This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. 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.
The article is a mess; has a pointless list of his name in various languages, the characteristics and appearances sections are way too long and too in universe, and there is very little said about how he was created or acted. It needs to be improved or delisted since it doesn't meet GA criteria. Judgesurreal77701:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And I think that might be significant to mention. Remember the R.A.B thing, wherein the foreign pulbishers had to be let in a bit on the secrets, so they could translate correctly. I think some (but not all) is noteworthy, and interesting.
Judgesurreal, I am the main editor of the GA-approved Voldemort page. You totally right, see the Talk Page and what I wrote. You should have seen the page BEFORE I started some de-geekification. The problem is the quality of the Voldy article gets constantly undermined by many HP-Editors are pure in-universe editors. They would be great in the Harry Potter Wikia, but not in Wikipedia. I frankly don't know how to counter this, as I assume good faith from them, but they simply don't get that an out-of-universe POV must be enforced by WP:WAF. —Onomatopoeia07:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I just added a section abut his creation and his development. Feel free to improve, and also to change the urls of the refs (get the original URLs, accio-quote is not the original source). —Onomatopoeia08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If I may make a suggestion, one idea is to sandbox a good version, install it, and then do a big revert back to that version occasionally. It is what was done with the Link (Legend of Zelda) when it was crufted to the point it wasn't even GA let alone FA. Judgesurreal77705:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Join now. Like the Death Eaters, but relatively nice fellows, except where cruft is concerned. Cruft must die for the Greater Good. This would be a Cabal-like group, trawling the Potter pages, killing cruft and OR without remorse, until the pages all make it to GA or better. Sign below if you want the voluntary tattoo/signal device (in the shape of a skelly barnstar) and 8-track tape on how to laugh evilly at the quailing of cruft-makers everywhere. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would people please keep a watch on the Ryan Nelson article for the next couple of days? I've prod'd it, but I'm going on vacation for about 11 days starting tomorrow morning, so I just want to make sure that the user who seems to be obsessed with this person doesn't remove the prod tag. If they do, I hope somebody can nominate it for AfD. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not original research...not that I can see. But with only three real information points (not counting the numerous times they're there), it has a bit of difficulty passing a notability test. =David(talk)(contribs)22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Article headings
I propose that the article structure and headings that are standard for this project be changed to be more in line with the manual for writing about fiction. I have tried to change the headings and focus of some articles, getting ride of the heading "Fictional Character biography" and I keep getting reverted. A character biography is exactly NOT what is supposed to be in a fictional character article according to current guidelines, so let's update our article structure. Judgesurreal77716:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Voldemort Image
Where did the primary image for Voldemort go? I can't seem to find it - some sort of speedy delete. The image in the article now, is rubbish. - Arcayne(cast a spell)01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, as a bona fide Cruft Eater, I rewrote Hermione Granger from scratch, firmly enforcing WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:WIAGA hopefully, so bye bye cruft. It is a GAC now. Feedback and wikignoming are appreciated. —Onomatopoeia20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have not properly compared the verison you wrote and the previous version, so I am not informed enough to criticise you and won't. However I can see that you cut the article size by 26,000 kb, more than halving it; are you sure that no worthwhile information was lost in translation? asyndeton20:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, most (well, almost all) of the 26,000 kb cut was in-universe retelling of the plot, blow-by-blow style, quite blatantly violating WP:NOT, point 7 (WP is not a plot summary) and full of WP:NOR shipper info ("was Hermy in love with Ron-Ron already in moment X") or abilities full of in-universe references again. If you feel something was omitted, just re-add it, but if you look at the prior versions, I really think that the 26,000kb minus is addition by subtraction. WP:WAF is a powerful thing to make an article better. —Onomatopoeia20:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The article, quite simply, is excellent, and we should hire Onomatopeia to do this to all the other fictional potter characters :) Judgesurreal77702:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Department of Transport(ation)
Articles are inconsistent over whether the correct term is Department of Transport or Department of Transportation, leading in at least one case to a broken link. Would someone with access to the books like to check this out? Does it vary, perhaps, between the UK and US editions? Matchups15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I wondered if maybe "...Transport" were the UK version. Lacking access to the book, I did some web searches, intersecting with UK and US terms (e.g., "Sorceror" vs "Philosopher") and found that "Transport" tends to be used more in US pages, so that's not the issue. I am going to conclude ha "Transportation" is correct and change all "Transport"s. Matchups03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone
The above discussion bring up another point. The UK version of hte first book is different from the US version and the films. I think that this is worth initially noting in articles that refer to it. Yes, the books were English-published books, but this is the English-language wiki, and the books were not differently titled due to translation issues. Furthermore, the first film - which is used as reference - was also called by Sorcerer's Stone. I think that ignoring that in favor of Anglophile pride seems foolish. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said to you before, I think that listing both names will only make things look untidy. But before I continue, what is it that you're proposing we do? Every time we mention HP1 by name, we mention both titles (no sarcasm intended), or only do it in a select few places? asyndeton11:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the parenthitical remark - I did' think you were being snippish - lol.
Yes, the latter. I think it should be utilized in the infobox and the first instance of the English usage in the article, as seen in this self-reverted example. Afterward, we need only refer to HP1 or whatever. I am not aiming for intrusiveness, but instead for noting an identical, yet-differently-titled (and therefore noteworthy) book. I think that this could be applied to all of the characters easily and unobtrusively. - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid argument. I still disagree on aesthetic grounds, as I think it will look messy - however, I suppose there is a chance that someone out there doesn't know the real title of the book and so it probably would deserve mentioning. Though does it have to be in the infobox and the first mention of HP1 in the text? Surely one would suffice? asyndeton14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's necessary, as the infobox is the short-short summary of the article, and what's said in the summary is expressed int he body of the article. I don't think the question is one of aesthetics as it is about encyclopedic...ness (?). I don't think it will look messy. Honest. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(Discussion on this subject continues a few sections below)
So that means, for those not counting, 12 articles that are not at the level of being ready for Good Article candidacy. Cruft-eaters, attack! Oh, how I wish someone would spontaneously re-write some of these articles... hint hint.Judgesurreal77705:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I reviewed the article, and found it passing the GA criteria. I'll probably let others handle other nominations if they come, but since I'm not part of the project I feel pretty objective/independent. Judgesurreal77706:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but isn't it supposed to be an admin who decides if an article is GA or not? I don't see anything which identifies Judgesurreal as an admin. - Arcayne(cast a spell)09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:GAC: "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." OK, JS777 is affiliated to WP:Potter, but he is not a member of WP:Potter. But in doubt, anybody who doubts his decisions can put the articles on good article review, and I am confident that my 2 GA articles will stand that test. —Onomatopoeia10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is GA. But, I am a little concerned that editors Judgesurreal777 and Onomatopoeia are becoming a tag team of writer and GA reviewer. I notice the same thing happened at Hermione Granger where very quickly the article went up for GA review, and then was GA passed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
JS777, don't take it as a smiting of your integrity - you are aces with me. However, i think that getting an admin who reviews FA media articles to GA us up will help us ancitipate how the articles are going to fare in FA contention. And Ono's edits are superb. He is a Cruft Eater™ supreme. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777. Don't take me wrong. I think the articles really are GA quality. It is just a perception problem: i.e. a heads up that someone might try to smite your integrity. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast03:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, if JS777 refrains from evaluating my articles, no big deal. Even excluding his evaluations, I have already written these many GAs (), so I know a thing or two about writing AND getting them promoted. —Onomatopoeia07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Technically, yes. But mine is meant in good fun. Please understand that i there is a Potter-inspired orgy occurring somewhere, I don't know about it, and really, really don't want to know.
You should add new topics to the bottom, to answer your first question. As for the second, for the most part, they're considered original research, and as such are not allowed on Wikipedia. If we can find a source from JKR that explains these things, we can add them with no problem, but I doubt that such a source exists yet. Maybe as the aftermath of book 7 dies down. (on an unrelated note, you should sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~), after you make sure you're logged in. Hope this helped. See you in the funny pages! =David(talk)(contribs)15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
De-crufted and ready for evaluation. Please feel free to take a gander
Snape, revisited
I think another re-write is called for, as I edited the article as it was, and not conforming it to some of the since-GA-level articles of Hermione Granger and Lord Voldemort. A question had come up as to berb tense, and I had learned (or rather, had forgotten) that if constructed as a biography (as Snape's article is), the past tense would be utilized. this is incorrect. As Granger's and Voldie's articles are constructed, they are re-telling the matter in the forms that follow the books, and utilize the infinitive present tense.
Now, before people fall asleep from the grammar lesson, I think that i could use a hand to restructure the article more in line with the aforementioned GA-article styles.
What's the Date, Mate?
I am getting a little confused over the consensus as to the usage of dates in the articles. Do we use them or not? Clearly, we don't use dates that are not specifically noted, as they are OR by supposition (ie, deduction). I recommend specific citation to separate the wheat from the chaff, and remove the cruft. Thoughts? - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is usually my pov (or to tag with cn and release), but I've seen it pop up more than a few times,and I don't want to rm something that actually belongs that I somehow missed in the novels themselves. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that WP:WAF prohibits the use of in-universe dates in articles for the obvious reason that to do so places the tone of the article into in-universe mode. AulaTPN18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's partially correct. If a book says that Dumbledore was born in 1852, it's OK to say that. You'd maybe begin a paragraph like this: "Rowling details Dumbledore's background throughout the series. He was born in 1852 in Wessex and went to school at Growblatt's School of Wizardry. He became the Hogwart's headmaster in 1979, replacing Fenrus Quinn. Blah blah blah." The in-universe material is OK because it is prefaced with out-of-universe "grounding" language. The use of past tense is OK because these are events that take place before the fictional present established by Philosopher's Stone, wherein Dumbledore is already the headmaster. If you want to relate Dumbledore's actions in one of the books, however, you should switch back to present tense: "In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Rowling's third book in the series, Dumbledore plays a central role. He comforts Harry about the loss of his skateboard and teaches him how to summon a gobsheit." (Of course I made that up, but you get the point. :) — Brian (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been confused about this as well. I have a thought that I'd like some feedback on: where dates are included, instead of wikilinking to the real world date, would it perhaps be better to link to Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (I've already tested this on Neville's page)? Is this appropriate? Arcayne, on the chance that you don't read this, I'm going to bring this discussion to you talk page, as we're familiar with each other and I trust your judgment. Faithlessthewonderboy05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a fabulous idea! I recently did an edit in Avengers: The Initiative wherein something very similar had happened. The states for the various Initiative teams stationed there had links to the actual states. The comparison is the same. Feel free to use it. I say linking the dates to the timeline is a great idea- Arcayne(cast a spell)06:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This topic came up a few sections above. I went through the main characters from the first book/film and added the bit about the book/film being alternatively titled HP and the Sorcerer's Stone (actually, i just added in parenthesis: {Sorcerer's Stone in the US) ) in one of the English-speaking markets. It is encyclopedic to note that in the major articles dealing with the first book, but I am not thinking it needs adding for characters who didn;t appear in the first book/film, or for passing references in other articles about the name switch. - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted this good fellows edits several times today. Personally I consider it POV pushing. As it stands the American title is stated in the book/film article, it's relevant there, but not anywhere else. I'd advise Mr Arcayne to garner a consensus for his edit, rather than POV pushing. It's naughty! To be frank, the American title simply isn't noteworthy/encyclopaedic and it's at best a trivial detail. Matthew09:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, despite Matthew's rather...inventive interpretation of Wikipedia polices, he chose to edit war over what is essentially an encyclopedic edit. The notation of the US titling belongs in the infobox for the main characters and at the first mention, Nothing beyond that. I heartily disagree with Matthew's interpretation, but his rather unique interpretations of policy are pretty much known in more than a few corners. He is more than welcome to cite how the information he ran the risk of 3RR to remove is trivial. As well, he should take a moment to describe how I am "POV pushing" (I was actually laughing so hard at that description that I misspelled 'pushing; twice). This should be quite entertaining. - Arcayne(cast a spell)09:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Good friend, would you care to provide something which supports you? WP:CONSENSUS seems to quite clearly support me. If the MoS (specifically the part on spelling varieties) is taken less literally, I'd argue it supports me as well. Oh, I'm glad I gave you a chuckle as well (you're POV pushing as you're: a) Pushing an American POV and b) have no consensus to do so.) Take care. Matthew10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I try to AGF, but I've come to the conclusion that you aren't actually going to address the matter. I want to be sure I have this right: I am pushing an American POV? Um, are we assuming that the books and movie were not titled differently in the US? In itself, that is noteworthy. It is encyclopedic to include it. Period. While consensus is good to have, the encyclopedic quality of noting briefly when the titling appears is pretty much a no-brainer. Which, in reverting three times, you have rather clearly proven. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)10:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What matter is that? The one where you've: a) failed to demonstrate your consensus or b) provide anything to backup your claims? Here's a question: do you have anything to support you? (like a policy/guideline). I disagree that's it's noteworthy and encyclopaedic, you've yet to present anything that supports your opinion (the onus is on those seeking inclusion). You simply appear to be a disgruntled American to me. Matthew10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
A disgruntled American? Are you seeking personal information about me? Are you cruising for a date? Sorry, not interested. Also, not necessarily American. Please re-read WP:ATT, MOS and perhaps even 3RR (specifically about edit-arring). Other people on other pages have attempted to out-endurance your stubbornness. I am not interested in wasting my time in being one of them. AGF was all used up by your third revert, so I'm simply choosing not to respind to you. I've already exlained how it's noteworthy, and why it is. If you choose not to listen to information given to you, there isn't much I can do to force the info into your widdle haid, now is there?. I think we're done here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs).
I think your reply sums your position up perfectly, Mr Claims to be Copyeditor. Did I request personal information? No (I'm aghast to where you pulled that one from!) I'm unsure how WP:ATT comes into play (perhaps you should have a look at it...), could you show me which part of the MoS supports you (please?) and perhaps you should read [[WP:3RR] yourself (hehe -- unless your denying you took part in this minor skirmish?) You haven't explained how it's noteworthy, just that you think it is. I'm also pretty sure I'm not the one with the "widdle haid". Matthew11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok ok ok let's all just take a step back here - there's no need for ad hominem attacks as it seems fairly clear that both of you are acting in good faith. On this occasion I would have to agree with User:Matthew on this. It's well documented in the article about the first book that it had a different title in the U.S. and consensus has always been that the book should be referred to in articles by the UK title per the directive in the MoS regarding versions of English. Harry Potter is obviously related to the UK and so per the MoS we always use British English and hence refer to the UK titles - not least because Philosopher's Stone was published long before Sorcerer's Stone. We shouldn't be parenthetically adding additional titles to the articles - it's not encyclopaedic and it's clumsy, least of all because then another editor would feel they could legitimately claim the right to place some of the many translated titles alongside. In my opinion it's better to head this edit-war off right now before it really escalates, to continue like this would be like asking for someone to engage in WP:POINT. Just my 2 cents... AulaTPN15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I can see how I was not being as civil to Mattherw as Wikipedia asks to be to eveyryone, from the most persevering editor to the meanest little crayola-wielding vandal-bandit. While I take some (justifiied) exception to his methods of editing and response, it doesn't translate as a need for me to drop to his level to interact. The fellow has built up a fairly long list of annoyed editors, and I now consider myself one of them. However, that frustration was inappropriate to address and express here, taking up column inches. I apologize for that, and for allowing my frustration at the sad little ego-monkey to affect my judgment.
As well, i can see your point, Aula. While I feel that confining the notation to a single article seems dubiously like keeping Harry in a closet under the stairs, you make a good point that inclusion could easily become a slippery slope, allowing for translations from other languages to be argued. However, we aren't speaking of a translation from Hungarian or Basque, we are speaking of a stylistic change within the same language. The alteration was not due to a linguistic challenge, but instead a perceived cultural one. The translations into Hungarian and Basque and bahasan Indonesian are to address a literal translation from the original material to the target language. Aside from the lack of illustrations in the British version, the American release is precisely the same as its counterpart...except for the title.
This titling crosses the boundary into the films as well. Aside from titliing differences for the films as well, that dialogue which made refernce to the Philosopher's Stone was also shot using the words Sorceror's Stoneas well. No such effort was made in the shooting schedule for the film for the translations of the tile into Basque or Xhosan.
Perhaps it doesn't belong in every article, but as the majority of the film and character articles use information from the film releases as well as the Grand Pré illustrations, they have tied themselves to the American release. I don't think it's clumsy to note the existence of an alternate title; in point of fact, I think it presents more issues when it is studiously ignored. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I usually agree with Arcayne, but I think I have say that, since this is the english wikipedia, and not American, we shouldn't have to denote a different title unless a translation was in order (like if the film/book was originally in french). If there was something more significant about the other film/book, like a character acting completely different, then maybe. But, in this instance, I think when someone clicks the link they'll clearly see the "also known as" on the page there. It's minor. I mean, I cannot think of too many people who don't know the real name by now, except maybe really small children who saw the films but haven't read the books. Maybe if the film was more prominently known as the USA title, but "Philosopher's Stone" was used in more countries, so I have to say that including the USA name is a little unnecessary in this instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 22:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Hello, once again I was unaware that there was a project group my edits were affecting and so here I am after being reminded/told that there was such a group. I am requesting that the succession boxes on the following five pages NOT be reverted for the course of a week. WP:WAF is undergoing a discussion to reimplement succession boxes into in-universe titles on specific articles and for specific titles. While I have already received one notice from a member of this group noting the unimportance and the lack of number for the title Headmaster of Hogwarts, I have nonetheless decided to use it as the example piece for the entire proposal at WT:WAF. I request members of this group to go there and discuss not the use of succession boxes for the title of headmaster, but for use in in-universe references. The following articles are affected:
Please review and comment. I am aware that the current policy is that succession boxes are not allowed for in-universe references and this proposal is attempting to bring that issue to light and present a solution. While voting alone does not produce policy, I would like this proposal and these examples to act as a springboard for discussion, with the hope that the policy can be modified to allow for succession boxes for at least some in-universe titles. Thank you and I look forward to your comments although please direct them to WT:WAF and not here! –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions )00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you present a solution in WAF; you don't test-market them here to see if you can slip them in. Sorry, but the assumption of good faith went out the window when you called those people correctly reverting your edits vandals. The ONLY place for you to propose changes is either in WAF or the Village Pump. Period. Please do not revert or add succession obxes into any Harry Potter article until you have some sort of consensus to do so in in WAF. - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted but never called the people who removed my edits vandals. Furthermore, there has been consensus for months (see WT:WAF#Succession_boxes_for_fictional_characters just no action. I am trying to create that action. Maybe if people at WP:WAF or the village refuse would actually give some honest help I would go to them, but they have yet to prove able to supply either. Give me something else. –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions )01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was an autofill issue then that made you revert here and here using the following edit summary: "rvv: see WT:WAF, WT:SBS, or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Harry Potter" - rvv in WP is shorthand for 'revert vandalism'. Again, maybe it was just an accident on your part, and have explained as much on your Talk page.
That's past. The succession boxes are removed, you have a set of examples to present in WAF to discuss your proposal. I suggest that people interested in the use or prohibition of succession boxes that directly affect this wikiproject take a look there and add your comments.
Lastly, to addres syour argument about how you are implementing decided policy, Bear pointed out to you on your page that the strength of the arguments were more important than the barest of majorities. Solid reasons were presented there for not allowing them (cruft- and OR-magnets, superfluous, etc), while most of the support was for the idea of succession boxes in general. I am not saying that sb are bad everywhere. They are just bad for here because there isn't enough super-solid lines of succession to note, and the potential to 'fill in the blanks' will be too much for people to avoid. - Arcayne(cast a spell)01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This "Battle" and "War" motif
It has been repeatedly established that the events of the seven books should not be distilled to fit the theme of a "war" with discrete "battles", with the motif of the infobox wherein various fans argue over who "won" and "lost" and who the "commanders" were and what the "causus belli" was. I love the Harry Potter books, but I also believe that they are fine the way JK wrote them without adding this extra level of fan analysis. I think this WikiProject should come up with the appropriate style guidelines that it can discuss the events of the ends of books 5, 6, 7 and the biographies of the respective characters involved in them without having to recourse to non-canonical language like "Battle of the Astronomy Tower" and "Battle of the Department of Mysteries." I think that will be a prerequisite to being able to get some of these articles up to good or even featured article status. In particular this is a problem at Death Eaters, Dumbledore's Army, and Order of the Phoenix (organisation). The relevant policies are WP:NOR and WP:WAF. The relevant afd debates are here: Savidan01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A character's gender will be obvious from the picture in the infobox, the character's name or, at the very least, from the pronoun used throughout the article. I suggest we remove 'Gender' from the infobox, considering how little it adds to the article. asyndeton15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've edited all articles to alter references such as HP1 to refer to the target of the redirect. For instance, HP6 is replaced by Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. As a matter of style, I strongly recommend that we refer to the books at all times by their titles, because although fans may easily assimilate the meaning of "HP5", the general reader will benefit from seeing the title. If the order of the book in the series is important, a phrase like "the sixth book in the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" on the first reference to the book in an article or section, can be used. --Tony Sidaway16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Tony, was there a procedural error or clear wiki guideline violation that prompted you to change all the listings without seeking a consensus - or even broaching the subject with this Discussion page first? I'm tempted to go and revert them all simply on principle. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, aren't you being a bit harsh? After all, he was just [[being bold! All joking aside though, I'm okay with this, I've always thought that HP1 et al are a bit crufty. I use them myself in discussions and forums, but I don't think they're appropriate for articles, in the same way that OotP and HBP shouldn't be used. Just my humble opinion. Faithlessthewonderboy21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, basically "HP3" is crufty and uninformative, whereas "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is specific, links directly to a real article about a real object in the real world, and is thus very informative. As Faithlesswonderboy indicates, I was following our prime directive to be bold. Discussing stuff can always be done later. --Tony Sidaway22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I've no problem with using HP1, HP2, etc in discussion, at least as long as those pages remain by consensus as redirects to the relevant Harry Potter articles. My approach here, however, is that if I switch off the "Harry Potter fan" part of my brain, the meaning of HP4, for instance, becomes somewhat obscure, whereas the term "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" stands a chance of meaning something. This is doubly cool because it happens to be the name fo the article about the novel. We're writing an encyclopedia for the general reader, not the fan, so where we refer to a work we should try to do so in a way that all readers will understand. This means that we shouldn't adopt idiosyncratic abbreviations for real world subjects. --Tony Sidaway22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I agree with your reasoning, but I am concerned with how many times we repeat the name of the book in successive paragraphs and sections before it becomes distracting. I noted that you addressed the abbreviations only at the beginning of the articles. Was that you intent, or were you planning on removing them throughout the article?
Again, I am not saying I disagree with the idea - I am somewhat disagreeing with the implementation. What if we had completely disagreed with it? I am guessing that, with your busy schedule, you wouldn't have gone back and self-reverted, and it would have been left for us to undo. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but there didn't seem to be a crushing need for this to be addressed immediately. Getting the go ahead from (or just getting input) the group before you make the changes seems to me to be a Good Thing, as it prevents friction. After the 'sig modification as POINT' nonsense, I would think it would be clear to you that there are more opinions in play here than just yours. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is never a need to self-revert. It's a wiki. As I and others have discussed above, the idea of having to discuss edits and "get the go ahead" before performing them is somewhat antithetical to the concept of a wiki and very much against the spirit of be bold. --Tony Sidaway12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to say though, I just came across the edits Tony made to Lord Voldemort, and I'm a bit confused by it. For example, he replaced "sixth" with "sixth, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." While I don't exactly have a problem with this, it strikes me as entirely unnecessary, and perhaps hurts the flow of the article. It just seems unnecessarily wordy, considering they link to the same place. Faithlessthewonderboy23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As for repeating book names later in paragraphs, just use the part after "Harry Potter and the". This goes for using a different book -- we've now established we're talking about Harry Potter. So, first time is "Rowling first introduces the character of Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. He is signing books in Diagon Alley. Blah blah blah. Lockhart is not seen again until Order of the Phoenix, when they run into him in St. Mungo's…". If you end up using the book name rather frequently, it may be okay to cut it down to just one word -- Stone, Chamber, Azkaban, Goblet, Phoenix, Prince, Hallows are usually how JKR herself abbreviates them on her site (not Hallows though -- she hasn't abbreviated that yet). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware I removed all uses of HP1 and the other redirects. I was less assiduous with occurrences of the terms "HP1 etc without linking. I agree that cutting down the title (at least by removing the phrase "Harry Potter and") is good practice especially after the first mention of a title. But I think it's good practice to give the full title of a novel at least once in an article in which it is mentioned. --Tony Sidaway11:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that I am responsible for a large number of references to HP1, HP5 etc, through pure laziness. However, I don't think I have ever written it such that it appears in the article text. Every time I've used those terms have been inside piped links, eg [[HP1|''The Philosopher's Stone'']], when I've wanted to not include "Harry Potter and..." in front of every link. I was intending to, sometime, go through with AWB and change them all - it's just a timesaver for me. I would argue that there's nothing wrong with this usage, although I would be very cautious about allowing HP1 to show up in the displayed article text. While I commend Tony Sidaway on his patience in changing all these links (as far as I can tell) by hand, might I recommend something like AWB to make the job so much easier?!? Happy-melon13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I do sometimes use a bot for searches, but a the moment I have no plans to perform automated edits. It was easy enough to do the edits by hand. --Tony Sidaway13:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A recently archived discussion concluded, according to WP:WAF, that articles about the content of the books must be written in the fictional present tense. Shouldn't this be priority, possibly on the to-do list, as I think just about every Project article uses the past tense? This could greatly help to make the articles seem less in-universe (such as these), and potentially deflect some of the waves of deletion nominations that we've seen recently. -Phi*n!x21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Project Goals
We have 9 Good Articles and 1 featured list. I think we should be bold, and shoot for 9 more good articles by december, and 1 more featured article...Gotta shoot high! What does everyone think? Any articles to propose? Judgesurreal77712:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds nice. I don't have any in mind, but I'll think about it. The big problem here is that the articles are generally really unorganized and in-universe. Many could use complete rewrites. -Phi*n!x01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. As I've mentioned above, I reckon Emma Watson is our best chance for the new FA. For the good articles, I think Severus Snape might well get there. Maybe Ginny Weasley? Luna Lovegood? It'd be nice to get at least one of the books, films or games in the list, and I'm sure some of the actors have enough content to be cut together into a GA. Happy-melon17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was sure that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) was all set to become a GA, but it's still B-class because it's lacking book/film differences, which are tremendously hard to cite and push POV to mention what were changes. So, if anyone can find some good, solid references as to what's different between the two, then we'd probably have our GA and be close to a FA; the rest of the article is well-referenced. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Of late, many characters have had secific book titles, under the appearances section, turned into 'Third to sixth books' etc, such as here, which is often unaccompanied by any change in the content of the subtitles. Personally I don't see why we can't have 'Appearances' broken down into sub-sections that document each book individually, just for clarity's sake. Is there any reasoning behind this change? asyndeton17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
In some cases a character's appearances in one or more books are so brief that separating them out into seven sections leaves one or more as a single paragraph or even single sentence. In Severus Snape, if the sections were split off by book the Chamber of Secrets section would be only one sentence long, with little hope for expansion. In these cases it makes more sense to lump them together to bulk out the section. Of course, the ideal final position is to have all articles contain enough material that separation by book is possible. Whether that's possible without allowing cruft to develop is another question. So in general, yes they should be broken up by book, but if that leaves some really short sections which can't easily be expanded, lump them. Happy-melon20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK I'm with you. But does it have to be done for characters who have more than enough in each book, such as Harry? And if 'consistency' is the reply, then my response would be that it's not consistent because Voldemort has different 'lumps' to Snape. asyndeton23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Reference styles
I'd like to propose a change to the standards we have for referencing the books in articles. On the one hand we have the [HP1][HP3][HP5] tags, which are currently 'endorsed' by the project in as much as they appear on the /Templates page. These, however, only reference to one book or another - they are a very coarse reference. On the other hand we have Error: {{PS}} missing name (help)[PoA Ch.{{{ch}}}][OotP Ch.{{{ch}}}] tags, which are not currently endorsed. However, these allow (indeed require) chapter-level referencing, which makes them a much more fine-grade reference style. It's relatively easy to find the phrase which is being referenced by [DH Ch.3]. It's an absolute pig to find the phrase which is referenced by [HP7]. I'd like to propose, therefore, that the [HBP Ch.{{{ch}}}][DH Ch.{{{ch}}}] style tags replace the older [HP6][HP7] style as the version 'endorsed' by the project. Comments are, of course, requested. Happy-melon20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Naturally the Error: {{PS}} missing name (help)[PoA Ch.{{{ch}}}] tags, etc., are more correct than [HP1]. It's been a while since that templates page has been updated. I think you should be bold and make the official change of endorsement -- [HP1] et. al. are not specific at all. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we just discuss this just a few sections above? We are not here to chew the food for the reader. Enough of us have read the book enough times to catch a mistake if necessary. I really don't think that "HP7" is really that 'coarse'. It seems pretty much to the point. I am somewhat opposed to the idea of including chapters. It sets a bad precedent that we don't need. - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a completley different topic, Arcayne: it meant the use of "''[[HP1|The Philosopher's Stone]]''" etc as piped links, not the use of templates.Happy-melon10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing about existence on the "templates" page implies endorsement. These matters are decided by consensus. I don't see a problem with the templates themselves, however, so much as the fact that they indicate a reliance on primary sources (the novels) that is somewhat unhealthy and should not be encouraged to the extent of facilitating reference to individual chapters. --Tony Sidaway07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, hence my use of apostrophes around 'endorsed' above. However, their use on the template page is endorsement in as much as newcomers to the project, looking for how to include a book reference, will find whatever's on the template page.
I'm not going to throw policy around in a civilised discussion, but I'm sure it says somewhere that references should be as detailed as possible. And I've noticed a worrying trend in recent AfD debates that is inclined to call huge sections of material "original research" because no references are given. References weren't included because it was thought self-evident that the material was drawn from the books; however if this stuff isn't referenced, people will call WP:OR on it. References to the books are inevitable, and I think when they're added (as they must be) they should be as detailed as possible. Happy-melon10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Melon, you will recall that I said I wasn't opposed to the idea of having the 'HP7' shortened form available as a reference point. I do have a problem with the excessive (and unnecessarily proactive) chapter inclusions. A lot of the aforementioned AfD hits that some articles have taken were triggered by a less than encyclopedic tone of the article, ie. stating more than the facts in a non-encyclopedic tone, implying a partisan edit. By reflecting the common ground of all our edits, we can pretty much avoid that hassle altogether. - Arcayne(cast a spell)10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I was never claiming that you were opposed to the 'HP7' shortened form, only that the above discussion was about the HP7 redirect rather than the [HP7] template reference. My point is that, while an unencyclopaedic tone is what first attracts the hawks to an article, that is never presented as an argument at AfD, because it's too easily overturned. Instead they argue that because there are no references, it must be all original research. Articles such as Legilimency and Spells in Harry Potter have taken a hammering because phrases such as "Occlumency is 'the magical defence of the mind against external penetration' " aren't given an appropriate reference. And my thoughts are that given that quote, the reference [OotP Ch.24] is more precise and verifiable than [HP5]. With the latter someone can claim that it's impossible to verify the reference because they can't be bothered to go through 765 pages to find the quote. If you give them the chapter reference they only have to trawl 10 pages or so. Plus if you only give people book-level referencing, they're not encouraged to reference as heavily. I'm sure I'd feel a little silly giving the same reference 10 times in a section. However, if you bring it down to chapter level, it encourages people to reference their work more carefully. Happy-melon11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nacissa Malfoy
Well, yesterday I moved the page without discussion because I didnt think it was that big of a deal! Aprantly I was wrong so I brought it to the discussion page. Personally, I dont think she is a significant enough character to deserve her own page. There is alot of information on the page, I do realize that. However, the ridiculous articles that are spawning off of Harry Potter are just going to far. Harry Potter is a very large thing, so many things in that "universe" do deserve their own articles because they have played an "important" role in the books, and other things. **Ko2007**11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, you were wrong; just removing an article becuase you think it is of little importance is not the way to go about things here. However, as I said on Talk:Narcissa Malfoy, I agree; any mentioning she may have in the first five books is not noteworthy and she is of little importance at best in the last two books. The whole page violates Wikipedia is NOT a plot summary. asyndeton00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any double redirects (which were corrected as a matter of priority), and all single redirects were on my list of things to do with my next pass of AWB, which I'll now hold until consensus appears. I'm not sure what you're referring to by "internal references". As I have said on your talkpage, Gordon, no consensus was presupposed, but I will present my arguments for the merge if anyone wishes to hear them. Happy-melon20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Err, what unilateral merge? What's it merging with? Do I need a supervising adult to witness this merging? Is it TV-MA? ;)
By internal references, I mean <ref>whatever</ref> that make footnoted references within an article. Main issue, though, is that List of Harry Potter parodies already exists. There are a helluva lot, and it was convenient to have both the list overview and some separate articles for the major ones (Trotter, Grotter, Wizard People, and don't forget Henry Potty and the Pet Rock) because merging the whole lot, in full detail, would make a humungous article. As to notability, don't fall into Anglocentric bias: the Tanya Grotter series is best-selling in Russia. Gordonofcartoon21:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there's actual discussion-consensus about the merge, but Happy-melon's sure got a good idea in doing so. A lot of these parodies don't seem notable enough to warrant articles on their own, but gathering them together into one article makes a lot of sense. However, even merged in one article, the parodies should be notable enough to warrant mention in the parodies article. As a ballpark estimate, I'd say if it's notable enough that it could be mentioned in Harry Potter fandom, it would be notable enough to mention in Parodies of Harry Potter (but should not be mentioned in both). --Deathphoenixʕ16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
A question
I asked this, but I am not sure where, or if anyone answered it In Hallows, when the goblin took the Sword of Griffyndor, it later turned up in Neville's possession. How and when did that happen? - Arcayne(cast a spell)05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Goblin took the sword in Gringrots just before they almost got caught. But then when neville was wearing " the hat " he asked for help. and just like in the 2. year the sword came to the hat to help a true Grifindor. Because It was godric Grifindors sword it didnt belong to the goblin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.230.112 (talk) 05:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Here,
Su: How did neville get the gryfindor sword, is there a link to the hat
J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!
J.K. Rowling: Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor's sword was transported into Gryffindor's old hat -
J.K. Rowling: - the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor's initially, as you know.
J.K. Rowling: Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.
If this discussion isn't actually related to editing an article, could you take it to e-mail? This is not a Hary Potter Q&A forum. 86.140.181.3811:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
New guideline on fiction: Delete Harry Potter-related articles?
I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to clean, merge and condense character lists
I previously mentioned this here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Archive_9#Minor_character_lists_need_massive_cleaning. There is a dozen (at least): minor lists that need a lot of work. People assume they are catchalls for any (or every) character ever, some examples include: someone sorted by the hat once and never mentioned again, or someone mentioned on a wizard card once. In my view: a popular subject doesn't justify many many minor lists of cruft, clutter and just any little note. These minor character lists are one place that need work. In my view: one minor character list is all that is needed at best. If the person had some sort of impact in a book (or books) in the series: discuss him or her, but if it's someone that was brief and non-notable: it doesn't belong, as Wikipedia isn't about completeness when coming to plot summaries. I think sometimes people think Wikipedia should be a 100 percent guide to subjects, but that's not very useful. There is a Harry Potter Wiki for more detailed character lists, so when in doubt: things should be moved there (if they aren't there already). I hope this gets some replies, with willing people to help. RobJ198104:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, especially with the newly adopted policies at WP:FICT, most of the prose on Harry Potter in Wikipedia should be moved to the Harry Potter wiki. I think one list of minor characters would be appropriate. -- Basar (talk·contribs) 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does any list of minor characters satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements? If we're saying they're minor within the Harry Potter universe they do not merit a Wikipedia article. Right now, the Harry Potter articles do depend on these minor character lists to a certain extent, but that's only because the there is way too much cruft. I say delete/transwiki the minor character info. Anything that requires info on minor characters should either be deleted or put in a different place. RobJ1981, you definitely are right in saying that people want Wikipedia to be an all-inclusive guide to Harry Potter. I personally love having all this Potter info at my fingertips, but as it stands, Wikipedia is not designed to be the place for that. -Phi*n!x23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think we could make that argument that they have combined notability. Not enough notability for an article, but notable enough for a few sentences. WP:FICT doesn't have specific guidelines for this, but it does say non-notable content can be merged to articles that are notable. In my mind, most of the character articles here should be removed, but I think some of the mid-level characters deserve a few sentences of mention in a combined article (perhaps like Crabbe and Goyle). -- Basar (talk·contribs) 01:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose one article with the more major of the minor characters would be okay. Of course, Crabbe and Goyle have enough in their sections to merit a small standalone article, so they will need some serious cutting down. -Phi*n!x15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand that comment above. Wikipedia not only has a good structure and good collection of information about HP, but this has sat here happily amusing, entertaining and informing readers for some years now. How can anyone claim that there is no place for it on wikipedia. people want it, have created it, and it is here. Why are you seeking to destroy a perfectly good information source? Sandpiper00:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A plot summary should be no more than three or four paragraphs (for example, four paragraphs for a complex plot such as that found in Charles Dickens' Bleak House). Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries. Plot summaries should not contain an explication of every subplot in the novel nor need they be told in the same order as the novel itself. Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve and one of the ways to make your article look like Sparknotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to detail the plot of every chapter rather than to attempt to truly summarize the novel. A summary details the most important events and character relationships in the novel.
Looking through the HP book articles, they all go way beyond this. They are, thankfully, consistently structured, and I know that there are exceptions to every guideline, but still, shouldn't they be cut down? I don't want to go cutting down articles without consensus, but if we start here, we might be able to start making the HP articles adhere better to Wikipedia policy. Thoughts? -Phi*n!x00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the guideline as written is wholly impractical and inappropriate, and indeed rather foolish. It needs changing, and we ought to set about replacing it with something rather more sensible which accepts the reality of the importance of including good summaries. But also bear in mind that most books, for which the guideline is presumably written, are closer to 200 pages than 4000. I think anyone wishing to improve Hp articles should concentrate on adding review and discussion material from external sources to balance the plot summaries, rather than upsetting that portion of a comprehensive article which we have already got. 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Sandpiper
How about a HP wiki?
I would suggest creating a HP wiki (akin to Wookieepedia or the Star Trek Wiki) and moving the sub-articles there. Then there would be no problem with the articles being written in an in-universe style, with notability, we could go into even more detail etc. I think this is the way to go since the HP universe deserves its own wiki and Wikipedia's not really the right place to go into minute details about fictional universes . Jiri Svoboda14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, which means it contains information. In what way is information about HP inappropriate content? I would firmly suggest that anyone who feels there is excessive coverage of one particular topic compared to others should concentrate on expanding thosae topics which they feel are under represented. I would lsoobserve that the wikipedia coverage of this subject, all in all, is rather good and comprehensive. It does not need trashing. Sandpiper23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every little note on subjects: and with many (if not all) popular subjects... there is massive lists, cruft (and so on) taking place. When a plot summary should happen: it's more of a detailed guide in many cases. Detailed guides belong on fan wikis, not here. There is some exceptions I suppose, but frankly there needs to be more limits on fictional things here (to put an end to the fancruft of Harry Potter, along with all other popular subjects). Wikipedia shouldn't be anarchy, period. This isn't about trashing: this is a matter of cleaning up. RobJ198105:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD template has history of past AfDs?
This template is getting a little too large, methinks. Anyone who really wants to look at past results of AfDs can just look at the article history. This AfD box is good as a link for people who want to !vote on HP AfDs, but people who want to know what happens to the AfDs should just put the AfDs or this AfD template on their watchlists. How long do old AfDs stay in the template before they are removed? A day? A week? A month? It requires unnecessary micromanaging and maintenance of this template. Thoughts? --Deathphoenixʕ13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who was responsible for both adding the opening/closing dates of AfDs, then the history of closed ones. I merely ammended the template when I saw the rather awkward formatting on the main page, to standardise the formatting and minimise the space taken up by the extra details. I am ambivalent about the inclusion of closed AfD results, although I can't remember any discussion over it. I've tried to keep the maintenance of the template as easy as possible, by simply moving a <noinclude> tag around, and I set a completely arbitrary limit of four AfDs in the closed list. I like the inclusion of the opening date. Happy-melon14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Including the open date is fine and looks like an improvement over the original. Including a separate section for prods is something I'm neutral on, though it can be useful. It's the recently-closed AfDs that I have a problem with, though I'm glad you have a set limit (four). I don't recall seeing discussion on this, though admittedly I've been relatively inactive on Wikipedia these past few months (and will probably continue to be relatively inactive overall). --Deathphoenixʕ17:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
BY THE WAY, please UPDATE THIS AS NEEDED! It will change constantly, and is very useful if kept updated :) Yes, shouting is in order, as this is exciting and I spent hours on it! :) Judgesurreal77703:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
THAT IS NICE! We could re-organize the category system with this index so that the list would update automatically. What do you think of that? – Basar (talk·contribs) 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a list of Harry Potter articles has already been in place for some time (since July 2005) as an index (also viewable as a watchlist). Please feel free to update the HP watchlist with new articles (you can indicate FAs or GAs using characters, letters, and so on). --Deathphoenixʕ01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Project Goal
Over at Wikiproject Final Fantasy, we found a very strong focus has been the goal of making all of our articles Good Article status. I propose this as one of the overall goals of the project, that way our efforts to cut down on unnecessary articles will ultimately lead us to create quality ones. Judgesurreal77717:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How can there be any other ultimate goal?? I would say that our theoretical goal should be FA class for all factual articles, and GA class for anything that, for one reason or another, can't make FA (ie fictional articles). Naturally, all-over GA class is a prerequisite for that, and an ultimately achievable goal (all-over FA class is highly optimistic!). Agree. Happy-melon17:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
An interesting goal that we might want to set for ourselves along the way is to produce some featured topics. We have so many articles that could be grouped in so many different ways, why not get them all GAs or FAs and get an FT? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I think that might be the best goal we could make because it is attainable and a great accomplishment. A topic like the seven books would be good because they are easier to source and we have pretty good articles on them. The films would be great, but we can't do that for a few more years. I think the characters would be good but more difficult. – Basar (talk·contribs) 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Its a good plan, we did a similar thing over at WP:SIMPSONS when we realised we could get every single episode from the first nine seasons up to at least GA level, and we've slowly been doing it. Same with the characters. But it really is an affective way of firing out GAs. Gran215:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on this a little, although not with a very high priority. My plan was to recreate the "Order of Merlin", as found in the books. Three grades: first, second and third class, IIRC. I was thinking gold, silver and bronze barnstars with a 'P' in the style of the Harry Potter title font (I've done some work on this). Third and Second order to be presented by individuals, First to be issued only by consensus. Any comments?? Happy-melon17:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I was pretty proud of my idea for a golden snitch, but that is definitely better. If only the medal associated with the Order of Merlin was described in the books or something . . . Although I think we could improve on the P modification. I don't know what, a wand, a wizard's hat, the deathly hallows symbol . . . – Basar (talk·contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Would do you guys think of making this barnstar a little humble? I don't think we need to have a separate barnstar that is only given out by consensus, so perhaps we can just give out a single Wikiproject barnstar, like the other Wikiprojects. How about we give the Wikiproject barnstar a humble title, that of "Order of Merlin, Fourth Class" to put ourselves below all three classes mentioned in the books? --Deathphoenixʕ19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a first effort at the second order. The snitch is distinctly mediocre. Of course I'd love nothing more than to use the 'real' snitch as seen in the photo in Quidditch. I htink it might be a bit cluttered: comments??
I think that, since there is nothing wrong with having three awards, it makes sense to copy the books' format. My thoughts about the first-order were merely a suggestion, and to keep the top order really special. Happy-melon20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's hilarious. Good work. It does seem a little cluttered to me too, but I'm not sure how I would rearrange it. Also, I think the barnstar would face forward and therefore the broomstick would be backwards. I like the three levels too; it just seems more fun to me. – Basar (talk·contribs) 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little busy these days to fire up the ol' Photoshop, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go when I have time. I could be wrong (and many apologies if I am!), but the "P" looks like it was taken from a screenshot or scan of the P in "Potter". Don't forget, guys, that you can't use copyrighted images (not even parts of copyrighted images). Everything used in the barnstars have to have the appropriate permissions, so try to create something on your own (it can even be a crappy attempt at a lightning bolt of similar quality to, say, a crappy stick figure :-)). --Deathphoenixʕ05:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking for the font they use on the cover of the American books and in the movies, it's called "Harry P" and it can be downloaded for free from Dafont. You can replace that screenshot with just your typing of the letter 'P' and can fancy it up (or you can make it HP or whatever). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, why not just use one of the items in the middle of the star, either the snitch or the lightning 'P'. The yellow ball doesn't look much like a snitch, I have a couple of images that could be used. Say the word (which, by the way, is ''Fnord''), and I will upload them here,and folks can choose one or the other. Either way, i would darken the star, so that the resulting mid-image isn't washed out. - Arcayne(cast a spell)17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple of examples I worked up. I am not really sure of the actual submission process, but I thought that we might want to choose one before I even think of doing that.
Image 1:
(edit conflict) Agreed, but these aren't final images. They are examples, 'proofs,' if you will. Anti-aliasing takes some time,a nd these are quick mock-ups. I f folk decide that one of these are the one to be used, I'll expend the effort. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Your efforts are far better than mine, Arcayne. I would !vote for the second set (as evinced by my eagerness to expand the collection). Happy-melon20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they look nice, but I have two questions: what exactly is it now, now that it isn't a golden snitch and does it make sense for the order or merlin award to have a snitch on it? – Basar (talk·contribs) 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's be honest, we're not basing it on the 'real' order of Merlin. We're just pinching the name. It's really the WikiProject Harry Potter barnstar, and the snitch is probably the most iconic Harry Potter object we could put on there. Plus it looks cool! As for why the snitch is silver rather than gold, I can't answer. But I don't think it's any the worse for it! If Arcayne can be bothered to turn it gold, good for him, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that it's silver. Happy-melon21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I went with silver bc you would see more detail on the snitch. Also - as seen by the efforts of the editor adding the different colored stars - the silver snitch is a bit more color-neutral, and goes with a variety of stars. I personally like the bronze one, myself. I don't think we'd have much seccess putting an entire order of stars past the approval process, but I am really rather unaware of the actual process.
Hearkened by this, i had previously been waiting for someone to knock out the Cruft-Eater's Barnstar, but they have apparently been scared away by what I wanted to do (or jsut got bored of making barnstars). I'll give it a whirl and drop it here for examination and comment when i finish up. - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I like that image. Even though it is silly, I still haven't been able to get over the idea that we are mixing the snitch image with the name order of merlin. I also am now concerned about the copyright of putting a snitch on our image as I think it may qualify as a derivative work, but I'm not certain. See Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Copyright Legal Question, Derivative work, and a notice on the upload page on the commons. If I am interpreting these things correctly, we'll need to remove a few of the HP character fan drawings that have been uploaded under a free license. – Basar (talk·contribs) 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, 'derivative work' is essentially a loophole-closer to catch people who are trying to rip off a copyrighted work. The argument that it guards against is "I've created an entirely new work of my own that quite coincidentallyhappens to be almost identical to that one over there". Explicit creations are copyrightable; concepts are not. In this particular case, the image of the snitch from HP1 would definitely be a copyright violation. An image of a ball with wings is almost certainly not. The fact that our snitch is silver rather than gold is actually a benefit in this regard. We'd probably get into more trouble if we wrote "the golden snitch" underneath it, but as it is, a judge or jury would have to be drunk to accept this as a copyright violation. All that as far as I'm aware. Before you ask, also AFAIA, the title "order of merlin" also can't be copyrighted because it's nowhere near detailed enough. There are one or two prior-art instance of "an award" floating around!! If an image of the award had been shown in the films, and our award was more or less an exact copy of the design, that might be troublesome. As it is, I don't think we have to worry any about copyright. Incidentally, I do not like the existing barnstar. It looks silly, as Basar admits, but I think that that makes it childish rather than humourous. Arcayne's barnstars are much more professional. Ultimately, I'd be proud to display one of the above on my userpage; I'd be slightly embarrassed to display the one to the right. And I think that's the acid test. Happy-melon18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I was actually referring to my inability to get over the incongruity between the name and the image as being silly, but Arcayne's are more professional, even though I don't mind the hat and wand one. I buy your rationale for the silver snitch, but I think the HP fan drawings that I have seen around still qualify as being derivative. So I think we've reached a consensus then? The three images of Arcayne's, touched up? – Basar (talk·contribs) 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A bit of background: the image isn't taken from an actual snitch, but is in fact based upon a baseball that I Photoshopped, adding a few hermetic wings from a Flash comic book and re-colored and stylized to look all metallic and whatnot. I appreciate the positive feedback, though. :)
I kinda like the dark metal and the bronze ones, but the choice isn't solely up to me. I am not sure how crufty an awards page might be, but we could use a sub-page to put all the designs on, numering them and then choosing one or two. I think three is a bit too much. The HP wikiproject is but one project. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If three is too much, we could have one design, but retain the three levels to still correspond to the books. I like the dark one too. – Basar (talk·contribs) 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between cruft in the mainspace and cruft on a WikiProject! There's no reason why we can't have a little bit of fun - no FAC for project pages! And it's not like it's going to be monitored: no one is going to say "oh you can't award the second class for that, that's only a third-class rewrite" - it'll be up to the common sense of the project members. Happy-melon18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
, in FAC candidacy
– Basar (talk · contribs) 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
First class
Second class
Third class
