WikiProject Harry Potter | |
Main project page | talk |
Article index | |
Assessment | talk |
Awards | |
Improvement drive | talk |
Guide to sources | |
Notability | talk |
Style guidelines | talk |
Images | talk |
Participants |
Yes, let's eat it all as Cruft! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that people think this list may prove helpful, I'm sorry if I generated any ill will in the past - it was not my intention. [[ Guest9999 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]]
I found a list of books available on Amazon.com that may be useful. Unfortunately, I don't have any of them, but their descriptions are interesting. [1] There are 11 books listed there if you follow the "Harry Potter Myths and Theories" link. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a few that I think are the most obvious candidates for redirecting. Grandchildren of the Weasley family to a minor character list, Relatives of Harry Potter to Harry Potter (character), Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince to Severus Snape, International Confederation of Wizards to Harry Potter Universe, List of Hogwarts Quidditch Teams to Quidditch, Being (Harry Potter) to Harry Potter Universe, Spinner's End to Severus Snape, and Money in Harry Potter to Harry Potter Universe. Let me know what you think. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of this is unnecessary and/or cruft, and ought to be merged or (in some cases) deleted ( Double Trouble (Harry Potter)? WTF?!). But there are a great many which are notable/deserving of an article, though they admittedly lack secondary sources. If you'll indulge me, I'll repeat my Keep argument from the recent Horcrux deletion debate:
*Keep This is, unfortunately, a weak part of Wikipedia. This really is an "all or nothing" issue. We are dealing with an integral construct within the most popular book series of all time. Despite it's popularity, how many HP related articles truly pass WP notability guidelines? Three, maybe four characters? I don't think anyone would argue that Hermione and Ron don't deserve their own articles; they are immensely important characters in (not to sound like a broken record) the most popular book series ever written. But technically speaking, do they pass notability more than the other HP articles which are constantly being nominated for deletion by deletionist editors who simply don't like it? The two policies that I cite as relevant to my "keep" !vote are Wikipedia is not paper and ignore all rules. There is simply no good reason to delete this article, the encyclopedia would not benefit from its removal. The importance of the topic is fairly obvious, even if it might not pass WP:N. Given this, I believe this to be a prime example of when we should ignore the rules. faithless (speak) 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the "Three, maybe four characters" I was referring to are Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort and Snape. Many of the articles listed should never have been created in the first place, but we should also use common sense when it comes to deleting/merging. Gobstones? Chuck it. Minerva McGonagall? Keep it. Most of them are just that easy. faithless (speak) 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As requested above, I have sorted the list according to whether I, as a known inclusionist, consider the articles worthy of removal. The vast majority of removals are merge candidates. I have collected a few pieces of utter cruft into a "delete" section, and some of the "miscellaneous topics" articles may also warrant complete deletion. Consider the remainder to be "unclassified".
Two points I would raise. First, This discussion, being in userspace and now spreading over several pages, is fairly isolated and also easily fragmented. I would recommend moving to a Project subspace, perhaps /Restructure, and reorganising this discussion somewhat. Secondly, I although the current article count in the assessment page is 276, we have only 140 or so represented here. Of course many of these are actor biographies and non-fictional articles, but I would suggest that this review should be comprehensive. I plan to have a brief look at the other articles so we can divide the whole project scope into "articles under review", which should really consider every fictional article in our scope, and "articles not under review", which includes most factual articles. If we're going to the trouble of looking at a whole host of articles, it might as well be a comprehensive review. Happy-melon 08:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I definately have to say that Order of the Phoenix (organisation) should definately be kept. ** ko2007 ** 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
After writing up a proposal for what to do with the Pottercruft, this came to my attention. I request that you all look at my proposal, and see if we can merge the efforts into one. Thanks. i said 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that one of the main problems with the articles is the complete lack of real world content (as described in WP:FICT. I think that if things like lists/descriptions of minor characters are to be kept they should be catagorised by there real world relenvance rather than ficitonal importance. Rather than having pages for characetrs in fictional Houses or organisations it might be better to link them together by the real world book they appeared in. Maybe something like Characters introduced in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, etc. Of course if teh information contained within the article could be placed within the article for the books that would be better. I essentially think that everything fictional which isn't definately notable should be linked directly to the books which clearly are and not to aspects within the books which probably are not. [[ Guest9999 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]]
Got to get ride of the "differences" articles, no hint of any notability. Others to consider getting ride of would be Diggory, Fleur, Historical characters, malfoy family, money is harry potter, patronus charm, riddle family. They just aren't notable, even if I like some of them! :) These articles are under our jurisdiction, and should be put on the chart somewhere. Judgesurreal777 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a template to standardise the discussion process for the remaining list. It, and its documentation, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Template. Note the transclusion of the discussion page into the main page, to enable a summary to be shown from the top of the discussion page. This requires the use of <noinclude> tags to prevent the whole discussion being transcluded. I think it would be a good idea to group discussions wherever possible. Our first discussion is /Teachers. Happy-melon 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Got to get ride of the "differences" articles, no hint of any notability. Others to consider getting ride of would be Diggory, Fleur, Historical characters, malfoy family, money is harry potter, patronus charm, riddle family. They just aren't notable, even if I like some of them! :)
A thought I had about the list of minor griffendors/etc... is to combine them as well as students in harrys year into the main characters of article. And also do away with the minor characters article; their minor, so not notable. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: I unilaterally moved some of the above to its own subpage. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In the templates, where was it decided which articles were kept, and which need to be discussed? The best I can see on this page is #Redirect_proposals. But there are pages "agreed to be removed" that are not in this list. I presume this was discussed somewhere? i said 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if we could discuss bringing to AfD articles whose fates are still undecided here, at the project, first, rather than bringing them to AfD and letting the project comment on them there. The AfD process would go through much more easily if the project came to some consensus which could be presented at the AfD (sort of a "disclaimer: the WPHP agrees with the deletion of this article"). -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have merged Auror to the ministry of magic page! ** ko2007 ** 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to create a subpage just for one article. I think it is bad now, but if we merge all the other creature articles into it, it should be reference(able) enough. Rowling did write that separate book just on creatures. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Lucius Malfoy has a cast-iron notability claim from his place on the Forbes fiction 500. I would support merging Lucius and Narcissa together, possibly with Draco as well. Lucius can then hold the whole family above the water. In general I think this list might be a little ambitious - let's not try to accept or discount "the list" but instead consider each on a case-by-case basis. Happy‑ melon 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the fan sites? I'm sure you could dig up a whole lot more notability citations for them than for something like blood purity. As they are actual, real world things, they have much more significant coverage than the in-universe terms. The fact that they're all been acknowledged by Jo is a start; Google News searches for at least Leaky and MuggleNet return a ton of responses. I'm also hesitant about merging a lot of stuff into the fandom article, because that's pretty much set to send off to FAC and I don't think it needs anything more. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are we keeping this article? Far more notable characters have had their pages deleted and, to me, the only part of this article that seems not to be cruft or OR is the lawsuit section. asyndeton 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, characters seem to be one of the more difficult areas we have, so I would like to make one sweeping proposal based on a number of other people's input. How about one main article like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, 10 to 20 individual articles (currently around 14), and several logical groups where the combination of several characters aids in their depiction (like the Weasley family). Reasonable groups would seem to be the Weasley family, Hogwarts staff, maybe Ministry of Magic officials, Order of the Phoenix members, death eaters, students, and the Dursley family. The total article count would be approximately 15 to 30 articles (I would guess 21 or so). The advantage of this would be the easy interconnectivity and the framework for describing the way Rowling created these characters. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that we can merge, move and redirect some character group pages into others, so that we can have a smaller number of character articles. First of all, I suggest to create an article called "Dark Wizards in Harry Potter" and another one "Order of the Phoenix members", without the word "Minor" at the beginning, so that we can include some notable but not main characters in there. I'm going on details:
That would leave us a total of 12 individual pages (Harry, Ron, Hermione, Voldemort, Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid, Sirius, Ginny, Neville, Luna and Draco) and a total of 15 character groups pages (Dursleys, Weasleys, Hogwarts staff, Potters, OotP members, Dark Wizards, Ministry officials, Ghosts, House-elves, Portraits, Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, Slytherins and the Minor Harry Potter characters). That leave us a total of 27 character related pages. Lord Opeth 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What are some thoughts on this? These are one of the last groups to deal with, and they really must be dealt with, because even though some are good to go on their own, like HPANA and Muggle Quidditch, many of these would do well being merged due to their limited scope and notability. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some suggestions:
Hi guys. This AFD, has been closed as "merge to Hogwarts". I have done a very basic merge - the Hogwarts article probably now needs revising. Neil ☎ 10:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So I suppose we finally reached the point in which no more merges can be done to the characters pages, almost all articles are already strong. We have almost 150 characters, 13 of them have their own pages, the rest are divided in 9 group pages (Weasleys, Potters/Dursleys, Hogwarts staff, students, Death Eaters, OotP, House-elves, Ghosts, and the Minor characters). There are also some pages that are not for characters but feature characters like the Ministry of Magic or the Magical Creatures. Newt Scamander is listed in Fantastic Beasts, Kennilworthy Whisp in Quidditch Through the Ages, and Nagini in Horcrux.
The Death Eaters page already features those notable characters that are Death Eaters like Bellatrix, Lucius, Wormtail, Crouch Jr or the Carrows. The Order also features some relevant characters like Tonks, Aberforth and Kingsley. The House-elf and the Ghosts articles are somehow weak but the Magical Creatures article is already large, so I'm for keeping both of them. The House-elf features important characters like Dobby and Kreacher, and the Ghosts have the 4 Hogwarts ghosts, Myrtle and Peeves. The Minor HP characters article lists some secondary characters with a notable information that cannot be lost, such as Narcissa Malfoy, Gellert Grindelwald, Viktor Krum, Rita Skeeter, Ariana Dumbledore, Ollivander, etc.
We have a total of 22 characters pages then. I suggest we include all of them in the Characters section in the HP Template. Thoughts on this? Lord Opeth ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As of this moment, there are only 14 articles that we have not still considered to be kept according to Notability. I have some points
-- Lord Opeth ( talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with the views expressed thus far. When entries become too long, they can loose impact (IMHO). I personally don't really think that there is much value in keeping the websites like Mugglenet etc, as there is little information here that can't be gleaned from the sites themselves. However, if others would prefer to keep them, I wouldn't make an issue of this. I value the contributions of others too much to be overly critical. Proxxt ( talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's often difficult to judge the notability of fan websites. Sites such as the Harry Potter Lexicon, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron are epochally important within the Harry Potter fan community, but whether they have any notability outside the community is uncertain. JK Rowling has forged a very strong relationship with a number of sites, such as MuggleNet and Leaky, and declared war on HP Lexicon, which gives them a notability outside the fan community. Serendi pod ous 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The page for Warner Bros. Movie World says that the Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience closed in 2002, presumably due to the planned construction of Wizarding World of Harry Potter. I don't think it's particularly relevant. Serendi pod ous 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing? Serendi pod ous 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Harry Potter | |
Main project page | talk |
Article index | |
Assessment | talk |
Awards | |
Improvement drive | talk |
Guide to sources | |
Notability | talk |
Style guidelines | talk |
Images | talk |
Participants |
Yes, let's eat it all as Cruft! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that people think this list may prove helpful, I'm sorry if I generated any ill will in the past - it was not my intention. [[ Guest9999 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]]
I found a list of books available on Amazon.com that may be useful. Unfortunately, I don't have any of them, but their descriptions are interesting. [1] There are 11 books listed there if you follow the "Harry Potter Myths and Theories" link. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a few that I think are the most obvious candidates for redirecting. Grandchildren of the Weasley family to a minor character list, Relatives of Harry Potter to Harry Potter (character), Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince to Severus Snape, International Confederation of Wizards to Harry Potter Universe, List of Hogwarts Quidditch Teams to Quidditch, Being (Harry Potter) to Harry Potter Universe, Spinner's End to Severus Snape, and Money in Harry Potter to Harry Potter Universe. Let me know what you think. -- Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of this is unnecessary and/or cruft, and ought to be merged or (in some cases) deleted ( Double Trouble (Harry Potter)? WTF?!). But there are a great many which are notable/deserving of an article, though they admittedly lack secondary sources. If you'll indulge me, I'll repeat my Keep argument from the recent Horcrux deletion debate:
*Keep This is, unfortunately, a weak part of Wikipedia. This really is an "all or nothing" issue. We are dealing with an integral construct within the most popular book series of all time. Despite it's popularity, how many HP related articles truly pass WP notability guidelines? Three, maybe four characters? I don't think anyone would argue that Hermione and Ron don't deserve their own articles; they are immensely important characters in (not to sound like a broken record) the most popular book series ever written. But technically speaking, do they pass notability more than the other HP articles which are constantly being nominated for deletion by deletionist editors who simply don't like it? The two policies that I cite as relevant to my "keep" !vote are Wikipedia is not paper and ignore all rules. There is simply no good reason to delete this article, the encyclopedia would not benefit from its removal. The importance of the topic is fairly obvious, even if it might not pass WP:N. Given this, I believe this to be a prime example of when we should ignore the rules. faithless (speak) 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the "Three, maybe four characters" I was referring to are Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort and Snape. Many of the articles listed should never have been created in the first place, but we should also use common sense when it comes to deleting/merging. Gobstones? Chuck it. Minerva McGonagall? Keep it. Most of them are just that easy. faithless (speak) 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As requested above, I have sorted the list according to whether I, as a known inclusionist, consider the articles worthy of removal. The vast majority of removals are merge candidates. I have collected a few pieces of utter cruft into a "delete" section, and some of the "miscellaneous topics" articles may also warrant complete deletion. Consider the remainder to be "unclassified".
Two points I would raise. First, This discussion, being in userspace and now spreading over several pages, is fairly isolated and also easily fragmented. I would recommend moving to a Project subspace, perhaps /Restructure, and reorganising this discussion somewhat. Secondly, I although the current article count in the assessment page is 276, we have only 140 or so represented here. Of course many of these are actor biographies and non-fictional articles, but I would suggest that this review should be comprehensive. I plan to have a brief look at the other articles so we can divide the whole project scope into "articles under review", which should really consider every fictional article in our scope, and "articles not under review", which includes most factual articles. If we're going to the trouble of looking at a whole host of articles, it might as well be a comprehensive review. Happy-melon 08:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I definately have to say that Order of the Phoenix (organisation) should definately be kept. ** ko2007 ** 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
After writing up a proposal for what to do with the Pottercruft, this came to my attention. I request that you all look at my proposal, and see if we can merge the efforts into one. Thanks. i said 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that one of the main problems with the articles is the complete lack of real world content (as described in WP:FICT. I think that if things like lists/descriptions of minor characters are to be kept they should be catagorised by there real world relenvance rather than ficitonal importance. Rather than having pages for characetrs in fictional Houses or organisations it might be better to link them together by the real world book they appeared in. Maybe something like Characters introduced in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, etc. Of course if teh information contained within the article could be placed within the article for the books that would be better. I essentially think that everything fictional which isn't definately notable should be linked directly to the books which clearly are and not to aspects within the books which probably are not. [[ Guest9999 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]]
Got to get ride of the "differences" articles, no hint of any notability. Others to consider getting ride of would be Diggory, Fleur, Historical characters, malfoy family, money is harry potter, patronus charm, riddle family. They just aren't notable, even if I like some of them! :) These articles are under our jurisdiction, and should be put on the chart somewhere. Judgesurreal777 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a template to standardise the discussion process for the remaining list. It, and its documentation, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Template. Note the transclusion of the discussion page into the main page, to enable a summary to be shown from the top of the discussion page. This requires the use of <noinclude> tags to prevent the whole discussion being transcluded. I think it would be a good idea to group discussions wherever possible. Our first discussion is /Teachers. Happy-melon 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Got to get ride of the "differences" articles, no hint of any notability. Others to consider getting ride of would be Diggory, Fleur, Historical characters, malfoy family, money is harry potter, patronus charm, riddle family. They just aren't notable, even if I like some of them! :)
A thought I had about the list of minor griffendors/etc... is to combine them as well as students in harrys year into the main characters of article. And also do away with the minor characters article; their minor, so not notable. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: I unilaterally moved some of the above to its own subpage. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In the templates, where was it decided which articles were kept, and which need to be discussed? The best I can see on this page is #Redirect_proposals. But there are pages "agreed to be removed" that are not in this list. I presume this was discussed somewhere? i said 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if we could discuss bringing to AfD articles whose fates are still undecided here, at the project, first, rather than bringing them to AfD and letting the project comment on them there. The AfD process would go through much more easily if the project came to some consensus which could be presented at the AfD (sort of a "disclaimer: the WPHP agrees with the deletion of this article"). -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have merged Auror to the ministry of magic page! ** ko2007 ** 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to create a subpage just for one article. I think it is bad now, but if we merge all the other creature articles into it, it should be reference(able) enough. Rowling did write that separate book just on creatures. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Lucius Malfoy has a cast-iron notability claim from his place on the Forbes fiction 500. I would support merging Lucius and Narcissa together, possibly with Draco as well. Lucius can then hold the whole family above the water. In general I think this list might be a little ambitious - let's not try to accept or discount "the list" but instead consider each on a case-by-case basis. Happy‑ melon 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the fan sites? I'm sure you could dig up a whole lot more notability citations for them than for something like blood purity. As they are actual, real world things, they have much more significant coverage than the in-universe terms. The fact that they're all been acknowledged by Jo is a start; Google News searches for at least Leaky and MuggleNet return a ton of responses. I'm also hesitant about merging a lot of stuff into the fandom article, because that's pretty much set to send off to FAC and I don't think it needs anything more. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are we keeping this article? Far more notable characters have had their pages deleted and, to me, the only part of this article that seems not to be cruft or OR is the lawsuit section. asyndeton 17:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, characters seem to be one of the more difficult areas we have, so I would like to make one sweeping proposal based on a number of other people's input. How about one main article like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, 10 to 20 individual articles (currently around 14), and several logical groups where the combination of several characters aids in their depiction (like the Weasley family). Reasonable groups would seem to be the Weasley family, Hogwarts staff, maybe Ministry of Magic officials, Order of the Phoenix members, death eaters, students, and the Dursley family. The total article count would be approximately 15 to 30 articles (I would guess 21 or so). The advantage of this would be the easy interconnectivity and the framework for describing the way Rowling created these characters. – Basar ( talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that we can merge, move and redirect some character group pages into others, so that we can have a smaller number of character articles. First of all, I suggest to create an article called "Dark Wizards in Harry Potter" and another one "Order of the Phoenix members", without the word "Minor" at the beginning, so that we can include some notable but not main characters in there. I'm going on details:
That would leave us a total of 12 individual pages (Harry, Ron, Hermione, Voldemort, Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid, Sirius, Ginny, Neville, Luna and Draco) and a total of 15 character groups pages (Dursleys, Weasleys, Hogwarts staff, Potters, OotP members, Dark Wizards, Ministry officials, Ghosts, House-elves, Portraits, Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, Slytherins and the Minor Harry Potter characters). That leave us a total of 27 character related pages. Lord Opeth 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What are some thoughts on this? These are one of the last groups to deal with, and they really must be dealt with, because even though some are good to go on their own, like HPANA and Muggle Quidditch, many of these would do well being merged due to their limited scope and notability. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some suggestions:
Hi guys. This AFD, has been closed as "merge to Hogwarts". I have done a very basic merge - the Hogwarts article probably now needs revising. Neil ☎ 10:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So I suppose we finally reached the point in which no more merges can be done to the characters pages, almost all articles are already strong. We have almost 150 characters, 13 of them have their own pages, the rest are divided in 9 group pages (Weasleys, Potters/Dursleys, Hogwarts staff, students, Death Eaters, OotP, House-elves, Ghosts, and the Minor characters). There are also some pages that are not for characters but feature characters like the Ministry of Magic or the Magical Creatures. Newt Scamander is listed in Fantastic Beasts, Kennilworthy Whisp in Quidditch Through the Ages, and Nagini in Horcrux.
The Death Eaters page already features those notable characters that are Death Eaters like Bellatrix, Lucius, Wormtail, Crouch Jr or the Carrows. The Order also features some relevant characters like Tonks, Aberforth and Kingsley. The House-elf and the Ghosts articles are somehow weak but the Magical Creatures article is already large, so I'm for keeping both of them. The House-elf features important characters like Dobby and Kreacher, and the Ghosts have the 4 Hogwarts ghosts, Myrtle and Peeves. The Minor HP characters article lists some secondary characters with a notable information that cannot be lost, such as Narcissa Malfoy, Gellert Grindelwald, Viktor Krum, Rita Skeeter, Ariana Dumbledore, Ollivander, etc.
We have a total of 22 characters pages then. I suggest we include all of them in the Characters section in the HP Template. Thoughts on this? Lord Opeth ( talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As of this moment, there are only 14 articles that we have not still considered to be kept according to Notability. I have some points
-- Lord Opeth ( talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with the views expressed thus far. When entries become too long, they can loose impact (IMHO). I personally don't really think that there is much value in keeping the websites like Mugglenet etc, as there is little information here that can't be gleaned from the sites themselves. However, if others would prefer to keep them, I wouldn't make an issue of this. I value the contributions of others too much to be overly critical. Proxxt ( talk) 04:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's often difficult to judge the notability of fan websites. Sites such as the Harry Potter Lexicon, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron are epochally important within the Harry Potter fan community, but whether they have any notability outside the community is uncertain. JK Rowling has forged a very strong relationship with a number of sites, such as MuggleNet and Leaky, and declared war on HP Lexicon, which gives them a notability outside the fan community. Serendi pod ous 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The page for Warner Bros. Movie World says that the Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience closed in 2002, presumably due to the planned construction of Wizarding World of Harry Potter. I don't think it's particularly relevant. Serendi pod ous 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing? Serendi pod ous 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)