Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Not Even Slightly Old

Spoiler Trouble

Hey everybody.

I know this is probably a contentious issue, but I would like to make a plea that all Harry Potter character articles NOT have their death dates stated before the spoiler heading and/or table of contents. I make this request because:

1. The Wikipedia spoiler warning article says: "Not all visitors will recognize the site as an encyclopedia, which should strive first to inform, spoilers or not ... a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy."

2. There are some people that may come on this site only having seen the Harry Potter films to research some characters, and be hence spoiled for future films.

3. I contend that knowing the date of death of a major character is one of the biggest spoilers that one can give. While this is supposed to be an informative encyclopedia, these are works of fiction that should not be ruined simply because we are trying to put these character articles to the same status as actual articles of nonfictional people who have died. In nonfiction this should be put to be comprehensive and complete, but for fiction this ruins some of the fun!

I wouldn't mind going through every article making the neccessary corrections myself (and I would like to do this to the Star Wars character articles eventually...see the latest Darth Vader edits), but I figured people may get mad if I do this, so I'd like to get a consensus.

Thanks! --TheWindshield 05:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Jam2k

School logos requested

Anyone have know where I can find good seals to put up for Durmstrang and Beauxbatons? The ones that will be used in the movies are official enough for me. Oh yeah and maybe a higher res Hogwarts crest too. Jarwulf 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it legal for us to use these images? If you aren't sure, don't post them. Superm401 | Talk 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I asked...I could easily have pulled off as many pictures as I wanted from google but I was hoping someone knew of some fair use images to use. Jarwulf 20:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Any image to be used in the movies is undoubtedly copyrighted, and I don't see the need to invoke fair use here. Superm401 | Talk 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Loads of images from the movies are used in this category as well as a zillion other far less meaningful articles. And it doesn't have to be a screengrab from the film. But whatever, I won't be brokenhearted if nobody has anything. Jarwulf 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The seeds of duplicate articles being planted

Please keep an eye on Special:Contributions/24.77.69.164, who has already given us Harry Potter book 7 (AfD discussion) and Harry Potter  : movies. Uncle G 02:05:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Size of the magical community

The Harry Potter section on wikipedia is so big I didn't know where to add this, but I think it's relevant information:

One of the books somewhere (sorry I forget where) mentions that there are 200 students in each house at Hogwarts. This gives the total size of the school at 800 pupils (4 houses) and 114 pupils per year (seven years). As Hogwarts is the only witchcraft and wizarding school in the UK and assuming that all able wizards and witches go to school, this makes the wizarding population of the UK around 8500, assuming even age demographic and equivalent life expectancy to muggles (UK pop around 60m, average life expectancy of 75). A more detailed calculation would be possible with better population data. If this figure is extrapolated to the world, the worldwide wizarding population is in the region of 850,000 (world pop of 6 billion).

The figure is confused slightly by muggle-borns and squibs, so for the benefit of this calculation, they were cancelled (I do however think that muggle-borns are more common than squibs due to the vastly overwhelming size of the muggle population.

I hope this information can find its way onto on of the Harry Potter pages, I've enjoyed reading them and hopefully this information will be of interest to others. Cheers.

It is an interesting coincidence for me to read this, because I just read this right after reading a segment of the interview Rowling had with Melissa & Emerson regading the wizarding population. It's rather long, but I'll provide the following relevant quote, where she estimates about three thousand human wizards in Britain:

Let's say three thousand [in Britain], actually, thinking about it, and then think of all the magical creatures, some of which appear human. So then you've got things like hags, trolls, ogres and so on, so that's really bumping up your numbers. And then you've got the world of sad people like Filch and Figg who are kind of part of the world but are hangers on. That's going to bump you up a bit as well, so it's a more sizable, total magical community that needs hiding, concealing, but don't hold me to these figures, because that's not how I think.

--Deathphoenix 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The article on Hogwarts somewhere claims 280 students per year. Not exactly explained where they get the figure. If there were 3000 wizards, say 1/10 of these were between the age of 11 and 18, then that would only be 300 school students all together. Now, didn't an awful lot of people go to the quiddich world cup?Sandpiper 02:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite, Rowling's figure, I think these calculations are important and should be added to the site. It would definitely be interesting to find out where the 200/280 figures come from.

There are 5 boys in Harry's year in Gryffindor. If there are approximately an equal number of boys and girls at the school, approximately the same number of students admitted each year, and approximately the same number in each house, there would be 10 (say) Gryffindors in each year (5 boys, 5 girls), 70 Gryffindors altogether(10 students per year, times 7), and 280 Hogwarts students altogether. I don't see any reasons I can extrapolate from the book that would make any of those assumptions unreasonable.

Conversely, if there are around 800 students at Hogwarts, then on average there would be 200 students per house, giving an average of 28 or 29 students per house year. This would make Harry's year about 1/3 the average size of a class, which seems extraordinarily low. -- 68.36.214.139 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also that since at least some classes are mixed houses, and no one has ever said there is more than one 'set' per subject, per year, classes would be getting improbably large. And if there is only one potions master, etc., just how many classes can he take in one 5-day week? One teacher only allows about 1/2 day teaching per year per subject per week. Only enough for one class. The inference in the books is that this is quite a small school. But admittedly, things like the very large numbers of people working for the ministry of magic seem to suggest a rather bigger adult population than you might expect from the number of students. Or lots of wizards do not go to Hogwarts. Sandpiper 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Minorissimo Hp-stubs

The number of Hp-stubs (BTW, why not "HP-stub"?) is mercifully modest, but many of them seem to be on very minor topics and characters. Could someone more knowledgeable than I about matters Potteresque look into the possibility of merging some of them into some sort of "Minor [X]ish Harry Potter characters" (etc), were [X] range over some suitable set of attributes? Thanks. Alai 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? Some of them (e.g. Romilda Vane) were given articles because they didn't fit into any of the lists of characters. Others I'd have to see to know if they could be merged. We already have a large amount of "Minor (fill in adjective here) in Harry Potter"-type lists, such as Minor Hufflepuffs. Hermione1980 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

By way of example, I cite just about the entire stub category. How many of the these are even in principle expandable to reasonable-length? If they're not, they're not so much stubs, as not really all that notable, at least in and of themselves. I realize they might not have a very natural "list attribute", but they can always be grouped alphabeticly, or as "book N characters", etc. (And yes, I'd noticed the other lists, I'm just suggesting extending along similar lines.)

Note that Romilda Vane is not actually in the stub category, though equally it's a very short article, and I'd be surprised if it were ever likely to grow very much. Such cases should likewise probably either be tagged as stubs, or as mergeable, once there's a scheme/likely target for such. Alai 01:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

I added movie screenshots to the Frank Bryce and Gabrielle Delacour sites. I hope it was okay and I didn't make any mistakes, it were the first pics I uploaded. Can also someone please check the Gabrielle site? Now I have this: bgcolor=#fcf written as words under the picture, and I don't know how to correct this. Thank you very much in advance. Neville Longbottom 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Neville Longbottom

Harry Potter Wiki

(Ad for external wiki removed. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC))

What exactly is the niche this project is supposed to fill? We already have probably the most extensive set of articles on HP an encyclopedia has ever seen. Definitely more info than even 80-90% of the fansites out there. For anything that can't fit here the lexicon goes indepth on every subject and serves as a stable reference. Not angry or anything, it sounds cool but I'm just curious... Jarwulf 19:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you remember those HP-related articles that were deleted from WP? Well, we're making a place for them in HPW. As well as trying to make it the most extensive HP encyclopedia outside of WP. Fansite, that is. :) Is there anything wrong with advertising? We're short on editors. This Halloween, we'll be running on a skeleton crew, I surmise. Chosen One 09:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Advertising is never acceptable on WP. Superm401 | Talk 19:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is not quite advertising. People have external links to fansites, and worse, etc. all over WP. It was simply a link to a different wiki solely devoted to Harry Potter. Like Chosen One said, every tiny little detail (that would get AfD'ed here) can have its own article over at HPW. How is linking to WikiCities advertising? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, then, I'll just put an external link to Harry Potter Wiki here, and whoever is interested in contributing new articles or deleted HP stuff, please go ahead. Chosen One 11:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 Project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on the Harry Potter Series? The articles for Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort look good. Please post your sugestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 23:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Barring a few potential issues that are easily fixed...the Hogwarts article is a good choice. Jarwulf 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the Hogwarts article. The Severus Snape and Ginny Weasley articles are IMO very good and detailed, too. Neville Longbottom 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Do you plan on working more on these articles? (I would guess yes since the series isn't finished). Also, do you have any "hard" references, such as books, magazines, etc? Thanks for your help--Shanel 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I mean "hard' references besides the Harry Potter books, of course :)--Shanel 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The movies and the books and a few interviews for some odd facts...this isn't the sort of subject that lends itself to other sources and yes the articles will still be a work in progress for the foreseeable future...Jarwulf 08:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another source is JK Rowling's website: www.jkrowling.com This is for example the place, where she mentioned some character birthdays. Neville Longbottom 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added these articles to the table here. Tell me if you agree or not.--Shanel 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

They all look fine..some of the B articles could use a little formatting but they're okay. Jarwulf 05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

After you join the WikiProject harry Potter, is there anything specific you "to-do" thing have to do? IamHermionie 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)IamHermioneIamHermionie 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Editions

I just finished cleaning up all the existing editions sections on the book pages, but the first two books do not have any information there yet. While creating them, I realized that there are a large number of editions (by ISBN): do we really want to list them all? Is this something that might be better on its own page that lists all editions for all books? I like showing the different covers, however, and would keep that part of it. Turnstep 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I join the HP wiki project?

Hi guys, can I join the HP wiki project? Zhanster 12:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Just sign yourself up... If you dare! Mwahahahahahaha!!! But seriously, just sign yourself up. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProkect HP Participant template

Can someone make a template that says "This user is a member of the WikiProject HP" or something? to put on our user pages? Zhanster 06:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

HPThis user is a participant in the
Harry Potter Task Force.

- {{User hp-project}} Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

References to Book Chapters?

What do you all think about adding references to the book chapters? For example, when Ron Weasley is described as fearing spiders because of the teddy bear-turned-spider incident, a reference would indicate the book and chapter in which Ron talks about that incident. Perhaps something like (CS Chapter 9). I've been working a bit on the Filius Flitwick page, and I'm going to add said references to see how it would look. I want to do this because I think it would show readers and editors where certain facts were found in the books. I want to use chapters rather than pages because I think the pagination varies by edition. Anyway, what do you all think? -- Kam Tonnes 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked, it looks horrible. I don't think a reference is necessary to show where we find out he is charms professor. i do think references may be helpful where assertions in the text are unclear and people may disagree about them, but for the most part this seems to work fine placed in talk. Perhaps there should be reserved section in talk which does not get archived away for references which have been listed in support of a debated point. Sandpiper 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a general wiki style policy on marking references like this? Sandpiper 09:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

{{hp-stub}}...

... is nominated for renaming at WP:SFD, on grounds of being a tad cryptic and ambiguous. Alai 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sybill Trelawney and Prophecy (Harry Potter)

The Prophecy article is mostly about the single prophecy by Sybill Trelawney, about Harry. It is not very frequently linked, and is almost entirely reproduced within the Trelawney article. I would suggest merging it into the trelawney article. Comments? Sandpiper 22:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to merge and it would be a useless redirect. I have nominated it for deletion. Hermione1980 00:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is undergoing renovation

Wikibooks is changing soon and will be enforcing some policies including deleting anything that is not a textbook. This includes most of the Harry Potter stuff. So if you would like to keep any of the Harry Potter Muggle Guide stuff, you might want to move it back here. I just thought you'd like to know. And better get crackin, it's coming soon. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I recall, this stuf was only deleted from here, firstly on a very odd and unexplained decision that there was actually a consensus to remove it, secondly on condition that wikibooks was willing to accept it. So logically, if they have finally decided they are not, it should be coming back here? Sandpiper 23:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE BE AWARE

At this time, Wikibooks is going through some turmoil to establish what Wikibooks is really for. Recently Jimbo hiself reiterated policy that Wikibooks is only for textbooks. He marked some things for speedy deletion. At this time, we are trying to determine what should and shouldn't be on Wikibooks. The Muggles Guide to Harry Potter may come under fire. It is not, nor ever will be, a textbook. For this reason, it may be deleted. If the original agreement to delete it here was under condition that it be moved to Wikibooks, that was wrong. If someone wants, they can move it back here, but it may just go back to AfD. There might be no place for such an account here at WP either. If this is the case, I suggest moving it to eith user space, it's own website, or perhaps the Harry Potter Wiki (just for Harry Potter stuff). I am sorry to have to inform you all of this, because I know the amount of work that went into all of it. Moving it will be another big lump of work.

There is some hope for you though. If Jimbo and the Board (who are they, a band?) decide that references besides textbooks can be placed at Wikibooks, it might have a home there. Thank you all for listening. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm normally against the idea of such crufty detailed stuff being in Wikipedia, but with the possible deletions coming as a result of the Wikibooks turmoil, I believe this stuff should go somewhere. Yes, moving them to Wikipedia might very well get an AfD... but if the license is compatible between Wikibooks and the Harry Potter Wiki (is it?), the Harry Potter Wiki might very well be the best place for this information. --Deathphoenix 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the Harry Potter Wiki is part of Wikicities, a for-profit collection of wikis run by Jimmy Wales and others, so all the licensing is the same. However, it does move it to a site with ads and such. Some of the essentials, all the basic plots etc. can be moved safely here, in my opinion, but the detail will have to be lost (or moved to HPW) for size constraints. And at this point in time, we don't even know if it will need to be moved, I was just giving you all a heads up. I will try and keep you all up-to-date. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a two and eight. At the time, I read the very extensive discussion about deleting these pages. There seemed to be a faction which does not like fiction being part of wikipedia, but also a faction arguing that this was so extensive a description as to amount to a copyright violation. The overall consensus appeared to be no consensus, but someone closed the debate as a decision to move it to wikibooks. This was objected to, but never really explained. The decision seemed to me extraordinarily perverse, since the faction which was arguing it as a copyright violation could hardly support keeping it on a different wiki, and as I said, there did not seem to be even a simple majority to simply delete it. Also, there was considerable debate disputing that this constituted a coryright violation. However, a number of 'official' voices were arguing to delete it.

The material which was transferred was somewhat mixed. The largest part was a very long description of HBP. I have read this, and despite it's length, it struck me as missing out some of the most important elements of the book. The rest was relatively short, and indeed a large part of it still exists here, both on the pages and in the history pages of the relevant articles. HBP was only written this year, but the other pages had been split off the existing articles.

On reflection, I would agree with the decision to specifically delete plot description pages...on the grounds that there is no reason why a sensibly sized description can not exist here within the main article for each book. The very short summaries which some people have prepared are too short for this purpose (mainly, though the first two books are relativeley short anyway), but there is no reason why a longer description can not co-exist within these articles without it becoming unduly long. However, something the size of the HBP description is wholly unwieldy and whether or not it constitutes copyright violation, is difficult to describe as anything other than a total spoiler for the books. You would be much better off simply reading it. Moist of the rest of the content, for individual characters etc, is already here in much better detail than on wikibooks. Sandpiper 12:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is meant to incite fear and I don't see how anyone let it stay, especially on Wikipedia. I see that no mention of it has been made at Wikibooks, the place where it matters. A long debate at Wikibooks VFD established that the context of the Muggles' Guide is suitable material for Wikibooks. I don't recall anyone above having anything to say there. I also notice that none of the above commenters have made an effort to even understand how the Muggles' Guide is structured and what it provides. The user Sandpiper has been openly corrected by others at Wikibooks, admins included, for his incorrect statements and I was hoping there would be no more here or there about this solid project. To correct Sandpiper, as done before several times on Wikibooks and here, one admin (and he wasn't an admin at the time I think) disagreed with the Wikibook creation. Several admins supported the Muggles' Guide and a solid keep was made. What is here and what is at Wikibooks serve different purposes (again, established in the discussion). The Wikibook provides analysis and POV, including possible explanations for events and underlying information. The content at the Muggles' Guide is also textbook-style in how it takes subjects, analyzes them, etc. That is not Wikipedia material and Sandpiper's claim that the material is better here at Wikipedia is irrelevant. Different uses and contexts. To come here and assert an uninformed opinion is insulting. The Muggles' Guide was even initiated by a long-time editor at Wikibooks and some of the largest administrators support its existence. If you have something of substance to say about this, go to my Wikibooks talk page. This matter was closed a long time ago. -Matt 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this matter was closed a long time ago, but new information from Jimbo, et al. has shown that maybe Wikibooks isn't the place for the Muggles' Guide. So really, this matter isn't closed, by any mean. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Before writing the above i checked wikibooks to see how the project had progressed, and concluded that substantially it had not. I remain of the view that the overall content here is much better than on wikibooks. No doubt the information here is incomplete too. I also remain of the view that a 'transwiki' does not count as a 'keep', but rather as a 'delete'. I counted the various votes on the deltion debate from wiki, and there was an unadjusted majority to keep. i did not attempt to analyse how many voters might be ineligible, but it was not at all clear that there was a majority to delete, and as I said some of the contributors arguments (on the same side of the vote) were contradictory. At the time I was quite concerned not to lose material, so contributed to the ensuing VfD on wikibooks: the result there was a probationary keep. I don't recall being corrected, only disagreed with. Sandpiper 23:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Diagon Alley idea

If we're trying to add more to Diagon Alley, and generally clean it up, why not make a Template:DiagonAlleyPlace or something, and move things like the Leaky Cauldron, Madam Malkin's, etc to their own pages, and turn the section on Diagon Alley just into a list? Staxringold 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it needed? also, the sections on Leaky Cauldron and madam malkins are quite short. Why do they need their own articles? Sandpiper

I agree with Sandpiper. The information on each shop known in Diagon Alley is so limited that it would be pointless to make individual articles for each shop. -Hoekenheef 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tobias and Eileen Snape

There are separate articles for Eileen Prince and Tobias Snape. Eileen is mentioned in HBP as the possible HBP, but there is nothing in the article for her husband which is not in her article. Both are quite short. There is one article for James and Lily Potter, which works fine and is longer than this combined article would be. Suggestions? Sandpiper

Partial agree. Both characters are quite minor so I don't believe that they should have their own individual articles. Yet I believe that they should not even be combined into a dual character article, like the Potters, because there is such a small amount of information on both of them. Listing them on the minor characters page might be a better alternative. -Hoekenheef 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Minor Error on Madam Rosmerta's Page

I was just glancing through and I saw that Aberforth Dumbledore is mentioned as an employee of The Three Broomsticks, but the linked JKR interview and other pages indicate that he works in Hog's Head. I also left a comment about this in talk:Madam Rosmerta. I'll let someone more involved in this project than I make the necessary changes.

Fixed. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Hermione1980 14:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Small Mr Ollivander Inconsistancy

I saw John Hurt listed as having played Mr. Ollivander in the HP4 movie (Harry Potter cast), but I didn't think he made an appearance. The Mr Ollivander page says he was only in HP1, so there's an inconsistancy.

It has been fixed. -Hoekenheef 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter featured article drive

I'm trying to get the Featured Article Drive going again on the HP Wikiproject. Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Improvement#Improvement_Drive, I'd appreciate any input! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has been busy turning Hermione Granger into a fan page

One particular user has been busy this evening adding a profusion of images to Hermione Granger and adding gushing POV captions to them. He/She also altered the layout of the page so that it was inconsistent with the other Harry Potter articles.

I've reverted the edits back to an earlier version, but I suspect this particular editor will be persistent. Felt you folks would want to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I also notice that the article has been protected, which is fine to prevent this editing, but without the {{protected}} or {{vprotected}} template. Could an admin please either slap one of these templates on it, or remove the protection if it appears that the anon as given up? --Deathphoenix 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions about the Project

I'd invite HPP contributors to respond to a few questions I have on the formation and life of this project. I explain it further there so as not to waste space here. ;) -Reagle 16:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Lord Voldemort into Tom Riddle.

I cannot see why we have the same information on two pages when we could just merge the two together and save space on the servers. -Hoekenheef 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Two words: Spoiler warning. It's possible we could do vice versa (I know, I'm arguing semantics now); have Tom Riddle be a subsection of Lord Voldemort, but the Voldemort article is already pretty long. While they are technically the same physical being, I would argue that they really are two separate entities. Hermione1980 15:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Never mind, just redirect Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort. They really are duplicates. Hermione1980 15:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

seconded, on the whole I am unhappy about having two articles about the same thing unless it is unavoidable, and here I am not convinced there is an anti-spoiler gain from having a second article to justify the additional work by everyone. Sandpiper 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll third this one. There is no longer any need for spoiler protection. That was way back in the second book. --Deathphoenix 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work with the merger Sandpiper (1 merger down, few to go, tobias snape, all three gaunts.......) Death Eater Dan

sign up

where should I sign up?

You can add your name here, but you should register and create a username first so we know who you are. --Deathphoenix 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to AfD this

Harry Potter fandom/RPGs. I don't think this article is necessary, as any encyclopedic information is already included in Harry Potter fandom#Roleplaying Games, and a subdirectory is not the norm in how Wikipedia presents articles (subdirectories are used to present alternate working versions during an editing or copyvio dispute, such as with ARTICLENAME/temp. Harry Potter RPGs, the proper way of presenting this article, is already merged with and redirected to Harry Potter fandom. I say we redirect Harry Potter fandom/RPGs and merge any useful, encyclopedic information to Harry Potter fandom: and I don't see much of it that isn't already in the fandom article. Since my desired actions don't include a delete, I won't list this for AfD, but something has got to be done. --Deathphoenix 18:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just redirect it. I don't think we need that much detail on RPGs on the fandom page. We have adequate coverage and that's all we need. Hermione1980 18:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. I think I may have been the largest contributor [1] to that article and the more it was expanded the more ridiculous it became. Most of the contributors did nothing more than post links to RPGs. I could rewrite it but it would just be a repeat of the fandom information, which I'll eventually attemp to clean up. --Ariadoss 09:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind deleting it, but I can't delete it out of turn as it doesn't qualify for any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. I'll list it for AfD instead (in a little bit). --Deathphoenix 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I just AfDed it. Thanks for your thoughts. --Deathphoenix 19:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing Lexicon as source

I have just received a rather unsettling email from Steve Vander Ark of the Lexicon. I had emailed him to ask if we could use the errata information on his site, because he seems to have the latest stuff straight from Bloomsbury. However it turns out that they are not happy with us because we've swiped a load of information from there already, and we've not even cited the Lexicon properly.

I reckon this might be a good time to get out the old fine-tooth combs and get citing. We need to ferret out stuff that originated from the Lexicon and annotate it properly.

In any case, this is the sort of thing we ought to be doing on Wikipedia generally, and we leave the door wide open for wide scale deletion of HP-related articles if proper citation isn't included.

I have asked him if he has any particularly egregious examples he can point to. I await his answer with trepidation.

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Post the articles here and we'll get cracking on properly citing them. --Deathphoenix 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger of the 3 Gaunt Family articles

I propose a merger, as at the moment each member of the family has their own article. All three articles are very short and what little information there is gets repeated across all three articles. Why not have a "Gaunt Family" article? the info pertaining to the whole family, i.e. their background (Slytherin Ancestry) can form the main part of the article and then have sub categories for the individuals. One main article I think is preferable to 3 stubs. Death Eater Dan 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

which three, exactly? Ah, that would be Marvolo, merope and morfin. well, they do have largely the same story. There is not too much information for just one page. So the issue is whether a reader would prefer them to be together or separate? I think i would prefer them to be together for ease of use. Unless anyone thinks there is the possibility of more information to come? Sandpiper 02:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is, we can always split them back up. However, with Dumbledore dead, I think more Gaunt-related backstory will be scant. I say merge them into one article. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that there is already an article The House of Gaunt, which contains virtually nothing at the moment. I would suggest putting everything there. My only real issue is that I don't know how to make multiple entries in a category, so that each person in a multi-person article can be sensibly looked up. Anyone, is that do-able?Sandpiper

OK, the house of Gaunt now contains everything in the other three articles, less all the repetitions. Sandpiper 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. If it contains everything from the other three articles, those three articles can now be safely redirected to The House of Gaunt, agree? --Deathphoenix 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Great Work Sandpiper, good job there..... I had been working on my own version of the article but have been having trouble with getting all three characters information to flow properly. You've cracked it son, well done. Death Eater Dan 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger of riddle articles

I see also that it has been proposed to merge The Riddles (Harry Potter) with Tom Riddle Sr.. They both repeat the same story about Tom riddle seniors background and how he met merope. There is nothing unrelated to say about the Riddles. I would support this merge too.

I am not quite sure yet how it will pan out, but it seems likely to me that both Riddle and Gaunt family could be sensibly merged into one page under the title Voldemorts family, or some such. These articles are all telling the same story, just from a different side. Sandpiper 14:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I agree with your proposal of merging The Riddles (Harry Potter) into Tom Riddle Sr.. Merging these two into the The House of Gaunt would be even better because those two houses "merged" with the marriage of the last Gaunt into the Riddles. --Deathphoenix 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

well it wasn't just hyperbole above, somone else, not me, put up the banner on this suggesting a merge. Not many people edit these pages however, the talk page was still uncreated.

Another issue, i notice a lot of little links are appearing for foreign language versions. What are we supposed to do when the links to foreign lamguage articles do not exactly correspond with english version ones, if pages are merged and there is a choice of two?Sandpiper 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think once it's off EN, it's off our hands. --Deathphoenix 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to have the merge discussion take place here instead, you should maybe subst the template in, then replace the "Discuss" link to link on this talk page. --Deathphoenix 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I havn't got that sophisticated yet. however, I have just stuck the bulk of the Tom Riddle Sr stuff into the The House of Gaunt article, so you can see how it reads all together. Would want a bit more work yet, if it stays there. Sandpiper 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers for Voldemort=Tom Riddle

I have been looking throught the Tom Riddle and Voldemort articles, and the issue of whether it is necessary to have two article, or a redirect, so as to prevent people finding out that tom is the same person as voldemort. I noticed a couple of things:

1. Frequently articles refer to Tom Riddle when actually they really mean young Voldemort. Calling him Tom in this context explicitly calls attention to the fact that it is one and the same person. If we really mean to make a distinction between the two, then the only place that Tom is really a distinct person is during Chamber of Secrets related stories. Everywhere else it is known to a reader that we are referring to Voldemort, or as I said, mentioning Tom is giving away plot unnecessarily.
2. That most places where Tom or voldemort are mentioned, it is explicitly also stated that they are the same person. So never mind whether it is necessary to create two articles to keep this secret, just about every other article that can, gives this away.

If we really want to keep Tom's identity a secret, then many articles need amending to not mention him at all. Particularly, all the stuff about his early life from HBP needs to be written up referring to Voldemort and not Tom. This is wholly pointless from the POV of anyone who has read up to that point in the stories and could only benefit those starting out. So do we feel it useful to preserve the surprise story from COS for the benefit of those who have not read past book2?Sandpiper 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

External links to jkrowling.com are broken

All external links such as http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80 should be replaced by http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 (note the additional /en/ in the link). 89.53.218.221 15:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Family Tree

The Black family tree has grown too big for its britches. It should be resized, moved to its own page and linked to, or something else, because it’s screwing with the individual characters' pages (ex. the horizontal scrolling in the Bellatrix Lestrange article). Guermantes 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Completley agree, the family tree should be resized because the screen stretching that has now occured on every page containing the tree is very annoying. Can it be resized? Death Eater Dan 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bloody hell| where did all that lot come from? I don't recall them in the books???Sandpiper 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Rowling recently donated a copy of a hand-drawn family tree to charity and we got a picture of part of it. A link to it is available through the Leaky Cauldron (not exactly sure where). Hermione1980 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, i found it. But they are right above, it is now very big and making a right mess of the pages. Also, there seems to be some date information, which isn't on the table. Last, it does occur to me to wonder whether such information is copyright...particularly since some of it seems to be up for sale? (maybe not, if it is the original artwork which is the object of the sale) Which should not be construed as inferring I think we should not have it somewhere, assuming it is legit. Maybe it needs its own page? Sandpiper 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sure the information itself isn't copyright, or the bit we've seen wouldn't have been made public - the HP Lexicon has already created its own version. But a separate page linked from all the others may be more useful. Tobelia 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Our version seemed to be rather more extensive than hp-lexicon's in your link? Theirs was scrunched down to fit on one page, perhaps Sandpiper 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone know how to resize that monstrosity? Something has to be done with it. Perhaps give the black family tree it's own page and link to the article? Guermantes 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good suggestion from Guermantes. A basic family tree (like the previous one) could be included in the articles accompanied by a link to the full family tree. It really is ruining the articles with its size. Any other ideas/suggestions?? Death Eater Dan 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do with it is to make an image instead of using a template, and put the image in the articles. That way you can pre-structure the image size so that it'll fit without scrolling right. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have created a new page - Black family tree which contains the full size tree, all the articles that did contain the tree now have a clear link to that article this has cured the page stretching problem. By all means if someone can devise a better/smaller family tree that can be inserted into the main articles without stretching the page then it could be changed back, but for now I feel this is the best option. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

From Italian Harry Potter Project

Hello, I am the founder of the Harry Potter Wiki Project in the Italian Wikipedia. First at all, congratulations for your HP project: it's wonderful! I was wondering if some of you could help us, in any way: giving us some tips, or, if you know Italian, giving us a hand! Thank you, and sorry if I made any mistakes. Ciao! --CRYptex

Harry Potter book seven

That article has quotes that do not say the one who said them. Could you please add that to the article or delete the ""s?

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

which quotes? all the quotes appear to be from J K Rowling.Sandpiper 00:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The ones in What we know about Book 7 and Things to look out for. If they are by Rowling, please add that to the article, along with a link to them if they are on the web. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers and the purpose of spoiler warnings

I was once again looking at a long article with right at the very top ..spoilier warning..

It continues to occur to me that people do not look up a character without expecting to read something about him, so the spoiler warnings seem to me useless. They frequently do not distinguish between general information about a character and specific information about plot details. Now, I know it can be difficult to separate the two, but should we have a policy of trying to extract some of the less spoiling information and sticking this in the header. For example, I was just looking at Harry Potter (which someone had largely deleted, incidentally). The only information which apparently is safe to include before the spoiler warning is that he is played by Daniel Radcliff, and his parents were james and Lily. Surely a good element of back story (not to mention his physical description and something about his general character), should be before the spoiler warning. There is a lot more information on the back of a book cover than is deemed safe to include here. Sandpiper 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Book 7

Does anyone know when book 7 is coming out? I want to know so we can add more facts to the book 7 page. Va girl2468 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess... when she finishes writing it. And you can take that to the bank. Seriously though, it may be awhile. She has said she wants to spend some time with her kids, so it might be written this year and published sometime next year. Just a guess though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

At a press conference after HBP was published, she said she expected it to be "at least another two year wait" and that she would start serious work on it at the end of 2005. Tobelia 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A rough guess (if she really pushed it), would be around Summer 2007, near the tentative release date of the next film, Order of the Phoenix. This rumor has been thrown about because of the marketing gimmick easily achieved (July 7, 2007 or 07/07/07), but there's no hard evidence to back this up. Cybertooth85 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wizard rock: prune and merge article?

Hi guys. Wizard rock is in some serious need of pruning (and a possible merge & redirect). I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on Talk:Wizard rock. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiPotter

In what way is Wikipedia:WikiPotter different from this project or the Harry Potter portal? Or is it just duplicating stuff unnecessarily? -- Francs2000 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the Harry Potter Wiki? 84.154.87.173 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's offsite, so we don't really care about it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the Portal was created recently, and has only been edited by a few people. I've added it to the HP Watchlist. Do we make this an official part of the WikiProject or not? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think Wikipedia:WikiPotter should be on Wikipedia, it looks more suitable for a fan site not an encyclopedia. Besides it is surplus to requirement and very poorly written. Can a project page be put forward for deletion? In response to Harry Potter portal being made part of this project, I would tentativly say yes. This would bring it to alot more peoples attention and therefore it would probably be improved, benefiting from the increased input from alot of very knowledgable members of this project. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Put up for deletion and point the creator toward the Harry Potter Wiki, where we actually have a news page for that kind of stuff that could stand to be updated more regularly. Hermione1980 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've listed it on MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiPotter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel very hurt that everyone is voting to shut my project page down. I was just trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Janet6 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's your project, it's just that it's not dedicated to furthering the encyclopedia, which is what the Wikipedia: namespace is for. You can move the content to a usersubpage of yours, or, better yet, bring it over to the Harry Potter Wiki, where we need someone dedicated to posting news. Hermione1980 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)