This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, while doing some poking around relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter music, I noticed that your template had no mention of the soundtracks. I thought it would be a nice addition, so I went ahead, ( WP:BOLD,) and did so. Feedback would be appreciated. -- RoninBK E T C 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mention of the last film was taken out because "There is no information on this film yet". There is however some information available. See [1] & [2]. I think some discussion on the matter is needed. -- RockerballAustralia 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
With the addition of 'soundtrack' we now have a template far more heavily weighted in the movie-interpretations and their spin-offs (games soundtracks, et all), whereas the books are an altogether separate canon. Would it not be possible to make the books in a more separate column (which the comic relief books also adhere to)? - Kez 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The name of the first book is "Philosopher's Stone," not Sorcerer's Stone except in the USA. As the books are British, and all other nations use the proper name then Philosopher should be used. Dewarw 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Having largely disregarded the organisations section of the template until about three seconds ago, I noticed there were links to Animagus and Metamorphmagus. I understand they are not organisations, but - for want of a better word - magical conditions. Opinions? Thoughts? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then she shouldn't be listed alongside the fictional elements of the Harry Potter story. Rather, she should be listed in a separate category, possibly also including Stephen Fry and Jim Dale, though I don't know what the category should be called, nor do I know how to create it. Serendipodous 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are they really needed? Templates should be for navigating: extra things such as years, just clutter it up. RobJ1981 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I added these links (see this revision for the links I added). The main reason is that if they aren't in this template, then we have a separate template for the film pages that looks redundant and ugly (I mean, a whole template box for five links) and then we don't get these links on the other pages. I think the links work fine in this template because you can then get to these pages from more than just the film-specific articles and we can remove that ugly/redundant template to boot. So can someone explain why these were reverted? I agree clutter should be minimal, but I think it fits in the template just fine - only one more column, and the template stays the same size. So I'd like to add these back, unless someone has some reasoning why they should be gone. -- midkay 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I started a new article, List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter, at the behest of another editor who didn't think lists belong in the article. If it's supposed to be put into some template that includes all articles on Harry Potter, by all means... DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What do ppl think of this as a "remake" for the template:
The Philosopher's Stone | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Chamber of Secrets | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Prisoner of Azkaban | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Goblet of Fire | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Order of the Phoenix | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Half-Blood Prince | book | ( film) | |||
The Deathly Hallows | book | ( film) | |||
Other books | Other games | ||||
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Quidditch Through the Ages |
Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup Lego Creator: Harry Potter | ||||
World:
Timeline •
Characters •
Places •
Magic •
Spells •
Objects •
Plants •
Potions •
Beasts Blood purity • The Dark Arts • Money • Laws • Ministry of Magic • Publications • Quidditch | |||||
Politics • Fandom • Religious debates • Legal disputes • Parodies • Influences and analogues
Translations •
Films •
Lego •
Theme park •
Trading card game |
Chandler talk 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
My god, this template was once attractive, easy to use and generally nice.
Now it is a mess, difficult to use and a disgrace!
It must be returned to the old style (a row for each book title with Book, Film, Music columns etc.) immediately! Dewarw 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, if I offended the "designer" with my language. However, I do not care as the template is an absolute disgrace! And as for changing it myself, well, it would be changed back immediately. I do not like edit wars, and I do not promote them. Making such a revolutionary change would provoke one, even if the change is for the better.
The change needs to be done. The sooner the better..... Dewarw 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely, 100% agree with Dewarw that the new format is a major hindrance to its navigability. It requires much more extensive reading and time spent parsing and understanding the template to jump from a book to the film.
Fundamentally, this data is tabular. Presumably there will be 7 books, 7 games, 7 films, 7 soundtracks, and 7 book/film difference articles. That's 35 links with 5 per book. Presenting this as a list is the wrong direction to go. A 5 column table was perfect. It was clear, concise, and didn't require reading through a list to find what you wanted to find. In case the obvious must be stated: the point of a nav box is to ease navigation. If I have to read through a list it just as well be category. Please restore this template back to its tabular format. Cburnett 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Chandler talk 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made some "updates" or maybe I should say another suggestion for the style
One downside with this one is that I couldnt find any substitute for the {{ Navbox generic subgroup}} for the {{ Navbox_with_columns}} So I had to make my own, and it's far from perfect. PS. I know it doesnt look as good in lower resolutions, but from 1280*x and up it looks OK imo. Chandler talk 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, let's just stop the uncivilness and calm down. The world ain't going to end if the changes aren't immediate, and no one - not one of you thanked Chandler for knocking out that template work (exceptional work, btw), even when he acted on changes that folk suggested. CBurnett, grow a thicker skin. If people say things that bug you, realize that you might not be the source of their snippy (althought you certainly own the subsequent snippy when you gave it back). Please communicate with your fellow editors politely, or you will almost assuredly end up on the wrong end of a civility block. Pay attention to the crowd around here. They are a mostly even-handed bunch, but you aren't being polite, and are in fact asking for a fight that you really aren't going to want. Make the effort, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
User:The dark lord trombonator/Mine
Ooh, we could also call them by number, e.g. Book 1, Book 2, etc. And yes, that was me above. Perhaps the disjointed narrative gave it away. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was a bit humbled by the effort you had made, Trombonator - Xhanlder has a valid point, and the template isn't where this matter should be addressed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Xhandler, why do you say this looks "retarded"?
Xammer 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked Chandler's design of the template, only if we get the links shorter I think it would be really nice. And maybe a removal of the characters section, keeping the old HP characters template improved, and including a link to the characters' list. Something like this:
Comments? Lord Opeth ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything is better than what we have at the moment! I have been off this page for months and am surprise at the level of redesigning. The current template is vile and needs to be changed. I prefer this one:
It is clear and concise, having the most important info at the top. I would advise us to change it now, and discuss for better one after (and then change again).
Dewarw ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem weird that she's not there? She should probably be included in whatever template you guys use, too. SouperAwesome ( talk) 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't take it any more. Sorry Basar.
I changed it to use one book per line inspired by this version. I don't care how it ends up but something had to get things going and this talk page is all talk with 20 dozen variants and nothing be done. Cburnett ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the characters section needed in this template? I'm pretty sure there is a separate template with only the characters. Stuart DD contributions 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What has happened to the lovely template we once had?
The gaps on the new one look dreadful.
Sort it out! Go back to an old version that was actually good! Btline ( talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The one above the heading "Rowling" Btline ( talk) 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that redlinks should appear in the template. The purpose of the template is to allow users to easily navigate the articles on Wikipedia relating to Harry Potter, the red links don't ease navigation of such articles so they may not be appropriate in a navigational template. The normal reason for having redlinks in tables or lists is that it will encourage users to create the pages, in this instance there are enough editors commited to the topic that as soon as the relevent information is available the articles will be quickly created no without the links. In some ways the links are misleading as they indicate that the articles should be created even though at this stage such articles would likley be based on original research and not verifiable information from reliable sources. Any thoughts? Guest9999 ( talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope that you like it. It's much easier to read than the other one, I think. Comments and criticisms please!
Could I also ask that you DON'T change it without proper thought. And if you are going to change it, then please don't change it back to the previous one, because it was just an unorganized jumble of words!
Asf08 ( talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone thinks this template should mention the Harry Potter fansites (those notable ones that have articles, as listed at Category:Harry Potter websites). I think this is an important part of Wikipedia coverage of Harry Potter. Comments? -- PeaceNT ( talk) 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section for cast (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, etc.) of the films? I'm not necessarily saying that I think there should be, just that it should be brought up. faithless (speak) 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix this please. IMO the only real way is to remove the seven column and go back to 7 lines. See Portal talk:Harry Potter#Harry Potter navbox -- SGBailey ( talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It is too wide again. Needs fixing by someone who understands the formatting better than I. But i'll have a go if noone else does it in the near future... -- SGBailey ( talk)
Done I have changed the column widths. Hope that does the trick. Apuldram ( talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the only one noticing that the template has 7 groups but only shows 6? The Attractions section is not seen. Can some admin fix this? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone think the template should include a page about the tour in Watford Junction?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Wonderbook Book of Spells game should appear in the list of games on the template now. 68.53.225.204 ( talk) 06:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The columns for each story currently have links under the book title to the corresponding film, soundtrack, and game. In the case of Deathly Hallows, these three links are each on a different line, whereas the other columns have film and soundtrack on one line and game on the line below. Not sure if there necessarily needs to be a column for Cursed Child, but when that column was created a few days ago, the Goblet of Fire column also switched to three lines, one for each media type. For uniformity's and aesthetic pleasure's sakes, should we set each column to have three lines, one for film, another for soundtrack, and a third for game? The "third line" for the first six stories is just an empty space at this point, so I figured maybe we can make it look nicer and more uniform. Then, whether Cursed Child gets a column of its own or not, the columns will look fairly similar. - RM ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be too far-fetched to add Pollomuhku ja Posityyhtynen on the line “Related works” (or “Related”)? Currently there is only Pottermore. -- Mlang.Finn ( talk) 19:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I come with this proposal to split the Fandom section into a separate navbox, since this current version of this navbox is extremely large, with hundreds of links. Main reasons are that this is one of the largest (if not the largest) sections of the navbox, and because it has an article on the subject. Thoughts? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, while doing some poking around relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter music, I noticed that your template had no mention of the soundtracks. I thought it would be a nice addition, so I went ahead, ( WP:BOLD,) and did so. Feedback would be appreciated. -- RoninBK E T C 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mention of the last film was taken out because "There is no information on this film yet". There is however some information available. See [1] & [2]. I think some discussion on the matter is needed. -- RockerballAustralia 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
With the addition of 'soundtrack' we now have a template far more heavily weighted in the movie-interpretations and their spin-offs (games soundtracks, et all), whereas the books are an altogether separate canon. Would it not be possible to make the books in a more separate column (which the comic relief books also adhere to)? - Kez 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The name of the first book is "Philosopher's Stone," not Sorcerer's Stone except in the USA. As the books are British, and all other nations use the proper name then Philosopher should be used. Dewarw 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Having largely disregarded the organisations section of the template until about three seconds ago, I noticed there were links to Animagus and Metamorphmagus. I understand they are not organisations, but - for want of a better word - magical conditions. Opinions? Thoughts? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then she shouldn't be listed alongside the fictional elements of the Harry Potter story. Rather, she should be listed in a separate category, possibly also including Stephen Fry and Jim Dale, though I don't know what the category should be called, nor do I know how to create it. Serendipodous 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are they really needed? Templates should be for navigating: extra things such as years, just clutter it up. RobJ1981 06:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I added these links (see this revision for the links I added). The main reason is that if they aren't in this template, then we have a separate template for the film pages that looks redundant and ugly (I mean, a whole template box for five links) and then we don't get these links on the other pages. I think the links work fine in this template because you can then get to these pages from more than just the film-specific articles and we can remove that ugly/redundant template to boot. So can someone explain why these were reverted? I agree clutter should be minimal, but I think it fits in the template just fine - only one more column, and the template stays the same size. So I'd like to add these back, unless someone has some reasoning why they should be gone. -- midkay 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I started a new article, List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter, at the behest of another editor who didn't think lists belong in the article. If it's supposed to be put into some template that includes all articles on Harry Potter, by all means... DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What do ppl think of this as a "remake" for the template:
The Philosopher's Stone | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Chamber of Secrets | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Prisoner of Azkaban | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Goblet of Fire | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Order of the Phoenix | book | film | book/film differences | game | soundtrack |
The Half-Blood Prince | book | ( film) | |||
The Deathly Hallows | book | ( film) | |||
Other books | Other games | ||||
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Quidditch Through the Ages |
Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup Lego Creator: Harry Potter | ||||
World:
Timeline •
Characters •
Places •
Magic •
Spells •
Objects •
Plants •
Potions •
Beasts Blood purity • The Dark Arts • Money • Laws • Ministry of Magic • Publications • Quidditch | |||||
Politics • Fandom • Religious debates • Legal disputes • Parodies • Influences and analogues
Translations •
Films •
Lego •
Theme park •
Trading card game |
Chandler talk 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
My god, this template was once attractive, easy to use and generally nice.
Now it is a mess, difficult to use and a disgrace!
It must be returned to the old style (a row for each book title with Book, Film, Music columns etc.) immediately! Dewarw 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, if I offended the "designer" with my language. However, I do not care as the template is an absolute disgrace! And as for changing it myself, well, it would be changed back immediately. I do not like edit wars, and I do not promote them. Making such a revolutionary change would provoke one, even if the change is for the better.
The change needs to be done. The sooner the better..... Dewarw 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely, 100% agree with Dewarw that the new format is a major hindrance to its navigability. It requires much more extensive reading and time spent parsing and understanding the template to jump from a book to the film.
Fundamentally, this data is tabular. Presumably there will be 7 books, 7 games, 7 films, 7 soundtracks, and 7 book/film difference articles. That's 35 links with 5 per book. Presenting this as a list is the wrong direction to go. A 5 column table was perfect. It was clear, concise, and didn't require reading through a list to find what you wanted to find. In case the obvious must be stated: the point of a nav box is to ease navigation. If I have to read through a list it just as well be category. Please restore this template back to its tabular format. Cburnett 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Chandler talk 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made some "updates" or maybe I should say another suggestion for the style
One downside with this one is that I couldnt find any substitute for the {{ Navbox generic subgroup}} for the {{ Navbox_with_columns}} So I had to make my own, and it's far from perfect. PS. I know it doesnt look as good in lower resolutions, but from 1280*x and up it looks OK imo. Chandler talk 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, let's just stop the uncivilness and calm down. The world ain't going to end if the changes aren't immediate, and no one - not one of you thanked Chandler for knocking out that template work (exceptional work, btw), even when he acted on changes that folk suggested. CBurnett, grow a thicker skin. If people say things that bug you, realize that you might not be the source of their snippy (althought you certainly own the subsequent snippy when you gave it back). Please communicate with your fellow editors politely, or you will almost assuredly end up on the wrong end of a civility block. Pay attention to the crowd around here. They are a mostly even-handed bunch, but you aren't being polite, and are in fact asking for a fight that you really aren't going to want. Make the effort, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
User:The dark lord trombonator/Mine
Ooh, we could also call them by number, e.g. Book 1, Book 2, etc. And yes, that was me above. Perhaps the disjointed narrative gave it away. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was a bit humbled by the effort you had made, Trombonator - Xhanlder has a valid point, and the template isn't where this matter should be addressed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Xhandler, why do you say this looks "retarded"?
Xammer 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked Chandler's design of the template, only if we get the links shorter I think it would be really nice. And maybe a removal of the characters section, keeping the old HP characters template improved, and including a link to the characters' list. Something like this:
Comments? Lord Opeth ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything is better than what we have at the moment! I have been off this page for months and am surprise at the level of redesigning. The current template is vile and needs to be changed. I prefer this one:
It is clear and concise, having the most important info at the top. I would advise us to change it now, and discuss for better one after (and then change again).
Dewarw ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem weird that she's not there? She should probably be included in whatever template you guys use, too. SouperAwesome ( talk) 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't take it any more. Sorry Basar.
I changed it to use one book per line inspired by this version. I don't care how it ends up but something had to get things going and this talk page is all talk with 20 dozen variants and nothing be done. Cburnett ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the characters section needed in this template? I'm pretty sure there is a separate template with only the characters. Stuart DD contributions 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What has happened to the lovely template we once had?
The gaps on the new one look dreadful.
Sort it out! Go back to an old version that was actually good! Btline ( talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The one above the heading "Rowling" Btline ( talk) 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that redlinks should appear in the template. The purpose of the template is to allow users to easily navigate the articles on Wikipedia relating to Harry Potter, the red links don't ease navigation of such articles so they may not be appropriate in a navigational template. The normal reason for having redlinks in tables or lists is that it will encourage users to create the pages, in this instance there are enough editors commited to the topic that as soon as the relevent information is available the articles will be quickly created no without the links. In some ways the links are misleading as they indicate that the articles should be created even though at this stage such articles would likley be based on original research and not verifiable information from reliable sources. Any thoughts? Guest9999 ( talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope that you like it. It's much easier to read than the other one, I think. Comments and criticisms please!
Could I also ask that you DON'T change it without proper thought. And if you are going to change it, then please don't change it back to the previous one, because it was just an unorganized jumble of words!
Asf08 ( talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone thinks this template should mention the Harry Potter fansites (those notable ones that have articles, as listed at Category:Harry Potter websites). I think this is an important part of Wikipedia coverage of Harry Potter. Comments? -- PeaceNT ( talk) 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section for cast (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, etc.) of the films? I'm not necessarily saying that I think there should be, just that it should be brought up. faithless (speak) 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix this please. IMO the only real way is to remove the seven column and go back to 7 lines. See Portal talk:Harry Potter#Harry Potter navbox -- SGBailey ( talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It is too wide again. Needs fixing by someone who understands the formatting better than I. But i'll have a go if noone else does it in the near future... -- SGBailey ( talk)
Done I have changed the column widths. Hope that does the trick. Apuldram ( talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the only one noticing that the template has 7 groups but only shows 6? The Attractions section is not seen. Can some admin fix this? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone think the template should include a page about the tour in Watford Junction?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Wonderbook Book of Spells game should appear in the list of games on the template now. 68.53.225.204 ( talk) 06:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The columns for each story currently have links under the book title to the corresponding film, soundtrack, and game. In the case of Deathly Hallows, these three links are each on a different line, whereas the other columns have film and soundtrack on one line and game on the line below. Not sure if there necessarily needs to be a column for Cursed Child, but when that column was created a few days ago, the Goblet of Fire column also switched to three lines, one for each media type. For uniformity's and aesthetic pleasure's sakes, should we set each column to have three lines, one for film, another for soundtrack, and a third for game? The "third line" for the first six stories is just an empty space at this point, so I figured maybe we can make it look nicer and more uniform. Then, whether Cursed Child gets a column of its own or not, the columns will look fairly similar. - RM ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be too far-fetched to add Pollomuhku ja Posityyhtynen on the line “Related works” (or “Related”)? Currently there is only Pottermore. -- Mlang.Finn ( talk) 19:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I come with this proposal to split the Fandom section into a separate navbox, since this current version of this navbox is extremely large, with hundreds of links. Main reasons are that this is one of the largest (if not the largest) sections of the navbox, and because it has an article on the subject. Thoughts? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)