Talk:Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (book)

Newt Scamander's categories

I see that the Newt Scamander section has some categories. Unless I am mistaken, and the categories are just buggily coded, I don't belive article sections can have categories of their own -- the rules don't say they can't, but they don't say they can, either. Right now the article is showing up incorrectly on the category entries for Category:Fictional writers. I'll remove those cats. Deborah-jl _Talk 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How much goes to charity?

It says near the top of that page that 80% of the profits go to charity, then at the bottom of "the Fictional Book" it says "only 20% goes to charity, not 80% as stated above"

Was this added as spam? And if not, which one is true? Someone please fix this.

I've checked the book, it says 20%. John Reaves 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I found here[1] that Jo says that they will give about 80%... Either she was estimating, over-exagerating, or something else... I don't know. Could someone clear this up? 76.188.26.92 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Post scriptum: to passages are quoted below by her, saying 80%:

"Everyone who would usually take a cut from the book is giving their services for free and they're donating what would've been their proceeds to Comic Relief which means booksellers, paper suppliers, publishers and my royalties, everything will be going to Comic Relief, over 80% of the cover price will be going to Comic Relief." -J.K. Rowling, 12Mar.A.D.2001

"I would say that you will be doing real magic by buying these books, you will have in your power by parting with £2.50, or whatever it might be in your particular country, to transform other children's lives because the money you hand over, over 80% of it will go to the neediest children in the poorest parts of the world. So there is probably never a better thing to spend your pocket money on." -J.K. Rowling, 12Mar.A.D.2001

I'm confused... 76.188.26.92 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

More categories

This book belongs to two more categories: Books by fictional authors, and books written in an in-universe style. That is to say, it matches up quite nicely with Bad Twin, a book from the Lost universe which was part of an Alternate reality game. Both books had fictional authors, and both were written as if the book itself was from the world it purports to describe. --205.201.141.146 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Errata Section & Doodling

I have added a brief errata section to this article and I'll expand on it if I find anything else. Seltzer100 09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Seltzer100

Do you guys think that a doodling section containing a list of all the doodles in Harry's version of the book is a good idea? It would almost double the size of the article and it could be breaching copyright, but it is of interest. I'll add it if it's proposed as feasible. Seltzer100 09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Seltzer100

It's OK. As long as it's called "Errata" and not "Trivia" no one will jump on it. However, the doodles are part of the published book, it's pointless to list every one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.57.46 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

References

This article needs in-line citations. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantastic beasts.JPG

Image:Fantastic beasts.JPG is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

sources story-wise

Newt Scamander describes the various beasts in rather slim pockets of text, almost as condensed stories, summing up a few things about its appearance, its habitat, behaviour and so on. A similar formula is often used in Medieval bestiaries, which I think would be useful in shedding light upon the way the book is structured and how Rowling wrote this book. Would it be sensible to enter this aspect into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.176.95 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Replaced the original Facebook source given re:movie with a Wall Street Journal source, as I believe Facebook is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. I figured no one would argue with the WSJ being cited. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Movie

I recently undid an edit claiming that they will be making a movie about this book. We should probably add a section on said movie given that it seems to be supported by many reliable sources. It appears Rowling will be the screenwriter. [2] [3] [4] Jinkinson (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, it's already there and already has its very own page. Guess I just didn't notice. Jinkinson (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sales Figures Don't Add Up

This and the Quidditch Through the Ages pages claim that together, these books have earned over 17 million pounds, while the numbers in the sidebar only add up to about a million. Damienivan (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT a film adaptation

Rather, the movie is purported to be Scamander's "making of". 46.173.12.68 (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Film adaptation

Now that there is a film adaptation dedicated article, this section should be reduced and simplified. Hektor (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "the" in the introduction

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a 2001 book written by British author J. K. Rowling..."

Though the sentence as it stands is understandable, it reflects an abbreviated news style and is somewhat less encyclopedic. A similar issue was brought up at the MOS talk page, but was more succinctly discussed by the user SMcCandlish here. Sorry if I come across as bit cheeky on this, but I regard it as an inoffensive change and a simple improvement, which is why I'm sometimes bewildered by such staunch opposition. Jg2904 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This [5] seems to be what we're talking about, the removal of "the" before "British author". It's not grammatically required, but I agree it reads more smoothly as "...written by the British author J. K. Rowling". There is no possibility that anyone could assume we were trying to say there is only one British author, since a) that would be silly, and b) such an assertion would require a comma, as in: "the British monarch, Elizabeth II" (which is correct in modern context, e.g. side-by-side reference to her and several other current world leaders; "the British monarch Elizabeth II" also works, in a historical context with other British monarchs like Henry V; just "British monarch Elizabeth II" is contextually vague and headline-ish: "BRITISH MONARCH ELIZABETH II TO VISIT WHITE HOUSE ON TUE."). Compressing our text so that it reads like a newspaper headline is neither necessary nor desirable, including in the lead. Leads should be summarizing, but never so concise as to be awkward. A general principle here is that editors' attempts to improve an article should not be reverted unless they do violence to it; adding "the" here is harmless and a minor improvement.
PS: My concern about "the" at Talk:Lauren Lapkus was that the exact construction there was using it to imply "the Chris Alvarado" like he was remarkably notable, when he's not notable at all AFAIK. That issue doesn't arise here; one of the best-selling authors in history is clearly notable. And the constructions aren't parallel to begin with; if the author of this were not notable but the book were for some reason, the "the" wouldn't imply the author was special in this case.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, SMcCandlish. Any thoughts, ScrapIronIV? Jg2904 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My instincts are usually good, but I do occasionally make mistakes. In this context, both "British" and "author" perform as adjectives. "Author" in this case is a noun adjunct (or a noun describing another noun, behaving as an adjective) and the article becomes unnecessary. Remove the adjectives, and you are left with "the J. K. Rowling" which is patently incorrect. All of that being said, I will always defer to consensus. Scr★pIron^IV 19:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Real language doesn't work like computer language. Put it this way: You are at the SPCA to pick out a puppy. They have a big room where people can interact with them, and there are 20 puppies in there, of which 12 are brown. After half an hour, a volunteer there asks if you picked one out, and you say, "yes, I want the white poodle, Sparky. The brown bulldog Floppy bit me, and the brown terrier Puddles peed on my leg, while the others don't seem like my kind of dog." You don't say "... Brpwn bulldog Floppy bit me, and brown terrier Puddles peed on my leg." The "the" is syntactically expected, even if, were you a mechanical algorithm processor, you might conclude that it was redundant. Only in "telegraphic writing", such as in actual old-school telegrams, or in mdoern text messages, and news headlines, do we drop the "the". A large number of features of all natural languages are redundant, and they've evolved this way on purpose to make communication and understanding more certain. It's a form of wetware error detection and correction, a brain "bio-computer" version of check digits and the like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In each of these cases you cite, the comma is, in fact, required. As you used "the white poodle, Sparky" you would also use the "he brown bulldog, Floppy" and "the brown terrier, Puddles" - syntactically, there is no difference in usage or punctuation. In these cases you are using the name (Sparky, Floppy, Puddles) as a clarifying noun; poodle, bulldog and terrier are the active nouns in the phrase. In the case of Rowling, author is not the noun; rather, it is an adjunct noun or adjectival noun. While they occupy the same position in their respective phrases, their function is different and different rules apply. Scr★pIron^IV 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Graduated or expelled

The book says that Newt graduated from Hogwarts. The film says he was expelled. It is my belief that we should use the book's version of events in this article while including an appropriate note about the conflicting story told in the film. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314132659/http://www.comicrelief.com/news/2009-07/harry-potter-book-profits-go-comic-relief to http://www.comicrelief.com/news/2009-07/harry-potter-book-profits-go-comic-relief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)