Talk:Harry Potter (film series)/Archive 1

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Parentheses?
Why is this parenthesized? It would make more sense just to call it Harry Potter films. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SPOILERS
Someone please note that the film summaries contain MAJOR SPOILERS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.14.66 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC) wikipedia doesn't use spoiler warnings-Breawycker (talk to me!) 02:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Film Rights
I find it hard to believe that the film rights for one of the best-selling novels of all time was sold for only $2 million for the first four films. Rowling and the Queen of England are the two richest women in England. Rowling has not made all of her wealth solely from book sales. I believe she gets a certain percentage of the revenue from the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.147.35 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-1107-harry-potter-20101107,0,648457.story?page=2 confirms that bit of information. Note, its just from the first four films, so she surely made a lot on the films after that.  Also, the video games and merchandising must be massive.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AFI
For the 10th anniversary of the original list, AFI is redoing their list of the 100 best movies in order to add movies that have been released since the original list. All of the Harry Potters have been released since the original list and were not elidgeable, this time around they are. However, Prisoner of Azkaban is the only Harry Potter to be one of the 400 nominated movies. (All three of The Lord of the Rings were nominated) Shouldn't this info be added?

Harry Potter in Space?
There is a Harry Potter in Space listed in the release dates section claiming it will be out in 2012. I'm sure that that is graffiti, but on the very off chance that its not, I just want to know if anyone else knows about it.

I feel so stupid even asking if its real.

Its a funny but stupid idea,some guy just put there.

Nekrogeist 00:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
This section appears to be completely Original Research. Unless someone has a good objection, I'll remove it soon. SpigotMap 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Bond and Star Wars franchise
I removed this because it did not take into account inflation which gave absolutely no sense to the comparison.
 * It clearly says when not adjusted for inflation... meaning its a perfectly good comparison... Gran2 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

without adjusting for inflation the figures make no sense Spanglej (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

sold the rights to film / sold the rights to the characters?
The first paragraph under "Origins" states:

In 1999, Rowling sold the film rights to the first four Harry Potter books ... Rowling was hesitant to sell the rights because she "didn't want to give them control over the rest of the story" by selling the rights to the characters...

So, did she sell the rights to the characters? By selling the film rights, did she sell the rights to the characters? Or did she sell the film rights but NOT the character rights? Unclear.

--Drolldurham (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Response Section
The entire section seems to be mixed up -maybe biased- information that can easily confuse. I think this section should be taken out entirely, and replaced with a list of the director, screen writer, and other major staff changes for each film. thus far (Isn't the section basically arguing the differences between the movie's production staff?); somebody could always go and re-structure the whole section, though (I'm too lazy).

BombDiggady (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. The citation stating that the thrid Harry Potter movie is considered by fans and critics to be the best of the series (a statement that follows a rather biased description of it) cites a single review article about the fifth movie that barely mentions the third one. It can be argued that critics considered this one the best, but probably not fans. (I've witnessed, first hand, several complaints about it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.131.171 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at that one too. That statement in the article is weak at best. And if fans liked PoA so much as claimed, they didn't show it by buying tickets... it is the lowest grossing Potter movie by far. Jusda fax  00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The averages are completely off. When it say 89 it is really 86 and so on. You can also average the Yahoo ratings to be a B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.232.137 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

yates/hallows
the imdb page for deathly hallows is now listing yates as director —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

DH split confirmed?
the following is from http://www.evannalynchfans.com

"Well guys you will get the news first. Today I went down to Millennium Bridge to check out the filming for HBP. They were set up at the base of the bridge, there was quite a lot of equipment. I got speaking to one of the crew who was really friendly. There were about 120 extras standing on the bridge. There was a helicopter that was filming it all and coming down right close to the bridge to get the shots. The crew member told me that they will have stunt men jumping/falling into the Thames from the bridge later on (shame I couldn't stay to watch it).

They closed off the area when the scenes were being filmed but you could still see everything. They are only allowed to film every half hour, so as to allow members of the public onto the bridge. I then started speaking to the crew member about filming, I asked him about Deathly Hallows and YES IT WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO MOVIES!!! which will be shot continuously. There are also still location shoots to be done in London but he said he's not allowed to tell me where."

shall we mention this or wait for someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

mugglenet is now reporting this as well…… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew "Neville Longbottom" Lewis confirms DH split
its is currently (at the time of this post) at the top of mugglenet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Filming locations
Should we add a section about filming locations? Is there a particular building used for Hogwarts? --DearPrudence (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter series isn't the most successful film franchise of all time.
The top grossing film franchise is arguably either James Band or Star Wars, not Harry Potter. Just go to google, almost every site contradicts this hilarious claime. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So Variety are lying are they? I did Google it, as you suggested, and four of the first ten results it came up with quite clearly (in the title) stated that Harry Potter was the most successful film franchise of all time. Of course, when adjusted for inflation Star Wars comes out on top, but it's stated that the results are not adjusted in the article (or at least should be). Gran2 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Axactly. Adjusting the original star wars trilogy for inflation, triples those films numbers. In fact Guiness Book has the original Star Wars movie (episode IV) at 3.5 billion alone. It'll take Harry all seven of his films to equal the six Star Wars movies. Give it up buddy, the harry potter franchise will never, I repeat NEVER will touch the Star Wars' prodigious impact on society as a whole. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say it would? In fact what does "prodigious impact on society as a whole" have to do with box-office takings? When not adjusted for inflation, Harry Potter is the highest film franchise of all-time, as is shown by many many sources. Therefore I fail to what you argument is. I was able to find at least six sources in about 2 minutes that show the HP series as the highest grossing series. I don't see how you can dispute that. I agree it should be clearly stated that it's only the highest grossing because inflation is not counted, but that's still notable, and still the truth. Gran2 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this being debated to vehemently? "I repeat, NEVER will touch the Star Wars' prodigious impact on society as a whole"? Are you kidding? This isn't a forum for discussion about Star Wars' effect on society. Please keep your discussion limited to facts and not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.51.197 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

highest film series
The Harry Potter series is highest unajusted for inflatuation 2nd is james bond 3rd is star wars ajusted id james bond 1st star wars 2nd harry potter 3rd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.172 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

when wuill the DH films get their own pages?
... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When there is too much information on the film to fit on the current article it is on which is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It's not coming out for a long while, so there is not much point in making an article on it now. Jammy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When filming starts. Gran2 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, WP:FUTFILMS forbids articles on future films until they are actually filming: this acts as a threshold to all articles because of the numerous films that get trapped in years of scripting problems, like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While unlikely for these films, it would be biased to allow an article on it now. Alientraveller (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. It takes far too long to get the last films out. The current actors won't be teenagers but grandparents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.191.249 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire? I think Not
The books are set in the Scottish Highlands, not in Yorkshire, and I have never seen anything which implies, much less clearly shows, that the films are set in Yorkshire. Among other things, the Hogwarts Express is clearly seen going over the Glenfinnan Viaduct in three of the films. The viaduct is not only in Scotland, but famously so, giving the impression that its inclusion was designed to show the films' location: Scotland, not Yorkshire. It may well be that parts of the films were shot in Yorkshire, but they are not set there. Pelegius (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Material to be updated
No time to correct this, so if someone can be so kind:

The sixth, Half-Blood Prince is scheduled for a worldwide release on the November 21, 2008. Steve Kloves is returning as screen-writer.

Why Philosopher's Stone?
The name of the book is the Sorcerer's Stone as well as the movie. The name of the book should not be changed based on what the majority feels it should be called. The name should be changed back to the correct name of the Sorcerer's Stone. Tar9888 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Harry Potter franchise is British, we should go with British spellings and forms, which the first book/movie in the series in the UK was called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then it should say Philosophers stone (also knows as Sorcerers stone), just to clear up the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.222.180.213 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, for the same reason we won't include the title of the German or French translation for the title. &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

'''== Philosopher's Stone is incorrect. ==

It's Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone.
 * British work = British title. Gran2 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)'''

it was originally philosephers stone but it has a different meaning in america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.6.7 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the first book/movie has the sole and only title of "Philosopher's Stone".

Agreed, this should be fixed to at least say "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)" as the Sorcerer's Stone is the official title in the United States as well as the title "Sorcerer's Stone" is endorsed and approved by the author JK Rowling. It is biased to discount the validity of the "Sorcerer's Stone" title based solely upon the fact that it was the second, but extremely well known and accepted, title. I recommend fixing this as soon as possible.

This article is about the films, and therefore the appropriate title should be used. Which title are seen in the beginning of the film? I havent got it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.173.21 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then this should be disscused that in the certain film article itself because it's not necessary to change the link of it here if that's the name of the article in the first place. No need for redirection. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

half blood prince 153 min
says mugglenet and HPANA who claim to have got the info from WB distrubituors id edit it but itsn ot letting me

First movie title is incorrect
Please change the title of the first Harry Potter movie FROM Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone TO Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Theflume (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The original title of the book and the film is "The Philosopher's Stone". This was adapted for the American audience, as it was felt that the nuance of the word might cause an issue. This is mentioned in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), but perhaps more information about the reasons could be added?

❌  Chzz  ►  03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
editsemiprotected: Someone has written (multiple times) that the first Harry Potter film is entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but that is absolutely incorrect. The first movie is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo4h7 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Harry Potter is a British subject and so British titles have been elected to be used on all Harry Potter-related articles. This includes the title of the first novel/film/video game/etc... which was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the UK. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Producer David Heyman - also, this article needs work
Happened to read a July 21, 2009 L.A. Times article ( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/07/when-harry-met-pally-rare-photo-of-day-dan-radcliffe-met-rupert-grint-.html ) on producer David Heyman, and decided to include some information on the man who started the ball rolling on the films, including casting Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. I can't help but notice that this rather important article is still rated a 'B', and rightly so. How about a push to make it an 'GA'? It will be a challenge to do it right, including staying NPOV, but it should be done soon. Jusdafax (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

edit semi protected
i created an account so i could edit this page but i am new so it won't let me. on this page it lists the first movie as harry potter and the philosopher's stone but that is wrong. it is actually harry potter and the sorcerer's stone could someone please change it for me. thanx. --Babyjeep81 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It is only called Sorcerer's Stone in the United States. The actual title is Philosopher's Stone. faithless   (speak)  02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording and Punctuation
This section is intended to discuss wording and punctuation.

I will begin by saying I think it's unnecessary to begin the second paragraph in this article's Origins section with the sentence connector, "Therefore." The sentence should simply begin, "This led to Rowling's 1999 sale of the film rights..."

AlvinMGO (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As the author of the new first paragraph in the 'Origns' section, I put it in to ease the transition to what was the original start of the section. You are right, it's not needed, so I just pulled it. Jusdafax (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the text to use less marketing jargon. For example, in the Origins section, replace "Impacted highly favorably" with "Impressed".


 * Again, that's my wording. I've kept the L.A. Times interview with Producer David Heyman, and his quote seemed to be to be a bit more than just 'impressed'. After deliberation, and a little help from you, I've decided to put Heyman's actual quote of his reaction to meeting Daniel Radcliffe into the article.  I initially left it out, fearing reaction that it was "too much"... but you've made me come to conclude that what is there is too little.  After all, this is the guy (Heyman) who bought the rights to the 'Potter' books, talking about meeting the kid who wound up playing the title role in one of the biggest movie franchises of all time, so the L.A. Times quote should be included. See if you agree with me that 'impressed' is not strong enough to cover Heyman's reaction.


 * One other thing, please don't forget to sign comments here with 4 tildes (~). Jusdafax (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I misunderstood what you meant. Well, I'll add the quote anyway, and we'll see where it goes. Sorry 'bout that. Jusdafax (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section: Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione
Added a bit more material to the 'Origns' section and decided there was enough to make a separate section regarding this. Jusdafax (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Switched order of 'Production' and 'Plot' sections, also, more work still needed
After considerable thought, I think moving the 'Plot' section down one chapter gives the article a better flow. To be honest I'm thinking it could be moved down another one as well, but I'll leave that up for discussion. This article still needs a lot of work, as the flagship Wikipedia article for the world's largest-grossing movie franchise. How about a short section on the soundtracks, for example? By the way, it seems John Williams may be coming back for the last two movies. Jusdafax (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Soundtracks
Many thanks to Jonny7003 for starting the section. It's a decent start but needs some references. I've taken the liberty of tweaking the section a bit, feel free to undo any of my tweaks if you feel they do not improve the article. Jusda fax  17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1st Movie Title
The copy of the first movie that I own is called "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone" !Philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.212.187 (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Revamping the Box Office table
I'm thinking about re-doing the Box Office table to like these articles have it (The Twilight Saga (film series) and Saw (franchise), among many others) so it looks better, more organized and more informative. Also, I don't think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows should be listed in the tables as they have not bee released yet, so it's a bit redundant to have them in the table with "N/A". Also, having all the film's linked within both the Box Office and Critical Reception table is bordering WP:OVERLINK, so I would like to address that also. Any objections? Please state now or forever hold your peace. ;-) Thanks and I look forward into (hopefully) improving this article's quality. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice table Mike! I just removed some bolding per MOS:BOLD. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 00:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)`


 * Oh I did not know about MOS:BOLD. :-\   I'll need to change all the tables I've done, because I've bolded them all. Thanks for letting me know.  -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I know where I got the bolded titles, from here: Halloween_(franchise).  Since it's a GA, I figured that's how it was supposed to be done. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way it's a fine improvement to the article, and I salute you, Mike! Jus  da  fax  01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask if we should have the directors and the running times on the table.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * In the reception tables? I am not sure what those have to do with reception other than very trivial responses (one director was more favorable than another, longer films did better in the box office that shorter films). I think if we added them, we might step to far into POV or OR. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that data is already listed under the infobox. Box Office PERFORMANCE is for how the films did in the box office.  So why should the director and runtime go in there?  Some articles have (mostly franchise articles, that don't have film infoboxes) all of that listed in a table under "Production/Crew".  But again all of this is listed in the infobox, and it would be redundant to add it again in another table.  This user has done the same thing over at the Twilight film series, and I'm trying to get a 3rd opinion about it over there.  But I strongly object to this. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats exactly what it will do. Some people (including but not limited to me) see the director and the run time affect how the film is accepted and how the film does financialy. If we were to add one other table just for those purposes, it would be pointless. Why not add these things to a box where we already have the films listed? One box, more information. If it does turn out to be really bad, we can change it. Also, does anyone else see the references in its own box as a disturbence? I'll see if I can remove it while still keeping only that information while we try to agree on another (possible) box.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * All of this is in the infobox AND under Production. It's pointless and repetitive to add all of it in another table. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, can we PLEASE clear up the box office totals? Before the edit, we had the movies having over 5.4 million. Now all of a sudden, they have a total of 4.9 million. Thats a huge difference! Personally, I think we should use ONE reference to get all of our information so the total will be consistant. Box office Mojo lists Movie 1 as having $974,733,550 worldwide. It is listed on here as $976,475,550. I notice there are two references, one for foriegn BO and one for BOM, but BOM lists both domestic and foriegn totals, so why use two references? If we can do this, the references section can be condenced to where we can make note that all totals are from Box Office Mojo. User:ChaosMaster16/NewMoon is where a box office table is that I am working on, Mike please feel free to help me work on it. Once we get a good table where we both (and hopefully other people too) can agree on, we can use the table in The Twilight Saga and Harry Potter articles. I will leave what we have for both pages now until then.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * They way I see it the one site that has the most is the most accurate. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm just trying to make the totals as accurate as possible.  All articles that have the box office table (that I've encountered thus far) has it's OWN reference box. I think because it looks more organized like that and because sometimes film may have more than one reference.  Also another problem I have about your table, including the Director and Runtime is WP:ACCESSIBILITY.  The whole table is very wide. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in what sense is the word "billion" used? I'm asking as here are differences in meaning: some people teke it as 1.000.000.000 and some others as 1.000.000.000.000. Which would be the right meaning in this case?--Luke in spanish (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thousand million. For that reason the MOS recommends avoiding the word billion. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

First book/movie title inaccurate; Recommend Fix
The official request is that the references to the first book/movie of the series be changed from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)".

The title of the first book/movie in the United States is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", not "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". I fully understand and recognize that the British title of the book/movie is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" but it should also state in parenthesis, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (aka Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)". This will make it so there isn't any confusion on the readers side about the title and will fully acknowledge that this book/movie legitimately has two widely-accepted titles. The title "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was approved and endorsed by author JK Rowling upon its use in the United States and is widely recognized by United States readers/viewers as its title. It would be extremely biased to omit this title based solely on the fact that it is not the 'first title' or isn't the 'British title'. Therefore, I would request that an edit please be made that informs (as Wikipedia is created/designed to do) the reader that the book/movie is known by both titles.

Several official sources have been provided that show "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" as a legitimate title of the book/movie.

US Book Publisher Official Page: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/stone/

US/International Movie Producer Official Page: http://www.warnervideo.com/harrypotterdvd/

IMDB Official Page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/

Cotrevor (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ✅ as a, name in brackets in the title field would have made a very long section title.  Ron h jones (Talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Buget problem
The top chart of the article isn't including half blood princes buget it should be 905 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.172 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No photo
Just noticed the infobox photo of the boxset (of movies 1-6) was deleted from the Commons, and therefore was removed as a redlink. I went looking for the old photo of boxset 1-5 (which I preferred anyway) but it too was deleted from Commons. No permissions, it seems. I then looked through Commons for a photo to represent this rather important Wikipedia article. The existing shots of Daniel Radcliffe out of character don't cut it, in my view. At the least, we need a good-to-great shot of the three lead actors, I'd think, or we have to get permissions for professional photos that exist. I'm hoping someone who attended one of the HP film premeres has a shot that they are willing to upload to Commons and donate - yes, give away for free. Or, as I say, ideally (heh) some employee of Warner Bros. who has permissions and a good shot. Failing those - any ideas on where to go from here? This article needs photo(s)! Jusdafax  11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the box of films 1-6 is back, and even tilted so we can see Ron and Hermione on the edge. Good! I, ah, assume you have permissions? Thanks. Jusdafax  08:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia doesnt know harry potter
i just wanted to somehow point out on this site that wikipedia has the first book in the harry potter series name as the philosophers stone... and its not its the sorcerers stone... i no longer find this site reliable, if they cant even get a book name right... i think this website needs to do more research before posting its imformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.16.181 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the title of the original book in all countries except the United States and India, where it is called the Sorcerer's Stone. Because HP is a British subject, we use the British version of titles. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter 3D announcement
Warner Bros. said it will release the next two "Harry Potter" films in 3D.

Ctdaniels2 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please correct the errors on the page
This is to the editor of this website. In the US the first movie is called "Harry Potter and Sorcerer's Stone". The first book may have been released in other countries under different titles but if you want people to find this information useful then please correct the errors. I find this page no useful and very unreliable sorce for Harry Potter, until the errors are corrected. I have made several attempts at correcting them and can not get in to correct the errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyP331 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This comes up a lot, but the article clearly states (in the individual plot sections for each movie) that in the U.S. and India the title for the first film  is 'Sorcerer's Stone'.  The question really becomes one of 'should Wikipedia be USA-centric' and the decision has been not to be.  I personally have no strong feelings about the issue except to feel that the decision has been made, and shouldn't become a political football.  Let's just settle on the way it is and move on. Jusdafax   16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ThePidge001, 2 April 2010
Hi im telling you there is a error on this page. Harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban has made 800 million worldwide and on the grossing for the hole series should have 5 million more instead of the grossing being $5,412,504,276 it should be $5,417,504,276. thanks i no ive made a few errors but this is not one.

ThePidge001 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide a reliable source and the exact text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
"Alfonso Cuarón's approach was more stylized and lively, using many handheld long takes and dark uses of colour. Unlike Columbus, his dislike of expository dialogue or explanation of back story (most notably the Marauder's story) led to criticisms of his approach being "style over substance". His re-imagining of Hogwarts and student attire caused some to feel the continuity of the series had been hurt, though some find it to be closer to the descriptions in the novels. Furthermore, his quick fire pacing led to a shorter film, leading some to call Cuarón "lazy". However, the film is often perceived by fans and critics to be the best in the series."

This paragraph doesn't specify what film is 'the best in the series' and the citation dosen't mention the fans feelings towards the film --78.149.14.134 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire "Reception" part of the article is ridiculous. "Some" call Cuaron "lazy"? "Many critics" said Half-Blood Prince was "the funniest of the series"? Since no decent sources for these claims of critical consensus are provided, I think it's obvious that somebody is stating their own opinions as fact. I say delete the whole section and let the critical consensus and box office chart speak for itself. 98.161.53.124 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.231.177.49, 10 May 2010
the first harry potter movie is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. not Philosopher's Stone.

72.231.177.49 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Only in certain countries. In the United Kingdom, where the series is from, and throughout most of the world, it is titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actors who played Dumbledore in the "Infobox film"
In the infobox for the films, it is put to where it shows the differences in directors, producers(etc). But it doesn't show the differences with Richard Harris and Micheal Gambon as 2 different actors who played Dumbledore. So, could someone who can change the infobox put it to where it will show that difference so it will look like the example of the infobox shown(on the left).

To whoever changes it, make that change to the cast in the infobox as shown above or some other way that will show the differences. And I would like to give my thanks to whoever responds to this and changes it to what it needs to be. 75.91.5.34 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

✅ and thanks for pointing it out. Jusdafax  18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. 75.89.207.39 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ Church incorrectly labeled as filming location for The Great Hall in Hogwarts
Someone with experience in editing wikipedia should remove the mention that Christ Crurch in Oxford is used for filming the scenes involving the Great Hall, and remove the photo of it (which appears to the right of the text in the short summary of "Goblet of Fire". Christ church main hall was merely the inspiration for The Great Hall, and actual filming takes place at the Great Hall set in Leavesden Studios. The set has been there since filming started in 2000.

Or actually, to be more informative, change the text under the photo so it reads something like "...( (The Great Hall).. was inspired by the hall in Christ Church..." Along those lines.

--Cohf88 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ thanks for the heads up. Jusdafax  19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Reception' section needs a lot of work
As others note above, this tagged section is riddled with uncited POV. One suggestion was to deep-six the whole section. I think some of it can be salvaged, but I welcome other thoughts, as this sub-topic can be a bit touchy. Jusdafax  20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - I see no interest, and having given warning here and waited a couple months, I will be tackling this section asap. Jusdafax  21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

'Foreign'?
In the table for box office totals, it has a column named 'Foreign'. In any international context this doesn't work. When 'foreign' here includes the UK, this is ludicrous (though not unexpected). The source may use the term, but this should be changed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, and it is done thanks to you. Good observation. Jusdafax  17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Go back to semiprotection?
Looking over this page's history, little to no IP edits have stuck and about a hundred have been reverted since pending changes was applied. It seems like an awfully big waste of our resources for the little gain from a rare constructive edit that we don't have to revert. Am I missing something, or have the pending changes not helped this article at all? If the latter is the case I say we go back to semiprotection.  Them From  Space  04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are several reasons to do so, including numerous attempt to change the first book title to the American version, etc., and the run up to the next movie release later this year. It will just get worse. Jusdafax  09:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

✅ 6 months!... Thanks to admin HJ Mitchell. This will take us past the next release in the series. Thanks also to Themfromspace for the suggestion and Aristophanes68 for the backup. Jusdafax  18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a request at WP:RPP. Jusdafax  18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the vandalism started right back up as soon as the article's semi-protection expired, so it is now indeffed. Jusdafax  13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.99.152.117, 16 July 2010
On this site "Harry Potter (Film Series)", they have incorrectly referred to the first movie and book as "Philosopher's Stone". It should be "Sorcerer's Stone". Please fix!

74.99.152.117 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, there's a longstanding consensus to use Philosopher's Stone in this article as that was the title of the British release and the original title of the first book. Look through some other conversations on this talk page to see this point reiterated.  Them From  Space  23:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well being as the book was released as Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone it's only right to refer to it as that being as most people know the story by that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.96.255 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Harry potter films logo history
I thought of making a new section of the harry potter wiki franchise page with a section called logo history and it starts like this: The logo of the first two films of harry potter which is light toned and directed by chris columbus was gold,The latter films which were dark toned starting with the prisoner of azkaban till deadly hallows has the logo silver with a bit dark tone in it. Do you accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the change in the logos, and find your comment of mild interest, but don't think it merits inclusion as a section or elsewhere in the article. Not sure where it would go if not in the article though. This is all just one editor's opinion, however - let's see what others think. Thanks for asking first, which truly shows good faith. Jusdafax   18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC).


 * I would agree with the above poster that this is of mild interest. However, the logo history doesn't appear to be notable enough for the article unless you have a reliable secondary source which discusses the logos. If you're only basing your discussion upon your own observations of the logos, that is ranging too close to original research or at least original synthesis. If you have any secondary sources, that would help a lot in overcoming my objection. Princess Lirin (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We have one now:http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/explore-the-wizarding-world-harry-potter-logo-designs/Belrien12 —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC).


 * I notice there is a related Harry Potter logo in the infobox of the Wikipedia article for the Harry Potter theme park in Florida. Do you (or anyone else here) know one or more versions of the film logo(s) that could be uploaded cleanly (with all needed permissions, if any) to Wikimedia Commons, after which it could be included in the article and a brief mention of the stylistic changes added in that context? It would be way down in the body of the article, of course, but having the logo might add to the visual appeal. Jusdafax  21:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Stone
Sorry, I'm not totally up regarding the original old British releases of the books, but Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the ONLY title I have ever seen. Do you know what complete fools you look having the Philosopher's Stone listed there?

Tell me, what title is this sold under since it was written? What title is the film? This Philosopher's title should NOT be anywhere mentioned except as a footnote that Rowling originally called it that. I've seen the arguments above in the posts over the summer. Stupid, I must tell you frankly. That ought to be changed, and this is exactly why NO ONE trusts WIkipedia at all.75.21.111.206 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The film was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the United Kingdom. It's not just the original title of the book. In the United States, you won't see that title being used, but it does not mean it is invalid. We needed to go with one or the other for article titling purposes, and discussion determined the UK title as the key choice. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly right Erik. Those of us interested in working on this article will just have to get used to those who, for whatever reason, cannot accept the consensus here. Thankfully the article is semi-protected at the moment, since the next movie release is nearing which will bring many new editors here.  Jusdafax   10:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this is a silly argument! JK Rowling, the author of the books called it the Philosophers Stone, and the American distributers changed that. Just because it was changed in America, it doesnt mean that the rest of the world would follow. It was released in the UK first, and NOWHERE in the film do they say the alternative title. 90.198.112.164 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

United States Revenue should be renamed
I'm just curious in the Box Office section, under US totals, were the Canadian totals removed from these US totals? If not, it should read "US & Canadian Revenue" unless you want to go ahead and add the Canadian totals to the "rest of the world" although it is highly unlikely one would be able to find the Canadian totals of all the films as those sums are usually grouped together with American totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.50.8 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ - Good catch, as like you I believe the box office totals of the U.S. and Canada are usually grouped together. This is sometimes called "domestic" which is meaningless here, as the the films are shot in the UK. I have changed the headings in the Box Office tables from 'United States' to 'North America', and noted this in my edit summary. Hopefully this will satisify all parties! Jusdafax  17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.234.163.132, 16 November 2010
No action necessary --Ckatz chat spy 

The first Harry Potter movie was the "Sorcerer's" Stone,I believe; not "Philosopher's" Stone. 24.234.163.132 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The film was known by that name in the US and India. Elsewhere, it was known by it's original title, and consensus is to use "Philosopher's" here. There are extensive discussions in the talk page archives regarding this matter; please feel free to ask if you would like some assistance in finding them. --Ckatz chat spy  01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like, uh, two sections headings back? Jusdafax  22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Change TBA with N/A
Technically, the data (where it says TBA) is not "to be announced", but rather "not available" or n/a.

Hyperkobling (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception comparison length
Does the reception area really need to compare the Potter film series with 22 other franchises? I find that more than a bit excessive. Couldn't it be cut down to maybe the 2-4 largest fantasy/adventure series? And beyond that the entire section feels a bit heavy. Coinmanj (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I cut it down to five other franchises, which should be enough. Like you I am most displeased with the section, and have been hoping someone would take a whack at improving it.  Sooner or later I'll take a deep breath and start, if no one else feels up to it. Jusdafax   05:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the 1st Harry Potter Movie Title wrong.
On the Wikipedia Harry Potter page it states that the first Harry Potter movie is Harry Potter and the "Philosopher's" Stone when it is really Harry Potter and the SORCERER'S Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.198.197 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article about the film uses Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone so that is what is used here. If it is incorrect you need to take it up at Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amused yet exasperated explaining this to new editors who can't be troubled to simply read even a few talk page sections back. Consensus has been established to use the UK and India release title, not the North American. Jusdafax   19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's known as "Philosopher's Stone" in the UK, but we know it as "Sorcerer's Stone" here in America. Open your eyeballs and go to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.154.228 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
This article is edited too often by those who don't bother with edit summaries. I'd like to remind editors to do so as a courtesy to those who monitor changes here. The next six months will be crucial as we come down the road to the last cinematic release, so please take the time to fill out the little box at the bottom, even if it is just a word or two to indicate a change to the box office totals, etc. Thanks. Jusdafax  20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Article clean-up
I have recently begun to tidy up the article by including new information and sections, notably the "Release Section". However, the "Reception" section is awful as it does not contain any sources. Could someone please help to clear it up. If not, then I shall do it when I have time. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have improved the "Reception" section. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be good work at first glance. My only major suggestion at this time would be to add some sub-topic headings to the section, to break up the "text block" effect. I'll stand by and await further developments.  Again, please add a few words to each edit summary, so that individual edits can be identified easily without having to open each one up, which is time consuming.  Thanks for taking this section on, it has been in dubious condition for some time. Jusdafax   19:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll give it a try. And I'll use the edit summary more often. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may make a suggestion. The critical reception is too overly detailed for a film series article but is useful and sourced information to stand out on it's own as a article and should comply with guidelines to be one per WP:Article size. The hardest part is just figuring out the title name. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's my test edit on how the split articlewould look. Up next a test edit of trimming the film series article if the article is created. The test edit will be reverted like this one. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have shortened the section of Reception. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Still looks like it's deserving of it's own article though. By the way here's what it looks like here. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the idea, even though the information is just a mash-up taken from different Potter film articles. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest different wordings and not a lot of paraphrasings. The article should mainly reflect on the critical comparisons of each film. I think I can trust you on making the article full potential since you were doing it on the film series article. :) − Jhenderson  7 7 7


 * Again, so far so good. At first I wasn't sure I liked the split, but it obviously makes sense given the length the section had gotten to.  Obviously there are some rough edges in the new split-off article, but those can and will be polished as we go.  I am quite encouraged! Jusdafax   00:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Doing my research though. I do think we need to do a little copy-editing due the information being similiar to the individual film articles. We can't just use ALL the same information that we have on the individual films. That makes it a little redundant even if it was even on this article. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is one area that can and will improve, I am sure, and HH had already brought it up. Care should be taken not to 'bloat' the new article, however. Jusdafax   01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good because I've discussed it to him and even recommended him some ideas. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-ordering the sections - an improvement or not?
I am not very happy with the latest changes. Previously there was a chronological flow, with pictures, etc. I'm pretty tolerant but I think it is not getting better, but worse. Jusdafax  00:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A member placed the "Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione" section into the "Cast and crew" section and that's completely fine since it relates to that section more so than it would individually. I don't see a problem with the article's structure. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is my main objection, as the article flowed better in my opinion the way it was... Casting those roles at the start of the filming was a big deal, and quite unlike the rest of the roles, which is why they deserved a stand-alone section at that point in the article. It fits in well with the rest of the chronology and is just more logical as an article that is readable.
 * Additionally the removal of the three pictures to lower down creates a text-only effect up top which is not as appealing. I also think the studio picture, which seems to have replaced the excellent 'Hogwarts Express' shot, is hardly an improvement. I will not revert any of these changes without some feedback.  But I urge a reconsideration of these recent changes over the previous stable version of the first several sections of the article. And again I thank you for your ongoing work in the troubled sections, as previously noted. Thanks. Jusdafax   13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I am seeing your point about the casting section and the flow of the article. I am on the fence about that to be honest. However I do not agree about the "excellent" Hogwarts Express shot. I feel that the Leavesden Studio shot is much more relevent to the article as it is placed under the production section and notes where said production occurred. The Express picture is less fitting as it is just a screenshot from the first movie, which bares no relevance to that section in comparison with the studio shot, which illustrates the location of actual production and filming. And it is a pleasure to be working on this article, which is about something I love. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever you feel looks better. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Judasfax you seem to have stated that you think that certain cast section that was moved deserves it's own title. Well maybe it can have it's own title as a subsection while still being in the cast and crew section and the other more minor casts along with the crew. Just a suggestion, I am not sure of the titles, but I am sure you can figure it out. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer to both the location and the title of the section 'Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione', as well as the visual impact of the three pictures of them at that point in the article. I am glad HH sees my point; the previous location follows the timeline of the origins of the series.  As for the train, well, I can live without it, but perhaps it could find a home towards the bottom?  Thanks. Jusdafax   02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I knew what you were talking about, I was the one that moved it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The train image would have to be lined up with a section that is relevant to said image. The only section it would fit into would be the "Plot" section, as the image is a screenshot of the film and, to some extent, reflects part of the plot: Harry's journey to Hogwarts for the first time. However, that would mean the section would be too tight as there is already an image there of Oxford Church. So, we either get rid of the Oxford Church image and place the Hogwarts Express image there instead or we abandon the Hogwarts Express image altogether and keep the Oxford Church image.


 * As for the casting section, I say we should leave it like that for the time being and should any other user have a legitimate problem with it, then we can discuss it again. But I do see your point, Jusdafax, however the image and information makes sense both at the top (chronologically) and in the casting section (alongside relevant information). I see that the "Directors" section includes information spanning from 2002 (Columbus' work on COS) up to 2007 (Yates' appointment as director). The same applies for "Scripts", "Cinematography", "Editing", and especially "Music". So if we were to use that formula and follow that pattern, then the information and the image of the trio under "Cast and crew" should be left as it is. I do hope I made sense. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see it was moved back. I am not sure of the reasons of the "advantages and disadvantages" is. But it does seem to fit now maybe because it is a section inside the Origins section this time. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are eight films, not seven.
I had to fix this again. I think that explains it well. The 7th book had its story split into two films. That makes eight films, not seven.  D r e a m Focus  23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the talk page of the Deathly Hallows, as this matter is unresolved. Do not let your opinion on this matter reflect or influence any edits you may make to related articles, such as this one. Do not revert the edit again, as the current state should be stable until a conclusion has been reached on whether it is 1 film split into 2 parts, or 2 separate films. Thank you. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One film made from the first chapters, and another film made from later chapters. How exactly is anyone confused by that?  The films are released separately, so that's two different films.  You need to buy two different tickets to see them, and I doubt they'd sell both DVDs together for the price of one film.  Most seem to favor the change.  Anyone who wishes to participate go to    D r e a m Focus  10:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is confused, there are just various takes and views on the situation. David Heyman stated that Deathly Hallows is treated as one film split into two parts and that is the only reliable source we have to back up this view. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If he split them into two parts, that means two different movies. Did they film the entire thing at once, and just decide it was too long so split it like that?  Or was it filmed separately, released months apart, as two separate films?  Just because the source material was in one book, doesn't mean its one film.  Its two films made from one source material, to cover everything.   D r e a m Focus  10:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Deathly Hallows, as a whole, was filmed in one long shoot from Jan 09 - June 10 and treated as one motion picture. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lord of Rings films were filmed at the same time. Doesn't make them one movie.  It isn't treated as one motion picture.  It is in fact treated as two different films as others have mentioned, by copyright, advertisements, ticket price, etc. The films will be reviewed as separate films as well.   D r e a m Focus  19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the edit reflecting that this is indeed eight films; some editors are mistaking the concept of a single production for a single film when this is clearly not the case. You don't need two tickets to watch one film, and you don't have two copyrights for one film. It is one production split into two films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added two high quality reliable sources from the LA Times and Wall Street Journals that explictly state the series consists of eight films so hopefully this will be an end to the matter unless someone can provide a reliable source stating this is only a seven film series: Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion on the Deathly Hallows article. A conclusion has not been founded and so you should refrain from adding viewpoints to the article which do not reflect the said conclusion. Official word from Producer David Heyman about the split is, I would say, much more valid than newspaper articles. You can see the reference on this article or the Deathly Hallows article. But, for the time being, please do not revert the original edit. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No...the discussion on that article is about whether to split the article which has very little bearing on this discussion about content. This discussion is about your opoosition to including reliably sourced information, which goes against Wikipedia policy.  If this is only a 7-film series, please provide the sources to back that up since all teh sources that actually mention the number of films says there are eight. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I have said time and time again that a conclusion has not yet been made. See the Deathly Hallows article on whether it is a one part film or a two part film. There are two sections holding such a discussion which ties in with this discussion. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is made by reliable sources, not by Wikipedia editors. If you remove reliably sourced content again to push your own point of view you will be reported for disruptive behavior. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For goodness sake, I have said all I have to say on this matter. I am alerting an administrator to sort this out. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An admin will tell you exactly what I am telling you. The claim is sourced by reliable sources so it is a legitimate conclusion.  If indeed there is a counter-claim that there are only seven films then you will need to source that too if is going to be included.  If both numbers can be sourced then both should be included.  We don't cherry-pick our content and sources to suit our own point of view. WP:NPOV obliges us to include all perspectives, so if reliable sources claim there are eight films then we include that, and if reliable sources say there are seven films we include that as well. Betty Logan (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An admin has the authority to conduct a balanced point of view, without bias and to present his/her view on the matter and therefore will not tell me exactly what you are telling me. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I tend to shy away from conflict these days, so I have refrained from getting involved here. I will say this: I want to see resolution if that has not already been reached.  I have no strong feelings on this one (7 films vs. 8 films) as it is just words, but it is my view that the average reader will not understand the finer semantic points of why the seventh book only counts as one film when it was released as two different cinematic releases.  If the decision is made to call it 7 films, care must be taken to make that clear. Thanks, Jusdafax   18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are definitely eight films as any source will claim. If there is a discussion about whether or not the final two films should be covered with one article or two, that discussion has no bearing on what this argument, as this is about the number of films and not the number of articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I understand that this discussion is not about the article split or whatever, but is about the wording to be used in this article regarding number of films in the film series. Again, I want to reach a consensus and move on, and don't care what is decided, as long as it is done at a reasonable pace and with civility.  Threats to report people are not helpful. Jusdafax   19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue more than anything is that it's not actually an editorial decision; we always go with what the sources say, so the actual resolution is whether we adopt a stance that contravenes Wikipedia policy or not, which ultimately we wouldn't be allowed to do. The problem above wasn't so much that Dream Focus and I were imposing our point of view, it was that Hallows Horcrux was removing a sourced claim, which also happened to be the only sourced number. If it were not sourced then we would have been no more 'right' than Hallows. If as Hallows Horcrux says, the director considers the final two films to be just one film then that is a point of view that should also be included in the article with an appropriate source, but since he didn't invent and define the word "film", his view doesn't take precedence over the established usage. If there are reliable secondary sources out there that say there are only seven films (which also include the second part) then we don't choose, since WP:NPOV stipulates we have to give equal consideration to both points of view; so then we would include both numbers with their respective sources and adopt an appropriate phrasing that does not favor either number.  The thing to remember is that even though as editors we may have a preference for whether it is seven or eight films, our opinion is actually irrelevant as a documented fact on Wikipedia. The heated incident above was unfortunate, I have no desire (and I am sure Dream Focus feels the same) to see a hard working editor sanctioned but obviously removing sourced information in favor of unsourced content is unacceptable; the resolution is very straightforward: we include only sourced numbers, and all sourced numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, after my last post here, I came across this: which made me laugh out loud. The first sentence seems to almost perfetly act as a ref for the position taken by you and DF: "Ten years and seven movies later, the series based on J.K. Rowling's epic tale of the boy wizard comes to an end with the eighth film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2."  Looks like I will have to move into your camp, as it does not get much clearer.  HH, looks like you lost this one, but please know that I for one thank you for the work you have done here, which takes us a lot closer to GA status, and I hope you will carry on. Jusdafax   05:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Audio and Text Box
Why has the Audio File and the Text Box containing a statement from Warner Bros. executive Lorenzo di Bonaventura been placed in the "Scripts" section? It has made that section all cramped and cluttered, along with the picture of Leavesden Studios. I have tried to edit, but the the box and audio will not move to their original place in the "Origins" section. If someone could please edit or sort this thing out, but leave the image of the studio in its original position. Thank you. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it in cquote2 and it works fine now.   D r e a m Focus  19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing photos and quote box conversion - result: drab article
I see that now both the studio photo and the Hogwarts Express photo have been removed. The Hogwarts Express shot is much more dynamic visually in my opinion, as I noted above. It was also a stable part of the article for quite a while. Any objections to putting either or both photos back in? I have also commented previously that there are now no images for quite a ways down from the start of the article; in my view this creates a wall of text that is not as satisfying visually. Additionally, the colored quotebox has been changed into a drab "big quotation" that interrupts the flow of the read, instead of being a separate box aka sidebar as it was for a long time. I can't help but feel this is not an improvement, and wonder if there are objections to restoring that back the way it was. Jusdafax  18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The studio image is much more deserving as it serves the purpose of presenting, in a visual form, the location of filming and production. The Hogwarts Express image, while visually nice to look at, does not. I would like to add the studio image back as well as convert the quote back into a box as you stated. However, there doesn't seem to be much room for the image as the audio file below the expanded infobox is in the way; if we place the image here, the section would become too clustered. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added the appropriate image back into the article, and thankfully it does not cause any cramp to the section. I have no issue with the quote, but if you feel it necessary to revert back to its original form, then that's fine. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Title of 1st Harry Potter film is incorrect
It's "Harry Potter & the Sorceror's Stone" -- not the "Philosopher's Stone" 130.64.76.203 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article uses whichever title is used by the main film article so this isn't the place to suggest a change. I imagine the title choice is discussed on the Philosopher's Stone article if you want to know the reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from RajatGod512, 25 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Please Change Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows : Part 1 gross US: $291,340,768 Outside North America : $651,100,000 Worldwide : $942,440,768

RajatGod512 (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to put in box office update requests for the current film. It will always be done on a weekly basis while on general release. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

interwiki
German interwiki is: de:Harry Potter. Please add. --78.55.210.90 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Radi0dave1, 27 January 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_9377000/9377251.stm - This link (video interview) can be added as a reference to Stuart Craig being nominated for Oscar for Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

Radi0dave1 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done:None of the rest of the awards nominations are sourced, and don't really need one, because this information is not really likely to be challenged. If we were going to site it to anything it would be the official Academy Awards database (the link for which can be found on the relevant page for the award).Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception
The rotten tomatoes top critics reception needs updated for some of the films.The first film's top critics is now 77% and the 2nd film is now 75% on the website.Prisoner of Azkaban is 93% and goblet of fire is 91% on the top critics metre.The 5th film is now 71% and Half-Blood Prince has went down to 87% and Deathly hallows part 1 is 67%.I have no idea how the critical recption has went down, but if you could change it that would be great, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.98.117 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?
I think the article has come a long way in the past six months, and I'd like to thank everyone who has worked on it. It is time to discuss what this article still needs to become a GA. I'd like to think it is pretty close, but if anyone feels otherwise, let's talk it over. With the final film only a few months away, the article deserves a shot at GA, as there will be a lot of eyes here this year. Thanks again, Jusdafax  00:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do recommend peer reviewing it. And FYI it does look like a pretty decent article. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can tell you for a start it will automatically fail the GA test for reference formatting. All the references should follow a standard format and provide full referencing details i.e. title, publisher, url, accessdate are a bare minumim for websites, but for journalistic pieces the author and publication date as well. There are many references, especially from 30 to 50 that just provide links but no referencing details.  That needs to be sorted out.  Besides that I don't see any obvious fail points.  The only possible weakness I can identify is a lack of box office analysis accompanying the chart to put the data into some sort of perspective. A lot of the data is self-evident and the chart may be sufficient, but there is a preference for charts to be accompanied by prose in good articles.  But overall, once the referencing has been addressed I think it would stand a good chance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is good to hear! In other words, we have meat on the bones, we just need a haircut and shave.  I am not the strongest at ref cleanup, but I can take a stab at it this week if no one else is able.  I'd like to get moving asap, due to the final film in the series being released in a few months.  This article will be read by many, so let's pretty it up and put our best foot forward! Thanks,  Jus  da  fax   00:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.67.105.29, 3 March 2011
The name of the first movie was Harry Potter and tThe Sorcerer's Stone, not the Philosopher's Stone,

68.67.105.29 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hogwarts castle section
A section has been added to the article describing Howarts Castle. It is completely unsourced and entirely original research, so I think it should come out of the article. I think there is possible scope for a section on set design within the production section, and certain aspects of the castle could be covered there, but as it stands now I think an entire section devoted to the castle is excessive and should be removed unless someone is planning on doing something with it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree fully, and yanked it out, though with a nice edit summary explaining why. If the section had decent refs it might not be a bad idea as a subsection in the production section, though a case could be made that it more properly belongs in the Hogwarts article, with a direct from here.  By the way, the contributor has been blocked as of this posting for not playing nice with others in article building.   Jus  da  fax   04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Leavesdenliving, 18 May 2011

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 03:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

UK Attraction
In March 2011, Warner Bros. announced plans to build a tourist attraction in the UK to showcase the Harry Potter film series. Warner Bros. Studio Tour London will be a behind-the-scenes, walking tour featuring authentic sets, costumes and props from the Harry Potter film series. The attraction will be located at Leavesden Film Studios, just outside of London, where all eight of the Harry Potter film instalments were filmed.

In March 2011, Warner Bros. announced that two new sound stages would be constructed to house and showcase the famous sets from each of the British-made productions, following a £100 million investment.

Leavesdenliving (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a new atttraction for the UK and is going to show the studios where Harry Potter was filmed, plus sets etc. I would like to add in this section to tell fans about what the plans are for when Harry Potter has ended.

Leavesdenliving (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My own first impression is that the information would best be put into a stand-alone article as was done with The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, the Harry Potter theme park in Orlando, Florida. I see you have started one at Warner Bros. Studio Tour London.  I understand that the use of the actual film sets and studio location could argue otherwise, but by fleshing out the separate article you will be able to get more information, photos, etc. on display, and I think the new attraction would deserve that.  A pointer to the new article from this one would be doable, in my view.  By the way, your username and very brief edit history suggests you may have a close connection to the studio/theme park and/or Warner Bros., which brings up a number of concerns including those regarding WP:NPOV. Best wishes,  Jus  da  fax   18:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest a look at WP:COI too. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A link on here from the Studio section to the attraction page would be helpful if that's doable? I'd love to have a close connection to the theme park but unfortunately I'm just a self-confessed Harry Potter geek who lives about 0.5 miles from these studios and has to put up with the heavy goods lorries passing my window every night! Although I can't wait for it to open! Thanks

Leavesdenliving (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! As you may have noticed, I have started a talk page for you and left a message.  Best wishes,  Jus  da  fax   11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shorten infobox proposal
The infobox for this article, at present, is massive. I would like to propose a smaller version based off the GA Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). Proposal 1:

I think that "editing", "cinematography" and "Orchestrator" could be removed too, just like it is in the GA Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). And mention then in the "Cast and crew" section instead -- or do a big overhaul on this article and make "principal cast" and "principal crew" sections. Proposal 2:

I think its a good idea. What does anyone else think? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm leaning towards agreeing, but I'd like a bit more consensus before acting. I do agree that editing credits, etc. seem a bit much for an infobox, and that the box has gotten a bit bloated. Jus  da  fax   17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should try to use an infobox meant for one film to cover seven of them. There is obviously a lot more detail, and I think we should have a fuller table in the body of the series article itself. For the infobox, if we are to use it, we should link to the Harry Potter book series and identify the author, the distributor, the nationalities, and the language. Basically, values that are consistent across films. With a table in the body itself, we can have more room to lay out all the major crew members across the films rather than try to squeeze it into the infobox. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the current version of the shortened infobox. Fortunately, each film's article has its own, more detailed infobox. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We have to have David Heyman as the main producer in the infobox as he has produced all the films in the series and started the franchise from 1997-1999 with the rights of the first four novels. But we leave it at that. No more additions. I think it looks much better than the chunky infobox of old. Hallows Horcruxes  09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.0.156.86, 19 June 2011
The name of the first movie is not Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

24.0.156.86 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ – It isn't in most of the world, only the U.S. and India.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)