Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Attention: Potions in Harry Potter will be placed for AfD on June 4, 2016

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)

• Done. Please, those of you who are fans of HP do not just vote keep because you are a fan of HP. We're an encyclopedia, not a Wikia host. HP has a wikia. We're not it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename articles

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:

• Harry Potter (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fictional universe of Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Magical creatures in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Magic in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Magical objects in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Places in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Potions in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Places in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--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)

I think that is a very premature idea at the least. It might be that in years to come that new tag becomes as widely known as Harry Potter, but frankly that is unlikely. Wikipedia has no business jumping the gun to fit with a film studio's attempts at rebranding. Mezigue (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a question of scope, not branding. The questions before you are: are we going to allow characters from outside the Harry Potter film series to proliferate in articles named "Harry Potter"? Are we going to narrow the scope and create a separate, parallel system of articles for Fantastic Beasts? Or are we going to acknowledge the shared universe, rename the articles, and thereby widen the scope to properly include all of the Wizarding World in the same articles? Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Article fork alert

• J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

RFC

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)

• Comment The scope of the articles should definitely be broadened to encompass the Fantastic Beasts film, which is essentially a spin-off from the Harry Potter series. The real question is how you go about it. If they only do one Fantastic Beasts film (in the unlikely event it tanks) you probably don't need to restructure the articles but if they do a whole new series of films then obviously the structure of the Harry Potter articles needs to reflect this. One good example to follow would be the Tolkien's legendarium, Outline of Middle-earth, Middle-earth, Middle-earth in film, The Lord of the Rings (film series) and The Hobbit (film series), which takes a hierarchical approach to the subject matter. As for the names of the articles, this needs to be assessed on an article-by-article basis in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME in regards to the article content. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I would expand the scope but stick with "Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter universe" for now. While Wizarding World is technically the more correct term, it's not a household name (yet); Harry Potter is. Daß Wölf 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - and it already is. Just one Fictional universe here, e.g. map, settings, history, character, and basic premises. It's just one canon here, just one universe, and WP:COMMONNAME would seem 'Harry Potter' universe for it. Plus there is some precedent of fictional universes become known by the first works and/or pivotal character. Anyway, in Google the 'Harry Potter Universe' hits 500 thousand times, while 'Wizarding Wordld universe' hits 11 and a half. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think whether it is "one canon" (a meaningless word imho) and one universe is that relevant. This is more an editorial decision and I would suggest that keeping the HP primarily book series and the Fantastic Beasts film series separate would probably be best, at least for the list articles. Anyone who keeps an eye on the List of Harry Potter characters page for instance will know what a hard slog it is to keep it in a readable state from the endless additions of trivia (look at the state it was in a few years ago. Once there are five FB films out (that's the plan), the task will become impossible. Mezigue (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• No Fantastic Beasts is based on the textbook used in the school. It is its own universe. I agree with Mezigue, I don't think it's one canon. It's not like the Star Wars series where you have episodes and a continuing story line with the same main characters. Likely, and I certainly hope so, JK Rowlng will focus on other aspects from her Potter books and enlarge them into books and films. Each of those aspects deserves to stand alone and not become some unwieldy Harry Potter universe. These are fresh new worlds she's creating, not a continuing series. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• No Summoned by a bot. With up to 5, maybe more movies/books/etc coming out under the FB "canon" I think at some point in time the scope of maintaining all of these articles could become incredibly daunting. Separating them out between HP and FB seems like as easy way to keep things organized moving forward. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Harry Potter characters

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)

Fantastic Beasts

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)

Potential Good Topic nomination

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)

Links to "List of spells in Harry Potter"

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)

List of Harry Potter media

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)

Articles for Deletion: List of Harry Potter-related topics

There is a deletion request for List of Harry Potter-related topics.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

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. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Harry Potter for deletion

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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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)

Recreation of multiple characters after a redirect

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 think its good, these characters are clearly notable and I have no idea why they didn't have article beforehand (except for Wikipedias anti-character bias).★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think they did. It was years ago, and I think Sirius Black had been since 2012. history. Luna Lovegood in 2009. I don't have an opinion right now, but couldn't most articles just point to the Wikia page? Starzoner (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it "could" be done that doesn't mean it would be better. Sure we could merge a ton of articles on notable topics and direct people to other websites just so we had fewer articles, but it wouldn't help anyone. I don't understand a lot of Wikipedians obsession with having unwieldy "lists" that just end up being character articles stacked on top of each other.★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think most of these new articles on individual characters have barely any information apart from plot summary. They probably should just be redirects to sections of other articles, as they were before. El Millo (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

30 redirects nominated for deletion

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)

Question about scope of project

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)

RfC notice

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

Can we have some editors weigh in on the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lord_Voldemort#Are_Delphini_and_Cursed_Child_canon? Thanks. Nerguy (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have realized that User:B.Davis2003 seems to have made many edits recently arguing that Cursed Child is not cannon. The following example clearly shows his bias [1]. Other examples include [2] and [3] and [4]. Perhaps this is a good place for a consensus to be reached. I for one believe that it is canon, as JK Rowling has said so herself, as reported at [5]. Nerguy (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not a novel. It is a play written by Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, basing it on JK's story. They merely sought her approval. She had NO part in drafting the concept. Therefore , any mention of this material should be listed as "Appearances in other material" as this is NOT part of the core novels. We don't list the films within the novel section, its always separated into sections, and the PLAY should be NO exception. B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@B.Davis2003: Actually, she is co-credited as having written the "original story" with Thorne and Tiffany, so she did have a part in drafting the concept, in fact she co-wrote the story. The only part she wasn't involved in was adapting the story for the stage. (in much the same way that Roald Dahl wrote Matilda, but the play isn't "by" him.)

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)

We actually don't consider the films to be canon in the strict sense of the word, since where they differ from the books, we stick to the books. Check for example, the first and last appearances of the characters in their infoboxes, we only include their book appearances. —El Millo (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but none of the details that are being emitted in the edits above are contradicted by the books, so that can't be used as justification for any edits. SSSB (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards

 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)

Character page for Fantastic Beasts characters

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)

I doubt these characters pass the notability criteria for their own pages, but by all means prove me wrong. SSSB (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is a List of Fantastic Beasts characters page, which is likely justified. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting a "List of ... characters" page, as the characters probably are not independently notable. But it is better than having the characters just redirect to the 1st Fantastic Beasts movie. Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ELNEVER policy violations throughout the Harry Potter articles

See discussion and list here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice re J. K. Rowling

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)

Featured Article Save Award for J. K. Rowling

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 requires attention

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)