![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
As July approaches, we need to start thinking about the massive amounts of vandalism that will occur. I think one of the first things we need to do is create a boilerplate message that we can crosspost to various places (e.g. WP:AN and WP:CN) that informs the community that we will be reading Deathly Hallows and will be unable to keep watch on the various HP articles. John Reaves (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think you guys are getting a bit carries away here. Perhaps I have a different slant on wiki than you do, but it is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I agree there is an issue about pre-publication leaks, but I can't really agree about the post-publication position. The moment the book is officially released, then our articles will almost certainly all be totally out of date. Never mind whether anyone is trying to vandalise them, they will be wrong anyway. So why exactly are you requesting special protection to prevent anyone correcting them to conform to the new book? There may be an issue about tactfully writing articles so that people have a chance to bail out and stop reading because they havn't read the last book yet, but honestly, think about this. No one is going to be unaware that the book has just been published. What would they expect to find here if not information about what is in the new book? Sandpiper 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I think imposing full protection on the pages would hinder their being properly brought up to date. I hadn't planned this, but it sounds horribly like I shall be queuing at midnight. So suppose I'm insane enough to read it by the next day. Then I'm prevented from editing? Sandpiper 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, as an alternative suggestion, how about a tag on the pages saying that they are a 'current event' and may be subject to change/unreliable? Sandpiper 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to put together a list of words that are spelled different in UK English and American English, and post it on the project page. It is my understanding that UK English spellings are preferred in the Wiki articles for Harry Potter. An example would be Defence instead of Defense. I have seen many edits reverting spelling back and forth, and it would be good to see a comprehensive list that people could be referred to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuyvan ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Please read the situation at the talk page about merging Laura Mallory into Controversy over Harry Potter and voice your opinion there. Thanks! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Contributors may have noticed that a disagreemnet has arisen largely over the issue of horcruxes in certain articles, including R.A.B.. In the process of arguing my corner with Folken de Fanel, I checked the French version of the article (he says he is French) to see how he had edited there, and I noticed that he has just nominated the french version of the article for deletion [1]. While the french article is somewhat smaller than ours, and perhaps suffers from the difficulty of sourcing when the original author speaks a different language, it seems to me that an editor who felt the article ought to be deleted there, would also think it should be deleted here. Anyway, my French is not so good, at least attempting to write it, but I would invite anyone interested and able to chip in there explaining some of the reasons the subject is noteable. Sandpiper 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Folken, the version of the article you nominated for deletion isn't even the correct one. You proposed deletion of an article which had been chopped up by an anon, and doesn't actually read sesnsibly. Then you merrily criticised it. Sandpiper 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What is our and wikis position on galleries of cover pictures? A user seems to be going round and deleting them all. Sandpiper 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How is having a collection of cover pictures for 'identification and critical comment' different from having just one? If one is acceptable, then a million are, since the article refers to all the pictures equally. Sandpiper 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Tuyvan and John Reaves mentioned Spelling in HP pages just above here *points*. I created the page out of boredom.
I've done a bit of expansion to also cover our logic for the infobox images, and I'm wondering ... is there any value in expanding the page to cover *all* conventions for the Harry Potter articles, and refering to it from the front project page / edit summaries from the article history? As a specific MOS for the HP articles, which we can possibly point people to as a definitive guide for why the article is written in a certain way. Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 02:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be emerging that {{ spoiler}} should not be used very often (if not at all). Since most HP articles contain this template, we should be aware of these discussions. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warnings and Template talk:Spoiler. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the images I uploaded in 2005 is up for deletion. I'm not up on how the whole thing works now so I'll leave you guys to decide what to do with it. -- Sonic Mew 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter 2nd Nomination. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've put it up, at last, for FAC. If you like, read over the article carefully and neutrally assess it. Hopefully, if it passes, it may be on the main page in time for the release of Deathly Hallows! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Just a headsup that if anyone finds any unsourced material comparing Harry Potter to any other books, comics, games movies or anything else with the implication, naturally, that Rowling "ripped off author X or Y", I've been gathering together every such mention I find on a subpage for Works analogous to Harry Potter, a page I created to address these issues. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Fawkes#Requested move. Simply south 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Eek, this article was created about a week ago and it's entirely in-universe. If anybody has any time, would they mind looking into toning this article down, perhaps merging it somewhere? I feel that after Deathly Hallows is released, we're going to need a big rewrite of all the articles, which includes limiting our use of the Lexicon, as well as a reconsideration of the location of all our articles (i.e. consider merging many of them). -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to clean out the use of fictional character birthdates as if they are actually alive "Ron Weasley (born March 1, 1980) is a ...." is incorrect. Also, I have started, with the smaller articles, to clean up the in-universe style (see Pansy Parkinson - I will further clean up this article and add more specific quotes from the book in the near future). I think we need to establish guidelines for this (as at least one user is reverting my changes consistently...both the use of dates and the in-universe style of the articles). Ccrashh 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I find that we really need to come to a definite consensus on these articles (I am referring to Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and its four sequels). They were nominated for an AfD in August of last year, and not a single vote was keep – they were torn between Delete and Merge. The information is still original research because there are few to no citations in each article, and the notability of the actual differences between books and films, not of the books and films themselves, has barely been established. As an entire article, it stands a very weak chance if it were to be nominated for an AfD again.
So, I propose that the truly significant differences be kept and merged into the main film article, but nothing more. This would mean leaving out all the characters who have been omitted. In the CS differences page and beyond, there is a section for "Previously cast characters who did not return"; I feel that this could be eliminated as it is now quite visually apparent in List of Harry Potter films cast members.
I hope we can come to some consensus on this that will be agreed upon by the wider community. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The image presently in the infobox at Harry Potter – Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg – has been nominated for deletion because it lacks a fair-use rationale. I thought I should inform the proper Wikiproject about this. Cliff smith 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things now the day of reckoning draws near... :P
Is HP pervasive enough to merit a mention in
ITN?
And what was the end result of
this discussion?
RHB -
Talk
18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
An AN:I discussion is taking place here. So far, it's not looking favourable towards protection. Daggoth | Talk 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of redirects between the many Harry Potter related pages. Could these be worked on?-- Tempest115 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A few niggling issues. Originally, to clear up some misunderstandings from less knowledgeable editors (vis a vis Rowling having "invented" such creatures as the basilisk) it was decided that the Minor Harry Potter beasts article be reserved only for those creatures that were specifically invented by JK Rowling herself. Any references to actual mythical creatures such as the fairy or the re'em could be kept on their own pages. Dragons and winged horses, however, could be kept on the minor beasts page, as the various breeds were Rowling's own invention. This idea worked for a while, but recently people have begun a crusade against "unimportant" fictional references (though how they decide which fictional references are unimportant I have yet to determine) in mythical or folkloric articles. To this end I created a new page, Mythical creatures in Harry Potter, to deal with those creatures from myth and legend that Rowling includes in her stories.
Now, every beast in the Harry Potter universe has a home somewhere on Wikipedia. Except two; the poor diricawl, since it was neither invented by JK Rowling nor is it a mythical creature, and the pogrebin, because I can't determine whether it is mythical or not. I have read of a monster with a similar name appearing in Russian folklore, but I can't track down any solid refs. Any ideas on what to do?
Oh, and another thing; I can't decide whether Nundus or Erklings belong in the mythical creatures or minor beasts articles, since they are apparently based on actual legendary beings, the nunda and the erlking, respectively, though Rowling has never said as much. Serendipodous 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just completed an extensive rewrite and cleanup of Marauders (Harry Potter). How can I go about getting it reassessed? =David( talk)( contribs) 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for including this? It matches the colour of the cover in each case but, I think, looks a bit off and is a bit repetitive considering you either already know the name, see it in the title in large font, the image in smaller font, or the first few words in the lead. Any opinions? RHB - Talk 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article is littered with referenced to "The Second Battle of Hogwarts when in the book it is just called "The Battle of Hogwarts". I intend to start cleaning this up and sorting out the redirects - any objections? Sophia 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that there are a number of Harry Potter related articles that can only barely stretch to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and these need to be either merged into other articles or deleted. Similarly, there are many non-free images which hardly meet the non-free content criteria, particularly NFC 8. Those suitably knowledgable about the various Harry Potter articles (far too many of them, in my opinion) need to do something about it. I'd be bold and do it myself but I have not been involved enough to figure out where things should go.
Just because Harry Potter is a fan phenomenon doesn't mean Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be violated... on the contrary they should be strictly enforced. The same rules that apply to other articles and media need to be applied here. PageantUpdater 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's essential that we start to condense the number of articles on HP on Wikipedia now. I merged Xenophilius Lovegood with Luna Lovegood; but have just discovered now Teddy Lupin, Aberforth Dumbledore, Ariana Dumbledore, and there are probably plenty more. We must remember now that this is not the Lexicon, but Wikipedia, and everything must be notable and cited through reliable sources, and all that jazz. I think that, far into the future, we must consider merges like Hogwarts faculty and Minor Hogwarts teachers into Hogwarts. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I felt I should move these here so that they might get some attention. Fair use images on wikipedia need to have a detailed fair use rationale that meets the non-free content criteria policy. Thanks for your time. - Malkinann 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fred and george weasley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt marge hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dudley dursley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt petunia hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uncle vernon hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably best to wait for things to calm down a bit, but I would also suggest that the articles on Charlie, Bill and Percy Weasley and their parents to be merged into a "Weasley Family" article. I don't think that these characters justify having their own article. PageantUpdater 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you stick any possibles here so theres a list of possibles? RHB - Talk 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The image Dumbledore.jpg is used through out Wikiproject Harry Potter. It seems to me that this is a derivative work of the Harry Potter series, namely of the copyrighted character of Albus Dumbledore. Even though it is fan-made, if it is a derivative work, it is considered non-free, and should not be in the Talk, Template, User, or Wikipedia namespace, as per Non-free content criteria #9. I'm posting here to gain a consensus on whether or not this image is a derivative work, and what should be done if it is. Thanks, -- Transfinite ( Talk / Contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A suggested move has been opened at the above link; petitioner is suggesting that the page and references be updated to Sorcerer's Stone.
The logic being used is that Warner Bros. produced the film (which was created by a mixture of American and British houses), and therefore it should be named after the American version. IMDB and many other pages apparently have it listed as Sorcerer.
Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, having two separate poster images would not have been fair use, one would count as decorative. But having both posters as one image would be fine in my view. Gran 2 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I've started afd nominations for what I believe are some of the most clearly non-notable articles that have cropped up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter family tree, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Lupin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malfoy Manor. I anticipate more to come but that is at least a start.
I am wondering how people think we should combat the rampant original research in many of the Harry Potter articles? I must admit that I hadn't checked out many of them prior to finishing the last book, but I am kinda surprised about the number of articles and images that violate policy at varying levels. Obviously it's worse since the last book was published and hopefully things will settle, but I forsee a lot that needs doing. I think we need to come up with some sort of notability criteria, because WP:FICT does not cover many article I have been discovering. As an example, I don't see why Crabbe and Goyle need their own articles, this is yet another thing that needs merging. PageantUpdater 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought this might be of interest to some of you for your userpage. Morphh (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
As July approaches, we need to start thinking about the massive amounts of vandalism that will occur. I think one of the first things we need to do is create a boilerplate message that we can crosspost to various places (e.g. WP:AN and WP:CN) that informs the community that we will be reading Deathly Hallows and will be unable to keep watch on the various HP articles. John Reaves (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think you guys are getting a bit carries away here. Perhaps I have a different slant on wiki than you do, but it is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I agree there is an issue about pre-publication leaks, but I can't really agree about the post-publication position. The moment the book is officially released, then our articles will almost certainly all be totally out of date. Never mind whether anyone is trying to vandalise them, they will be wrong anyway. So why exactly are you requesting special protection to prevent anyone correcting them to conform to the new book? There may be an issue about tactfully writing articles so that people have a chance to bail out and stop reading because they havn't read the last book yet, but honestly, think about this. No one is going to be unaware that the book has just been published. What would they expect to find here if not information about what is in the new book? Sandpiper 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I think imposing full protection on the pages would hinder their being properly brought up to date. I hadn't planned this, but it sounds horribly like I shall be queuing at midnight. So suppose I'm insane enough to read it by the next day. Then I'm prevented from editing? Sandpiper 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, as an alternative suggestion, how about a tag on the pages saying that they are a 'current event' and may be subject to change/unreliable? Sandpiper 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to put together a list of words that are spelled different in UK English and American English, and post it on the project page. It is my understanding that UK English spellings are preferred in the Wiki articles for Harry Potter. An example would be Defence instead of Defense. I have seen many edits reverting spelling back and forth, and it would be good to see a comprehensive list that people could be referred to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuyvan ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Please read the situation at the talk page about merging Laura Mallory into Controversy over Harry Potter and voice your opinion there. Thanks! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Contributors may have noticed that a disagreemnet has arisen largely over the issue of horcruxes in certain articles, including R.A.B.. In the process of arguing my corner with Folken de Fanel, I checked the French version of the article (he says he is French) to see how he had edited there, and I noticed that he has just nominated the french version of the article for deletion [1]. While the french article is somewhat smaller than ours, and perhaps suffers from the difficulty of sourcing when the original author speaks a different language, it seems to me that an editor who felt the article ought to be deleted there, would also think it should be deleted here. Anyway, my French is not so good, at least attempting to write it, but I would invite anyone interested and able to chip in there explaining some of the reasons the subject is noteable. Sandpiper 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Folken, the version of the article you nominated for deletion isn't even the correct one. You proposed deletion of an article which had been chopped up by an anon, and doesn't actually read sesnsibly. Then you merrily criticised it. Sandpiper 21:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What is our and wikis position on galleries of cover pictures? A user seems to be going round and deleting them all. Sandpiper 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How is having a collection of cover pictures for 'identification and critical comment' different from having just one? If one is acceptable, then a million are, since the article refers to all the pictures equally. Sandpiper 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Tuyvan and John Reaves mentioned Spelling in HP pages just above here *points*. I created the page out of boredom.
I've done a bit of expansion to also cover our logic for the infobox images, and I'm wondering ... is there any value in expanding the page to cover *all* conventions for the Harry Potter articles, and refering to it from the front project page / edit summaries from the article history? As a specific MOS for the HP articles, which we can possibly point people to as a definitive guide for why the article is written in a certain way. Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 02:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus appears to be emerging that {{ spoiler}} should not be used very often (if not at all). Since most HP articles contain this template, we should be aware of these discussions. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warnings and Template talk:Spoiler. -- John Reaves (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the images I uploaded in 2005 is up for deletion. I'm not up on how the whole thing works now so I'll leave you guys to decide what to do with it. -- Sonic Mew 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter 2nd Nomination. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've put it up, at last, for FAC. If you like, read over the article carefully and neutrally assess it. Hopefully, if it passes, it may be on the main page in time for the release of Deathly Hallows! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Just a headsup that if anyone finds any unsourced material comparing Harry Potter to any other books, comics, games movies or anything else with the implication, naturally, that Rowling "ripped off author X or Y", I've been gathering together every such mention I find on a subpage for Works analogous to Harry Potter, a page I created to address these issues. Thanks. Serendipodous 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Fawkes#Requested move. Simply south 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Eek, this article was created about a week ago and it's entirely in-universe. If anybody has any time, would they mind looking into toning this article down, perhaps merging it somewhere? I feel that after Deathly Hallows is released, we're going to need a big rewrite of all the articles, which includes limiting our use of the Lexicon, as well as a reconsideration of the location of all our articles (i.e. consider merging many of them). -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to clean out the use of fictional character birthdates as if they are actually alive "Ron Weasley (born March 1, 1980) is a ...." is incorrect. Also, I have started, with the smaller articles, to clean up the in-universe style (see Pansy Parkinson - I will further clean up this article and add more specific quotes from the book in the near future). I think we need to establish guidelines for this (as at least one user is reverting my changes consistently...both the use of dates and the in-universe style of the articles). Ccrashh 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I find that we really need to come to a definite consensus on these articles (I am referring to Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and its four sequels). They were nominated for an AfD in August of last year, and not a single vote was keep – they were torn between Delete and Merge. The information is still original research because there are few to no citations in each article, and the notability of the actual differences between books and films, not of the books and films themselves, has barely been established. As an entire article, it stands a very weak chance if it were to be nominated for an AfD again.
So, I propose that the truly significant differences be kept and merged into the main film article, but nothing more. This would mean leaving out all the characters who have been omitted. In the CS differences page and beyond, there is a section for "Previously cast characters who did not return"; I feel that this could be eliminated as it is now quite visually apparent in List of Harry Potter films cast members.
I hope we can come to some consensus on this that will be agreed upon by the wider community. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The image presently in the infobox at Harry Potter – Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg – has been nominated for deletion because it lacks a fair-use rationale. I thought I should inform the proper Wikiproject about this. Cliff smith 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things now the day of reckoning draws near... :P
Is HP pervasive enough to merit a mention in
ITN?
And what was the end result of
this discussion?
RHB -
Talk
18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
An AN:I discussion is taking place here. So far, it's not looking favourable towards protection. Daggoth | Talk 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of redirects between the many Harry Potter related pages. Could these be worked on?-- Tempest115 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A few niggling issues. Originally, to clear up some misunderstandings from less knowledgeable editors (vis a vis Rowling having "invented" such creatures as the basilisk) it was decided that the Minor Harry Potter beasts article be reserved only for those creatures that were specifically invented by JK Rowling herself. Any references to actual mythical creatures such as the fairy or the re'em could be kept on their own pages. Dragons and winged horses, however, could be kept on the minor beasts page, as the various breeds were Rowling's own invention. This idea worked for a while, but recently people have begun a crusade against "unimportant" fictional references (though how they decide which fictional references are unimportant I have yet to determine) in mythical or folkloric articles. To this end I created a new page, Mythical creatures in Harry Potter, to deal with those creatures from myth and legend that Rowling includes in her stories.
Now, every beast in the Harry Potter universe has a home somewhere on Wikipedia. Except two; the poor diricawl, since it was neither invented by JK Rowling nor is it a mythical creature, and the pogrebin, because I can't determine whether it is mythical or not. I have read of a monster with a similar name appearing in Russian folklore, but I can't track down any solid refs. Any ideas on what to do?
Oh, and another thing; I can't decide whether Nundus or Erklings belong in the mythical creatures or minor beasts articles, since they are apparently based on actual legendary beings, the nunda and the erlking, respectively, though Rowling has never said as much. Serendipodous 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just completed an extensive rewrite and cleanup of Marauders (Harry Potter). How can I go about getting it reassessed? =David( talk)( contribs) 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for including this? It matches the colour of the cover in each case but, I think, looks a bit off and is a bit repetitive considering you either already know the name, see it in the title in large font, the image in smaller font, or the first few words in the lead. Any opinions? RHB - Talk 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article is littered with referenced to "The Second Battle of Hogwarts when in the book it is just called "The Battle of Hogwarts". I intend to start cleaning this up and sorting out the redirects - any objections? Sophia 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that there are a number of Harry Potter related articles that can only barely stretch to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and these need to be either merged into other articles or deleted. Similarly, there are many non-free images which hardly meet the non-free content criteria, particularly NFC 8. Those suitably knowledgable about the various Harry Potter articles (far too many of them, in my opinion) need to do something about it. I'd be bold and do it myself but I have not been involved enough to figure out where things should go.
Just because Harry Potter is a fan phenomenon doesn't mean Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be violated... on the contrary they should be strictly enforced. The same rules that apply to other articles and media need to be applied here. PageantUpdater 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's essential that we start to condense the number of articles on HP on Wikipedia now. I merged Xenophilius Lovegood with Luna Lovegood; but have just discovered now Teddy Lupin, Aberforth Dumbledore, Ariana Dumbledore, and there are probably plenty more. We must remember now that this is not the Lexicon, but Wikipedia, and everything must be notable and cited through reliable sources, and all that jazz. I think that, far into the future, we must consider merges like Hogwarts faculty and Minor Hogwarts teachers into Hogwarts. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I felt I should move these here so that they might get some attention. Fair use images on wikipedia need to have a detailed fair use rationale that meets the non-free content criteria policy. Thanks for your time. - Malkinann 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fred and george weasley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt marge hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dudley dursley hp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aunt petunia hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uncle vernon hp.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably best to wait for things to calm down a bit, but I would also suggest that the articles on Charlie, Bill and Percy Weasley and their parents to be merged into a "Weasley Family" article. I don't think that these characters justify having their own article. PageantUpdater 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you stick any possibles here so theres a list of possibles? RHB - Talk 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The image Dumbledore.jpg is used through out Wikiproject Harry Potter. It seems to me that this is a derivative work of the Harry Potter series, namely of the copyrighted character of Albus Dumbledore. Even though it is fan-made, if it is a derivative work, it is considered non-free, and should not be in the Talk, Template, User, or Wikipedia namespace, as per Non-free content criteria #9. I'm posting here to gain a consensus on whether or not this image is a derivative work, and what should be done if it is. Thanks, -- Transfinite ( Talk / Contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A suggested move has been opened at the above link; petitioner is suggesting that the page and references be updated to Sorcerer's Stone.
The logic being used is that Warner Bros. produced the film (which was created by a mixture of American and British houses), and therefore it should be named after the American version. IMDB and many other pages apparently have it listed as Sorcerer.
Any thoughts? Daggoth | Talk 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, having two separate poster images would not have been fair use, one would count as decorative. But having both posters as one image would be fine in my view. Gran 2 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I've started afd nominations for what I believe are some of the most clearly non-notable articles that have cropped up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter family tree, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Lupin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malfoy Manor. I anticipate more to come but that is at least a start.
I am wondering how people think we should combat the rampant original research in many of the Harry Potter articles? I must admit that I hadn't checked out many of them prior to finishing the last book, but I am kinda surprised about the number of articles and images that violate policy at varying levels. Obviously it's worse since the last book was published and hopefully things will settle, but I forsee a lot that needs doing. I think we need to come up with some sort of notability criteria, because WP:FICT does not cover many article I have been discovering. As an example, I don't see why Crabbe and Goyle need their own articles, this is yet another thing that needs merging. PageantUpdater 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought this might be of interest to some of you for your userpage. Morphh (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)