting. Separating them out between HP and FB seems like as easy way to keep things organized moving forward. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harry Potter characters[edit]

I wonder if someone who is very familiar with the Harry Potter series would be kind enough to look at a brief passage from Greg Louganis and give an informed opinion. The most recent relevant edit is this one, which is still wrong. (I'd just fix it, but I "don't know what I'm talking about" and apparently "name" is synonymous with "character".) RivertorchFIREWATER 07:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts[edit]

Should there be an article dedicated to characters from Fantastic Beasts? Seems like a bit of an omission given it's going to be a five-part series. Artemisia (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Potential Good Topic nomination[edit]

I notice that all seven Harry Potter novels are Good Articles, which is amazing, and I think they should form a Good topic. I believe that the articles already meet all of the criteria – and Harry Potter could be the lead article – but the criteria page recommends consulting the major contributors to the topic before making a nomination; many of them seem inactive, so I am posting here to see if anyone has any arguments against a GT nomination, or any other thoughts on the subject. (The criteria page also recommends that nominators have detailed subject knowledge; while I haven't worked on any of the articles in question, I've read most of them from top to bottom and am a huge, huge fan of the series.)

Article links

Good article Harry Potter
Good article Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Good article Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Good article Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Good article Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Good article Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Good article Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Good article Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Links to "List of spells in Harry Potter"[edit]

After the recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter, many links to spell names are now red. These links should probably be removed (or some of them pointed elsewhere). —Kusma (t·c) 12:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)