This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.
Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.
Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
With the imminent release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the time has come to begin the great debate about whether to rename the following articles:
--not an exhaustive list, there are some redirects floating around as well. I humbly submit to you that all of these, including Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts, fall under J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World and as such, we need to officially widen the scope of existing articles from Harry-Potter-centric to Wizarding-World-centric. Perhaps Wizarding World is a good shorthand for the franchise name. Perhaps "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World" is too long for article titles and disambiguations. Let's open the discussion. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has been created ostensibly to distinguish the Fantastic Beasts film series from the Harry Potter (film series) and to keep content out of the latter. However, the scope of the former article is all-inclusive, and this means that the scope is inappropriately large, given the continuing existence of the latter article. I think the time has come to discuss the scope of such articles and whether my proposal above should be given some consideration, being that we are poised at the outset of a series of five films set in the Wizarding World that threaten to bloat Harry Potter-related articles beyond recognition if scope is not addressed forthwith. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the scope of these articles be widened to include the entire Wizarding World universe? If so, should the articles be renamed to reflect that wider scope? Elizium23 ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if someone who is very familiar with the Harry Potter series would be kind enough to look at a brief passage from Greg Louganis and give an informed opinion. The most recent relevant edit is this one, which is still wrong. (I'd just fix it, but I "don't know what I'm talking about" and apparently "name" is synonymous with "character".) Rivertorch FIRE WATER 07:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Should there be an article dedicated to characters from Fantastic Beasts? Seems like a bit of an omission given it's going to be a five-part series. Artemisia ( talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that all seven Harry Potter novels are Good Articles, which is amazing, and I think they should form a Good topic. I believe that the articles already meet all of the criteria – and Harry Potter could be the lead article – but the criteria page recommends consulting the major contributors to the topic before making a nomination; many of them seem inactive, so I am posting here to see if anyone has any arguments against a GT nomination, or any other thoughts on the subject. (The criteria page also recommends that nominators have detailed subject knowledge; while I haven't worked on any of the articles in question, I've read most of them from top to bottom and am a huge, huge fan of the series.)
— Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
After the recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter, many links to spell names are now red. These links should probably be removed (or some of them pointed elsewhere). — Kusma ( t· c) 12:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw this article called List of Harry Potter-related topics it was repurposed into Category instead. But before it was repurposed, I was going to turn it into "List of Harry Potter media". I made the draft here if anyone is interested in adding more content into it. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a deletion request for List of Harry Potter-related topics. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Harry Potter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 08:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A long time ago, a discussion I can't find determined that a lot of characters were to be redirected to List of Harry Potter characters. Recently, another character recreated Sirius Black and Luna Lovegood, and has a ton of drafts for more characters. What is people's opinions? Starzoner ( talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated 30 redirects from individual Quidditch teams to the Quiddich article, where they are not mentioned, for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#Pride of Portree and other quidditch teams. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I plan to make an article about something that is referred to in multiple RS as originating or being largely popularized from a subset of the Harry Potter fandom. Would that put the article in the scope of this task force? wizzito | say hello! 01:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:J. K. Rowling § RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead Firefangledfeathers 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we have some editors weigh in on the discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Lord_Voldemort#Are_Delphini_and_Cursed_Child_canon? Thanks. Nerguy ( talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That being said, I don't disagree with having seperate sections for book, film and play apperances. But, I am also not going to go as far as to say I agree, as she wrote the story. So I'm going to remain neutral (for now) on that. By the same token, we consider the films to be canon, so the play should be too, as they both recieved her approval. SSSB ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone create a character page for characters from the Fantastic Beasts film series? Currently, some of them (e.g. Jacob Kowalski, Queenie Goldstein, etc) redirect to the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) article. Or is there a better place to put these characters since they are not part of the Harry Potter books or films, but are part of the overall Wizarding World? Natg 19 ( talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
See discussion and list here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
There are three Featured Article Save Award nominations at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Newt Scamander exists for a long time, it would be great if somebody from here would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G ( talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In November of 2007 Potions in Harry Potter was deleted as a the result of a deletion discussion due to its failure of WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and other issues. On June 4, 2015 the article was recreated from content then currently existing on the Magical objects in Harry Potter article. A discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the recreation. An attempt was made to return this article to a redirect, which was undone a day later. Some months later, a notice was placed on the article's talk page indicating the article would be placed for deletion. A few days ago, the article was placed for proposed deletion. This too was undone.
Throughout the history of the article, which spans more than a decade, it has never had any references. It has always been written in in-universe style. No outside universe perspective has ever been provided. As of June 2016, it will have been tagged for both of these problems for a year. I have asked, begged, and pleaded with people to rewrite this article to no avail. As the article stands (and has always stood), it continues to fail WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. There have been suggestions to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter, but this completely fails to address the failures noted. Where the content exists, either in its own article or as part of another, matters not. The issue is the content itself.
Barring a massive rewrite of the entire article into something that is encyclopedic in its treatment of the subject, I will be placing it for deletion on June 4, 2016. This notice is being sent as a last ditch attempt to find one or more people willing to do something to fix the serious problems extant in this content. Thank you for your attention, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
With the imminent release of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the time has come to begin the great debate about whether to rename the following articles:
--not an exhaustive list, there are some redirects floating around as well. I humbly submit to you that all of these, including Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts, fall under J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World and as such, we need to officially widen the scope of existing articles from Harry-Potter-centric to Wizarding-World-centric. Perhaps Wizarding World is a good shorthand for the franchise name. Perhaps "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World" is too long for article titles and disambiguations. Let's open the discussion. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has been created ostensibly to distinguish the Fantastic Beasts film series from the Harry Potter (film series) and to keep content out of the latter. However, the scope of the former article is all-inclusive, and this means that the scope is inappropriately large, given the continuing existence of the latter article. I think the time has come to discuss the scope of such articles and whether my proposal above should be given some consideration, being that we are poised at the outset of a series of five films set in the Wizarding World that threaten to bloat Harry Potter-related articles beyond recognition if scope is not addressed forthwith. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the scope of these articles be widened to include the entire Wizarding World universe? If so, should the articles be renamed to reflect that wider scope? Elizium23 ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if someone who is very familiar with the Harry Potter series would be kind enough to look at a brief passage from Greg Louganis and give an informed opinion. The most recent relevant edit is this one, which is still wrong. (I'd just fix it, but I "don't know what I'm talking about" and apparently "name" is synonymous with "character".) Rivertorch FIRE WATER 07:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Should there be an article dedicated to characters from Fantastic Beasts? Seems like a bit of an omission given it's going to be a five-part series. Artemisia ( talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I notice that all seven Harry Potter novels are Good Articles, which is amazing, and I think they should form a Good topic. I believe that the articles already meet all of the criteria – and Harry Potter could be the lead article – but the criteria page recommends consulting the major contributors to the topic before making a nomination; many of them seem inactive, so I am posting here to see if anyone has any arguments against a GT nomination, or any other thoughts on the subject. (The criteria page also recommends that nominators have detailed subject knowledge; while I haven't worked on any of the articles in question, I've read most of them from top to bottom and am a huge, huge fan of the series.)
— Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
After the recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter, many links to spell names are now red. These links should probably be removed (or some of them pointed elsewhere). — Kusma ( t· c) 12:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw this article called List of Harry Potter-related topics it was repurposed into Category instead. But before it was repurposed, I was going to turn it into "List of Harry Potter media". I made the draft here if anyone is interested in adding more content into it. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a deletion request for List of Harry Potter-related topics. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Harry Potter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 08:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A long time ago, a discussion I can't find determined that a lot of characters were to be redirected to List of Harry Potter characters. Recently, another character recreated Sirius Black and Luna Lovegood, and has a ton of drafts for more characters. What is people's opinions? Starzoner ( talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated 30 redirects from individual Quidditch teams to the Quiddich article, where they are not mentioned, for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1#Pride of Portree and other quidditch teams. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I plan to make an article about something that is referred to in multiple RS as originating or being largely popularized from a subset of the Harry Potter fandom. Would that put the article in the scope of this task force? wizzito | say hello! 01:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:J. K. Rowling § RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead Firefangledfeathers 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we have some editors weigh in on the discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Lord_Voldemort#Are_Delphini_and_Cursed_Child_canon? Thanks. Nerguy ( talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That being said, I don't disagree with having seperate sections for book, film and play apperances. But, I am also not going to go as far as to say I agree, as she wrote the story. So I'm going to remain neutral (for now) on that. By the same token, we consider the films to be canon, so the play should be too, as they both recieved her approval. SSSB ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone create a character page for characters from the Fantastic Beasts film series? Currently, some of them (e.g. Jacob Kowalski, Queenie Goldstein, etc) redirect to the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) article. Or is there a better place to put these characters since they are not part of the Harry Potter books or films, but are part of the overall Wizarding World? Natg 19 ( talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
See discussion and list here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
There are three Featured Article Save Award nominations at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Newt Scamander exists for a long time, it would be great if somebody from here would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G ( talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)