Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Notability/Differences

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge only relevant info to film articles (see subpages for rewrite drafts)

Articles covered by this discussion

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Discussion

Snipped from notability talk page:

Got to get ride of the "differences" articles, no hint of any notability. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I think it is reasonable to ditch the differences articles especially since the most pertinent information in them can and should be covered in the individual film articles. There is also an article on the films in general which can describe the basic principles and methods used to adapt the books to film. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a suitable home for the limited information that there may be on the subject. Judgesurreal777 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note past AfDs of these articles: August 2006 and July 2007, as well as various discussions we've had within the project. As the person who completely redesigned differences article 4, who then followed by creating 1, 2, 3 and 5 (as well as 6, which was speedily deleted and then moved to a subpage of mine before I requested its speedy deletion), I've been intrigued as to the responses to these articles. I first created/redid the articles when I was a newbie to Wikipedia and didn't know what this "OR" rubbish was. Then I progressed and realized how important WP:OR was and how these articles were in blatant violation of them. Others have stood up for them, which is a very noble thing to do. I like their arguments but still disagree with it. There are certain things more important than "Harry and Ron's exchange in the middle of the night" (article 4).

There are basically three components to these articles: characters who appeared in the book but who did not appear in the movie. Notable absences can be mentioned (in the film article; e.g. the loss of Lily Potter in OoP), the loss of Griselda Marchbanks should not. The second component is previously cast characters who did not return. This is already visually covered in the List of Harry Potter films cast members. Done. Third component is plot changes. As long as these are cited (thanks to this absolutely lovely wonderful fantastic article from Digital Spy -- it's like they knew we wanted it!!) and are major, they should be merged to the film article. The OoP film article has been prevented in the past from becoming a GA because the book/film differences were absent from the article. They are vital to the film article, but making a whole add-to-it-whenever-you-notice-a-minor-discrepancy-between-books-and-films article has just become excessive. I !vote for merge relevant, cited information to a new section in the film's article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long post to say you agree, but your comments on the history are well taken. It seems like we have a consensus to merge to the film articles (components one and three from your post) then? I'm not sure if we can do that right now though since somebody just AfD'd all of them. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can, although it has to be instantaneous. We need to work all the articles down into single sections on a subpage/sandbox, and switch them to redirects all at once (leaving the AfD tags on the redirects). Then we can present it as a fait acompli to the AfD. Let's be honest - they're going to be deleted or at least ordered for a merge. Even "no consensus" doesn't prevent us from merging them. At the very least, we can work up the sections and merge/redirect as soon as the AfD closes however it does. Happy-melon 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it has to be instantaneous, but I'm sure we can find five editors who would be willing to synchronize their watches with one another and hit "save" at the same second, I'm in. But seriously, your plan sounds fine. – Basar (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to the milisecond, only that we need to do all five before anyone has the chance to complain on the AfD page about one of them being redirected. Doing film 1, then films 2 and 3 four hours later when we've finished working on them, isn't going to work. But of course it needn't be exact! Hehehe. Anyone want to grab a film and start work? I'm going to take Prisoner of Azkaban - it's my favourite of the first three by far. Happy-melon 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, that would be great, everybody pressing "save" at the same time. Rather than take unilateral action though, why don't we make five subpages of this project page to present what we've come up with to the AfD? The only film which will be hard to present is the fifth, since very few sources concerning its book/film differences have been made. In any case, I'd be happy to try and get five done with, since I've pretty much been working on that film's article since the film's production began, and I'd like to continue it. :) If I get stuck on that I get attempt #1. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←I guess that's reasonable. I've done PoA - take a look below.

Philosopher's Stone - 2819 bytes
Chamber of Secrets - 1996 bytes
Prisoner of Azkaban - 3270 bytes
Goblet of Fire - 5313 bytes
Order of the Phoenix - 4492 bytes

I might try Goblet of Fire next, but I'm going to bed now - maybe in the morning. Happy-melon 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I came across this great article on Salon.com which is an interview with Michael Goldenberg, talks about some of the book/film differences and why he sacrificed them. I just came up with an outline of important things to cover, I'll try to work on it later this evening. Happy-melon, yours looks quite comprehensive, just needs a little copyediting and it'll be good. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was just thinking that the Rowling/Kloves interview on the CoS DVD might prove rather fruitful. I don't own the PoA DVD, so I don't know what extras that holds, but definitely CoS would have something. Michael Goldenberg is so great at explaining the transition from book to film! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoF is done. Chamber of Secrets next. I like your OoP, Fbv65edel, but I think it might be a little long (so might my GoF). Happy-melon 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoS is hard - first of all, it's extremely faithful to the book. I can't find a secondary source that says so, but I'm sure it's the most faithful. And I can't find a single source other than DigitalSpy to reference the changes that were made. Consequently, that difference article is the shortest of the lot. It doesn't surprise me, though, that as the books get longer, the films get more different, so the differences articles get longer. Only PS to go now, then we can trample on the AfD. Happy-melon 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher's Stone also done. It's longer than CoS, but not much. I added bytecounts to each article as of 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC). I don't think there's a problem in the first to being so short: their films are much more faithful to the books! Happy‑melon 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, we should probably put them in the film articles now. Are we just going to wait for the AfD to close before touching the diff articles? – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading WP:GTD#EDIT, I realise that we're not allowed to blank the pages or redirect them while the AfD is ongoing. So I'd say wait until the AfD closes, and if possible ask for an early close. I'm not sure if it's been put on the backlog yet: it was opened on Sept 12. Happy‑melon 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included that Barty Crouch Jr. refers Voldemort actually as Lord Voldemort and not The Dark Lord in the questioning scene. As we all know no death-eater would say Voldemort's name but the filmmakers obviously didnt care about things like this. Chandler talk 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.