Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 1

Character Categories
I've added to all sub-categories in the characters sub-category. --bjwebb 10:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * rock on. EvilPhoenix
 * should the tag be added to the talk pages of HP articles that dont already have a talk page, or just articles that already have a talk page?--Drak2 18:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * HP-category is for category pages, the actual article pages should have HP-project. I'm adding talk pages for ones that don't have one already. I'm going through from the category pages, and adding it to all the articles. That way, if there's articles that haven't been categorized, theoretically they won't have the project tag either, so that should make them easier to deal with. EvilPhoenix 20:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said category when i meant project. But thanks for that. Am updating pages...Drak2

Tagging articles
Oy, I just finished tagging as many articles on HP as I could find with HP-project. TIRED!!!. If you find any articles on HP not so tagged now, make sure they are properly categorised, and then please do add the tag. *collapses*. EvilPhoenix 04:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the place to post this, but I would love to help out with this project, being a bit Harry Potter obsessed. Please let me know how. Thanks!


 * Welcome, we're glad youve joined us. Feel free to add your name to the list of participants on the project page, and check out the to-do page for a list of open tasks. Also, if you'd like to sign your comments, you can use just type in ~, and it will auotmatically put your name with your comment. Best regards, EvilPhoenix 06:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Open Tasks Box
The open tasks box takes up the majoroty of my screen, leaving only a small room for text which looks untidy. --bjwebb 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Blimy. What resolution are you on? It takes up around 20% of my screen width. (I ask so that we know what kind of res we should work to accommodate)--drak2 18:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm on 800*600 (IE 6, Windows ME). I didn't quite mean the majority of the screen, more the majority of the text area. --bjwebb 20:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've squashed it a bit, I dont see that it can go much smaller without a total re-design.--drak2 09:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks OK now. --bjwebb 14:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Woot!--drak2 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opening Line
What do people think the standard opening line to articles should be? I say this because there are a load of different ways people are doing it, and it would be best, I think, to have a standard people can work from. I propose the following, (but it's just an idea, I'd love to hear any others people have):

For characters:
 * Ginevra "Ginny" Molly Weasley (born August 11, 1981) is a fictional character in the Harry Potter series.

For other things:
 * The Nimbus 2000 is fictional flying broomstick in the Harry Potter series.

Obviously these can be altered to suit individual articles (see Harry Potter (character)), but I feel it would be good to have a standard.

Thoughts? --drak2 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like it a lot. Though I've been searching some character pages and I've seen many of them start that way. Anyway, it's a good opening line option, given we can change a little so it fits exactly to each character!  Jotomicron | (talk, email) 08:59, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter images
I've created a Harry Potter images page. --bjwebb 15:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work! :) Should the images be categorised tho? If so, do you think we should do it within the page, or different categories on different pages?--drak2 19:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Definatly catgorize the images. It would make the article better-looking and reading. -Hoekenheef 02:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, catogorise. I did them as they were because it was the quickest way. I think they should all be on one page, because otherwise we will have a collection of really quite small pages, which is always less preferable to one long page. --bjwebb 06:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still talking about Images... how can I be sure I can use one image (the image in this page, for instance)? And where can I get some info about that? Thanks. Jotomicron | (talk) 15:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you speaking of the image on the left side of the page?If so, we are all ready using that image for the Gringotts page. Also, you wouldn't want to use that particular image because of the watermark on it. -Hoekenheef 17:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean generally. Are there any hints or clues to help me know if there is a copyright assigned to the image? Jotomicron | (talk) 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the majority of them are fair use screen shots from the films. Some are promo pics tho. All images from the films are copyrighted but can be uploaded with the tag. See WP:ICT for more info.--drak2 20:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. I uploaded a screen capture of Hannah Abbott from the COS movie several days ago and linked it to her article in the Minor Hufflepuffs page, before I knew this project existed. Just trying to do right by one of my favorite characters, you know? :-) Anyway, hopefully it meets your quality standards, so that you can cross her off of your "images to add" list.--Zequist 21:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Good work! Feel free to cross stuff off in the future, this is as much your project as it is ours, why not list your name on it? --drak2 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Aw heck, why not? Count me in. I added a few more images last night (Madam Rosmerta, Pansy Parkinson, and Parvati Patil) and noticed that a couple of others (Percy and Seamus) had been loaded by other people, so I went ahead and marked off all five on the images list.--Zequist 28 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
 * I uploaded an image of Crookshanks--Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Featured article?
Could any of the articles in this WikiProject be made into a featured article? Hermione1980 17:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why not? They are just like any other WIkipedia article. If you don't know fully about the standards that an article has to meet to be featured then they can be found here. -Hoekenheef 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I may have misunderstood you. Are you basically proposing that we as a "Project Group" need to really start to conform the articles to a higher standard? -Hoekenheef 17:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, you understood me the first time. What I meant was, can we improve one particular article in this project to "Featured Article" status &mdash; the group collaborating to make it better? (Of course, improving all the articles is a goal&hellip;but that wasn't what I was talking about this time&hellip;) I'm sorry if I'm a bit incoherent &mdash; sleep is a precious commodity, and I didn't get much of it last night. We could do more than one, of course, just do them one at a time. Thoughts, anyone? Hermione1980 18:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I had just been thinking this this week, go you for using your voice...rather than being like me and not... So yeah, great idea. It needs to be a fairly lengthy article, but not an obvious one, like Harry Potter or Hogwarts, I think. Snape's looking quite good, as it is of a reasonable length and has a few pretty images. Although we could do something more adventurous, like Hogwarts Houses. Anyone else got any ideas?--drak2 19:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lupin's page seems to be another good one. We could possibly try doing a creature, no? Eh, retract that (I'm writing this as I look over the articles). Thestral looks all right, but it is not great. Neville? Luna's page is good, but it needs some artwork or some image. That's all that's hitting me right now. I would suggest Gred and Forge but it's a tad short. -Hoekenheef 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ginny Weasley! :) My life would be complete...well not complete, but it would be cool if that became a featured topic. It's a lengthy article...maybe too lengthy, and could do with some more pretty pictures I suppose. Other than that, yeah, Lupin would be a cool one.--drak2 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Geez! Ginny's page is like a freakin' essay! That might be a good one. Needs another pic or two. -Hoekenheef 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a vote on the main project page for a featured article drive, to nominate and vote on an article for an improvement drive for the project. EvilPhoenix July 4, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Harry Potter Article Images Project
This was a project I started about a month before WikiProject Harry Potter was created (thank you Evilphoenix). My project was not as widespread as this project in the sense that my project was only about images and no thing else. About a day or two after this project was created I unofficially merged my project with this one. The reason that I bring this up is because I created a standard to which the images should conform. I believe that they are a standard which should be followed still. The standards are posted below. P.S. If someone wants to merge these with the WikiPriject Harry Potter main page please go ahead.

"The members of this project will be working to monitor and add images to any HP article on Wikipedia needing a image or images.

As the movie series of HP continues members will add new headshots of each character to their respective infoboxes. All images used will (if possible) be of a higher resolution, and no noticeably pixelated images will be used. If no movie photo is available then a peice of artwork that is of high quality (use your own judgement).

If a photo that is all ready on the page does not clearly show the character then it will be replaced and moved to a different part of the article. Do not remove an image from the page unless it is completely unrelated image."

That's about it. To view the original project info see my user page. -Hoekenheef 21:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trace Harry Potter articles
Is there a way we can trace all articles on our WikiProject other than search? I though, perhaps a category with all the articles. Jotomicron | talk 10:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a full list I think, but contains user pages that link to the project too--drak2 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of
Is there a reason why the HP-project was removed from Lord Voldemort? Just wondering. --Lord Voldemort 16:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It was removed from the article page because it should only be placed on talk pages. I have not removed the version on the talk pages --drak2 17:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks drak2... You could prove to be useful down the line. I had thought I remembered seeing the template on the actual article page, but must have been mistaken. I would apologize, but then again, when was the last time you knew an Evil Lord to be sorry? --Lord Voldemort 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * lol. You may have seen it on some other pages, as it was on some other pages, but I've deleted the tag from them too now --drak2 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa... picky picky about the name there. I didn't realize I was in the presence of the next e e cummings. --Lord Voldemort 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol. Yeah I was bored, sorry. e e cummings? --drak2 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4 Privet Drive
Should 4 Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey be removed? It consists mostly of plot summary of the Dursleys. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
 * Also Quality Quidditch Supplies. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
 * If you think so you could add a tag... --drak2 3 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

Newt Scamander
...seems to be nearly plagiarized from Fantastic Beasts. neatnate 3 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Years
Hi, apparently it's common practice for the people at this WikiProject to link years to the IRL years (see Ginny Weasley for an example). While I'm in full support of what you're doing in general, I feel that this linkage method hints at the books belonging in the real world, not the fictional one. I removed one of these links at Viktor Krum because of this. So...why are you doing it? Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
 * Common practise places book one in 1991-92, although there are some dissenting voices. I believe there is a note to that effect on the main Harry Potter page &mdash; or there should be, anyway. It's kind of like trying to decide if it's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Hitch-hiker's, or Hitch Hiker's. This way is just a bit less confusing for the casual reader. Hermione1980 3 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it'd be more confusing when you keep mixing real years with HP years. Wouldn't it be better to link to headings in Dates_in_Harry_Potter just like the Star Wars articles have done? Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
 * It's just a general trend to place the first year of the HP books in 1991-1992. Personally I don't think it really matters, because the books take place in a magical world where technology is useless, the books are more timeless. They could more accurately be seen as being set in the present time, and in general terms, this or the preceding decade, if you're looking at it from a perspective of several decades in the future. However, common practice being what it is, I would leave in the references to actual dates for now, unless there is a strong consensus to remove them, which may well develop in the future, but not enough people have expressed an opinion yet to really say one way or the other, but here on the Talk page is an appropriate place to discuss the issue, thanks for bringing it up! And if anyone has an opinion on this, please let us know, so we can get a sense of what the general feeling is. Cheers! EvilPhoenix July 5, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
 * There are two systems that are most commonly used. One is the one we've been using, which is to set Harry's birth year in 1980 based on Nearly Headless Nick's "500th Deathday" cake in CoS having the year 1992 on it. This is certainly the easier system, and it's more consistent with Jo's timelines, which when she includes them always use actual years.
 * The other is to set years relative to a specific year, usually either the year Harry was born or the year he started Hogwarts. If you used the year Harry was born, that would be Y0, and the year he started Hogwarts would be Y11. The twins, two years older than Harry, would have been born in Y(-2). This system is more inclusive of disputed dates, because it doesn't pin any years down. It has its drawbacks, though. I've dealt with it before in role-playing games, and it can be confusing for anyone who hasn't had it explained to them. Also there is no defined "Y0" in HP fandom, so you'd have to spell out on every page exactly which "Y0" you're using as your reference point. We'd definitely have to create some kind of "explanation tag" (like the "image copyright" tags) we could slip onto each page that said, "Here's how we're counting the years in the series, and here is what we define as Y0, so under this system book one would take place in these years, book seven in these years, etc."
 * Even with an explanation, though, it's not intuitive. It's easy to figure out that Hagrid was expelled in 1942-43, since that was 50 years before CoS (in 1992-93). It takes more effort to think, okay, CoS was Y12/Y13, so 50 years subtracted from Y12/13 puts Hagrid's expulsion around Y(-38)/(-37). And then what about events that DO have a defined year, like the defeat of Grindelwald in 1945? You can't put a Y# tag on that because it would require you to fix the year of Harry's birth, and the whole point of having the Y# system is to avoid doing exactly that! The Harry Potter Lexicon got around it by using the absolute dates for some things and the relative dates for others, but I think when it comes to something like Wikipedia, it's best to pick one system and stick with it. My vote, personally, would be to use the normal calendar years, and accept that not everything is going to line up perfectly. But why should we expect it to? After all, we're dealing with a world where it can be Monday two days in a row!--Zequist 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
 * When was it Monday two days in a row? Am I forgetting something? :-O! EvilPhoenix July 6, 2005 06:08 (UTC)
 * Goblet of Fire. Most of Chapter 10 takes place "the Sunday evening before they were due to return to Hogwarts" (p. 151 US paperback); they then return to Hogwarts the day after that (Monday) (p. 158), and Dumbledore specifically says during the feast that lessons begin the very next morning (p. 189), which should be Tuesday. But when they check their class schedule in the morning, it's Monday again! (p. 193)--Zequist 6 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
 * And where PlayStation was invented circa 1992. --Taejo 08:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything I was against originally was to link to 1991, not to use a specific date system. Interesting to have spurred debate, of course, but that wasn't really my main point :) Sam Vimes 5 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd remembered that I had noticed that, else I would have tried to make a clarification in my last comment. Actually, I do agree with you about taking out the links to actual year articles, but then again I am generally against putting in those kinds of links anyway...I generally like to use Wikilinks to link to topics relevant to the article discussion, and other main words, and keep the amount of wikilinks as simple as possible, but that's really a touch off-topic. But in short, I do agree with what you did...I remember now looking at it and being ok with the change. Thanks for clarifying. EvilPhoenix July 6, 2005 06:08 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for the clarification. And now that I see what you're saying, I also agree that the date links aren't really necessary.--Zequist 6 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)


 * Hogwarts is set in a Magical World where every September 1 is a Sunday, and (I think) every Halloween is Saturday. But I have no problem with using the "real" year dates, even if they don't fit perfectly. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now I've spent an evening linking all the years to Dates in Harry Potter instead of the IRL years. Maybe it's pushing POV, but none here seemed to disagree Sam Vimes 22:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-Canon Character Information
I noticed people adding information to the character articles from Jo's notebook in the old TV special, mostly blood purity and characters who haven't appeared in the books yet. I was wondering what folks here thought about that. My approach has always been to clarify that that kind of info is unconfirmed in the actual books, for instance in my revision of the Hannah Abbott article. I do that because we've already seen several cases of information in that notebook changing before it makes it into the series itself, i.e. "Trevor" Boot becoming Terry Boot, Michael Corner and Anthony Goldstein both being re-sorted from Hufflepuff to Ravenclaw, and so on. I wondered if we should think about adopting a uniform standard for how we use/reference/disclaimer that information (or any other similarly unconfirmed information, like first names from trading cards) in the Wiki articles, or whether it should even be used at all. What does everyone think?--Zequist 01:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC) ETA: Here's a link to a page with screenshots of the notebook in question, if anyone doesn't know what I'm referring to or needs a memory jog.


 * Yeah. I think using the information is fine, just as long as you say its not from the actual books. --bjwebb 14:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game) picture problem
This image has been on this article for forever, but an anon has recently come in and replaced it with this image, which I think is a copyvio because it's got a watermark and no image copyright tag. I reverted it once and s/he came right back and put it back in. Which image should we use? Hermione1980 17:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'd use the original one. --drak2 23:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The same here. Revert to original picture. --Jotomicron | talk 20:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I've reverted again. Now, what's the procedure for dealing with copyvio images? Hermione1980 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You could refer to Copyright problems. Anyway, I've proceeded acording to the policy and have posted the image to deletion. --Jotomicron | talk 22:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't entirely sure how to list an image on the copyright problems page. I may have been here for three and a half months, but I can still act like a clueless newbie sometimes. Hermione1980 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Article split!
Hi kids. I'm currently working on splitting the Magic in Harry Potter article into two - that one, detailing magic, and one on the wizarding world. I've been trying to get around to this for months now, and during that time the former article has gotten a lot less cluttered, but much of its content is still about the setting instead of the magic and there's no good central place for information about the society. I'd have completed it on this sitting, but I'm being chased off the computer right now, so at the moment the work-in-progress is only just starting and at User:Kizor/Wizarding world... the plan is to get the rest done on Thursday (UTC), adding a lot of stuff that wouldn't fit to the magic article (like wizards' lifespans), and making the necessary changes to the magic article and links on other pages. If you have objections, please say them now. And if someone knows of a better place to stick this notice, please move it there.. --Kizor 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Like your idea very much. We should link Magic in Harry Potter into this new article, improve it (perhaps we should remove the Religion topic, cause we have almost nothing to add, perhaps only they celebrate Christmas and Easter as Christians). And furthermore, I think the new article could be named Wizarding world in Harry Potter, just to give a similar title to both articles. --Jotomicron | talk 10:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the support and feedback. Working on this now, and with a rather better command of the language. I'll have to see about the section, but I think the new article should be just called "wizarding world"; The magic article was given its name as disambiguation, which isn't an issue for this one. --Kizor 14:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it is. Imagine the hundreds of wizard worlds already created or that will one day be devised and published by someone! And remember that Wikipedia is not only a fictional encyclopedia, but also one with very real facts and information. Naming an article like that might suggest that there is, in fact, one and only one Wizard World. But it is my opinion. --Jotomicron | talk 22:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, but at the moment this is the only one called such, and very likely the only contender for the name for the next few years. Once the issue becomes relevant it can be dealt with a page move and some linkfixes, for now this is simpler. Incidentally, thanks for editing and keep it up, I follow the 'type until I drop' method, literally, and that leaves something to be desired. --Kizor 04:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

HELP!!!
On Portraits in Hogwarts, I can't get Violet's infobox to align properly! HELP!!! Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * False alarm, i fixed it. My bad! Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)