Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 6

Inactive Members
How does everyone feel about splitting off the members section to identify active and non-active members - last I checked it was something like 180 project members, with three more since last weekend alone, but I see relatively few of them. RHB 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. John Reaves 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's because the project has been inactive, not them. I'd ask a bot to deliver some sort of message to all of them alerting them to the fact that the project is active again and if they want do participate head on over! Let's draft this first though, before we send it. Try creating it at WikiProject Harry Potter/Letter or something. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be the members that have been inactive? Afterall, there isn't really a project without active members.  John Reaves 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about posting this on their talk pages:


 * I do appreciate the picture of Dumbledore. He's inactive, not dead. Valley2city 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll assume that's a joke? John Reaves 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested revision: --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you move the picture to the right so that the text is emphasised? I think this would be better as English is read left to right.  I don't think the inactivity comments should be included; as the  cause of project inactivity is contributer inactivity. Also, I think a slightly more formal tone would be better (i.e. remove "love"). Is there a bot that could post these for us?  John Reaves 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's true though… there were really no leaders on the project to tell the participants what to do. They put their names on a list and that was basically it – no assessment, no model articles, no collaboration… Also, don't you think the informal tone is slightly more approachful? Here's it anyway with the pictures on the right. For bots, see WP:BOTREQ. :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, don't worry, John Reaves, I was kidding. I like the template and I think it looks better on the left side. More uniform in terms of images on Wikipedia templates... Might I suggest you include the word "member in the very first clause"? ie: "Hello, WikiProject Harry Potter member..." Valley2city 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the tone is slightly too formal and rigid, needs to relax a bit. And the inactive list should redirect to WikiProject Harry Potter/Participants, rather than a completely new page. RHB 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fbv65edel, I like your version. Also, I fixed the link in your suggestion per RHB's comment. I like Valley2city's idea of having "WPHP member" in the opening.  To RHB: feel free to create your own version with your suggested wording here.  John Reaves 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a version with new wording to your sandbox. Let me know what you think. I'm going to updated and add items to the to do list in the perhaps wishful expectation of more active project members. RHB 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ive recently updated the Harry Potter portal page too, so you might want to put some of the to-dos there. I like you version, it's friendlier and more likely to bring people back.  Do think a thin border would look good?  Also, what do thing about bolding WikiProject Harry Potter?  John Reaves 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind whats done with the border but bolding WP Harry Potter would look a bit off, especially since it already stands out by being bluelinked in comparison wiht the rest of the text. Be bold :P RHB 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point with the bolding. John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to pick a version from those on John Reaves Sandbox page linked above? I can deliver it whenever with AWB. RHB 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've numbered the version to make picking easier. I linked the page in your comment RHB, I figured you wouldn't mind.  I vote for 3..  John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Three looks good.TonyJoe 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like 4 RHB 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the inactive/previous contributors should be placed on the same page lower down. On a different project I see they add them in small type in a serial list just running across the page, block of type like a paragraph. Minimises the area taken by a lot of names. As far as the sandbox versions go, I favour 4 as it is more friendly. But I also suggest using Present/Previous rather than active/inactive. Inactive implies they may be coming back any time, whereas I think the idea here is to clearly remove people who have permanently gone away? Sandpiper 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone want to cast a deciding vote? RHB 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Go with number four. I'll take any flak (if there is any).  Use InactiveWPHPuser so we can easily change all templates at once.John Reaves 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Posting it now with my AWB account. I have to say, I think we'll see a definite drop in numbers, but hopefully it will reawaken some people to the project's continued existence and latch on to the popularity of the release of the final book and 5th film. RHB 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapter citations
I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates. I assumed it wasn't as well-watched as this page. John Reaves 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actors
Are the actors from the film versions within the scope of the project? John Reaves

And are redirects rated as class=NA? Thanks, RHB 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been adding the project template and rating them as NA just so we know we have them. John Reaves 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've finished rating everything except the actor pages. When I posted on the WikiProject Council page they suggested Actors got project banners too, so I don't see why not, but if pages got cluttered the small=yes option would be used to lump project headers together. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council Only about 40/450pages left to be rated though, including images. Thanks for your help, RHB 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page template
I propse adding  to most or all of the HP talk pages, as discussion seems to happen too often. It might be easier to incorporate it into the main project template or have a bot do it. John Reaves 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the template looks like:




 * It might be better to insert it into a Notice or Warning template so it's more noticed. For example:


 * or


 * --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it be in good taste, or possible, to incorporate one into the project template? John Reaves 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it would be possible, and save a whole lot of work, to incorporate it into the project template. Whether it would be in good taste (singling out Harry Potter) I'm not sure – better wait for a few more people to chime in on that one. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to work on it here John Reaves 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it would be appropriate to insert it into the project template. Is this the HP thought police? perhaps you can give some examples of where discussion is off topic? Sandpiper 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Things like the discussion of possible Horcuxes and whether or not Dumbledore is dead would be inapproriate. The disussion may be on the topic, but it isn't about the improvement of the article.  Just generally discussing the topic is more appropriate for a fan forum or other non-Wikipedia site.  See WP:NOT. John Reaves 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dumbledore IS dead, Rowling said so (I think she said 'dead, dead, dead, dead', at radio city), this is no longer an issue. The extent to which this remains an issue, and the odd circumstances of his death, remain sensible things to discuss re article content, surely. Had a look at the horcrux article, The current discussion page contains absolutely nothing. The previous archive seems to contain a long debabte about referencing. The one before that contains some debate over horcruxes, but seems to be arguing about existing content on the page at that time, so I don't see a problem. When the debate became wild, Dalf wrote  Very slowly now! Please put the crack pipe down and move slowly away, no one needs to get hurt. , which seemed to deal with the matter with humour. Sandpiper 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * John wasn't saying Dumbledore wasn't dead, simply that Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for discussing that. And perhaps discussing Horcruxes has not been an issue, but I know I've put up with a lot of people at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) (I've answered their questions just to appease them, but if they continue to ask questions, I bring it to their user talk page, so far as I can recall). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandpiper, see also Off topic warning, an official template on Wikipedia. Discussion pages are not for discussing the subject of the articles, but the articles themselves. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating, but I don't see what it would have to do with creating an extra special warning just for HP. Sandpiper 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is being brought up because it can help harmlessly prevent discussion which does occur, usually not in large portions (which is why skimming archives wouldn't prove too fruitful). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I can't see the logic of that last comment. Why do we want to stop people finding discussion in the talk pages? What harm is it doing if they are interested enough to read it? The content rules refer to the front-page article which is on public display. Sandpiper 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

True, I know Dumbledore is dead. To Sandpiper, these warnings aren't "extra special", they're standard messages for talk pages. There is an example of one of these warnings after being streamlined (somewhat) into the WPHP template here. Feel free to make your own version. John Reaves 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * again, why do we need a version? I assume the tags exist only for use 'at need' anyway. They are not intended to be placed automatically on a page. They are not intended to be subject specific. Sandpiper 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just use ? 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 17:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not subject specific, but the HP Book/Film pages suffer from a pretty high level of speculation, guesswork, and OR. RHB 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can change the message in the template by "subst"ing it. I just did this at Talk:R.A.B.. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point about "at need" use and think we should leave the template as it is. John Reaves 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article References! drive
We really need to get a featured article in the mix here. (There's a former project page about it, but it's been inactive and since LV isn't even a GA anymore, we'd need to reconsider.) Any suggestions as to what would be a good shot? There are two A-class articles now, one is a list (which can't get FA until the films are complete, due to the changing information), and the other one is just the good ol' Harry Potter. Any thoughts? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thinks that's a great idea. We should work on getting Voldemort back to GA. Also, I recently nominated Ginny Weasley, and there was some advice left on getting the article up to GA.  I think Harry Potter is a fine candidate.  John Reaves 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just realized… we can't really have too many articles at FA status before the seventh book! Probably only the book and movie articles could get up there, but you can't feature an article if information is known to change soon. So we should actually go for a good article drive, referencing as much as possible, or try to feature one of the book or movie articles (though none of them are in particularly good shape). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the closest to GA, I'd say. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, the easiest to feature right now would be the books and movies, plus JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Is it really that bad if the information is due to change in 7months, as it will with the release of the final book? The whole character section is a complete mess with in universe stuff etc. A GA drive would be good too. Whats happening with the project activity letter? Can it be sent out? I can do it with AWB if we cant find a bot. RHB 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it is, FAC won't accept it if they know that things are just going to change and need major rewriting soon. I think it's a slight violation of WP:WIAFA, 1e. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a bit curious why you guys are so keen on FA and GA. Personally, my aim is to write good articles. I edit articles so that they are better than when I found them. I use my own judgement as an editor how best to do this. It may very well be that my judgement, and most other people's, conflict to a greater or lesse degree with the different judgement on what makes a good article currently enshrined in the definition of GA and FA. i say currently, because I suspect that written definition has changed since Voldemort became a 'good article', which is why it is no longer considered such. In general none of the HP articles well fit the criteris for FA or GA, which is why I am a little puzzled that people have been trying to put them forward as such. Wasn't it realised they would inevitably fail under those rules? Those definitions are not the last word on what in the real-world would be considered good. They have grown out of standards for a paticular kind of article, which I do not think was ever a good fit for 'fiction' articles, and maybe particulary not for unfinished ones, where readers naturally have a heavy bias on learning what the ending will be.
 * Also, do people realise that a faction of editors involved in setting policy is very against including plot summaries of virtually any length over one sentence? It seems to me that there is still a drive here to expand plot summaries, indeed specifically broaden their inclusion to a book by book run down for every article. I don't favour this as a policy. I prefer that we present information in a logical way for the series as a whole, rather than simply as the author wrote it. Sandpiper 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Our aim is to write good articles too. There are certainly a number of 'good articles' (the non-Wikipedia sense of the term) out there for Harry Potter, but they don't meet all of Wikipedia's standards. While there are many people who visit these articles and read up on them, we are still part of an encyclopedia, and we need to rise to the standards set by the encyclopedia. We're not here to please ourselves, necessarily, with the quality of the articles in our own minds, but since we write for Wikipedia we must try to get the very best work possible for Wikipedia. If we want to write freely under our own restrictions, we'll visit the Harry Potter Wikia. But here, we write fiction articles for an encyclopedia which has certain guidelines which get work recognized and eventually featured, which should be everyone's ultimate goal on the site. Also, as for plot summaries: we do have a lot of information in each article about every single action in the books, and very little on literary connections, significance, character strengths/weaknesses, etc. That's what's wanted in Wikipedia, not a listing of every occurence a character has in the books. Then, with references, and a little clean-up, we get, voila, a good article. A little further (waiting till Book 7), we get featured articles. I know the GA and FA systems aren't your personal favorites, Sandpiper, but it is what Wikipedia strives for and what we must strive for too. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We know if they are or are not good articles. More so than some of the people who decide which articles are good (some of whom hold these articles in blatant contempt). Where is the point in reducing them to pointless opinion of "In this, I think Rowling shows her skill by making Ginny appear secretive" and destroying any meaningful flow, merely to dance attendant on people who will merely raise the bar higher to continue to exclude the articles. Especially since, for the next decade or so, there will not be enough critical opinion on the books to allow articles of the sort which they desire. Furthermore, as you have all said, until Book 7 is published, such a drive is monumentally pointless. So why on earth are getting so worked up about this issue at the moment? Michaelsanders 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, it was just a suggestion. Right before creating this section, I thought, "Hey, we don't have any featured articles. That's too bad." So I decided to create the drive. Then I realized we are in a position where we can't really have too many FAs (except possibly the books or the movies). So I realized a GA drive would be better. What I'm really trying to say is: let's make it a "Cite your sources drive". :-) We really need to start referencing – and it's okay if it's by chapter since there are so many editions in use and it would be hard to stay uniform with all of them. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tbh its a massive conspiracy to exclude just HP articles, seeing as Star Wars WP etc all somehow manage to create GAs. At least for the books so far and films released so far, a drive would be easy - Book 7 wont change their content. RHB 12:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the completion of the series, if for no other reason than the fact that speculation will no longer be a problem. After the series is finished, most of the HP articles can probably be bumped up to a decent quality (and more than a few GAs, I'd hope). --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm much happier talking about a reference drive. The immediate question is do we have a good example anywhere of how we think this ought to be done? I'm not happy about ending up with the state of affairs where the text becomes overwhelmed by multiple references embedded in every sentence. If absolutely everything was referenced then a line like Harry had black hair (ref...), glasses (ref...), a lightning scar (ref...) and so on, could easily become ridiculous. So there is also the difficulty of the level of referencing required. I go round in circles on this, because while I absolutely do not want to see the text mashed up by inserted references, I also do not see much point of ending up with an article which has a list at the end of 500 refs from different book chapters. It looks bad, but more importantly from my point of view, doesn't help me much as a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure to what extent we reference, but hopefully just one at the end of each paragraph, possibly, should do it. Take a look at how I did Battle of Beruna Ford: there's one after each statement which is factual, and then one at the end of each paragraph about description. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also the style suggested once by someone and tried out in Filius Flitwick,  which produces these references, like this PS undefined. Is it better to settle for a chapter inline, or a numbered reference? I think someone put a lot of these into one article at one time, but they have fallen from favour. I never did decide  whether I liked them. They are more disruptive then just a numbered ref , but at least the ref is immediately available for the reader and we don't get a rather long not-useful list at the end. Doesn't matter much in a short article, but Voldemort is miles long. The ref's list in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has a mere 30 entries and doesn't look too bad, but suppose we had a list of 100+? Sandpiper 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't quite like the etc. templates, but they're the best we have right now. Take a look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), which I referenced. It's got 80 references, but they'll all done in uniform style so I think it doesn't look that bad. Thoughts? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think inline types of refs are a little cumbersome (as pointed out by Sandpiper below). Perhaps a footnote style referencing system would be better. As far as the GA and FA drive goes, I think it's a good idea. It will make the HP article more respectable in the eyes of those that view them as cesspools of fancruft and plot summaries. Maybe they'll even stop bitching as much when they stumble across one on a recent changes patrol. I have limited internet access, but I'll try and keep up with stuff on the project at least. John Reaves 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Referencing
The other big difficulty I have with referencing, aside from how to notate it, is how important it is. I do find it useful to have a collection of source quotes when analysing something, say all the important quotes regarding the HBP. I even made one once on a talk page. But the reason for doing so was to prove a point, that the article in question really did reflect the original text. Ok, so that is maybe what the referencing business is about, to prove we are fairly reporting what is actually written in the books, but this is not what an average reader is going to want looking at an article here. Cluttering an article with too much sourcing makes it harder to read. Sandpiper 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually been told that that citing HP text isn't the sort of referencing that they're looking for. For an early version of themes and motiffs in Harry Potter, I only used the text as a source, and according to the Featured Article reviewers, that violated No Original Research. It seems that the only sources that are going to qualify are third party sources.
 * Looking back now, I think I agree with those reviewers. So many HP fans look at the same text and see something different, i.e., shipping. Strong (preferably scholarly) third party sources (especially for liteary and character analysis) are definitely preferable to delevering a direct from text interpretation, which because of the possibility of different interpretations could be considered a Point of View. TonyJoe 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then that must be where our interpretations diverge. Assuming the rules havn't been changed again, I think the line is something like source-based research is to be encouraged. It is entirely proper to conduct a cataloguing operation on primary source material, which is exactly what we do here. I again observe that since wiki has another rule banning copyright infringement, it is impossible to write any text at all which is not 'original'. It is impossible to create an encyclopedia without doing what is understood as original research in the outside world. There is no hard and fast division between wiki-style OR and real world, encyclopedia creating OR. There cannot be.  I admit, that it would sometimes be a less contentious cataloguing operation if we include more of the source material, but then that runs up against those who oppose reproducing large portions of the plot. So what we have is a compromise between precision and brevity. The trick, as I see it, is to present passages in a neutral way without drawing conclusions. I think this is how unclear issues are normally handled on wiki, by presenting both sides of an argument. I have also found that when an issue is approached like this in a careful way, it may well be the case that an issue resolves itself, because a balanced and fair representation of the actual content automatically resolves questions of interpretation.
 * As to the difficulty of including external commentary of HP (on the grounds of scarcity, though there are now published books discussing HP, I have one here which even cites wiki as a source), well it is something we have to live with. A deficiency in one area of an article does not justify scrapping the rest of it. Sandpiper 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in taking "cataloguing operation on primary source material" to mean merely plot summaries, description of characters' backgrounds, etc? If so, it seems that we do much more than that. It seems that throughout the HP articles we regularly take primary sources (the six published books) and draw conclusions (I'm thinking mostly of themes and characters' personality) with only the primary source as a reference. According to WP:NOR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." So if there's a difference between "cataloguing operation" "and literary interpretation," I think we're on the same page.


 * And concerning "a deficiency in one area of an article does not justify scrapping the rest of it," Is this something that regularly happens in the HP articles? TonyJoe 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements at Talk:Harry Potter fandom
If you could all head over to Talk:Harry_Potter_fandom, read the section thoroughly, and vote in the second straw poll, that would be appreciated. The user involved in the dispute asked me on my talk page what we should do (as it's been a week since any activity there, and the votes are "tied" 1-1), and so I figured the people who know the page best should participate in this poll.

While we're talking about Harry Potter fandom, I think we need to come up with a method of referencing the notability of the fan sites, because it gets to a point where you really don't know if they're notable or not (see the section below the aforementioned one -- the user makes it sound notable but I haven't a clue what those things (Sulake) are). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic. There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. I don't have enough access to reliable internet to check, but I assume the problem at the page stems from the recent influx of newbies to the HP articles because of the whole title thing.  I suggest just letting it die down and keep on reverting in the meantime. John Reaves 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't very helpful, though. Try to persuade them to what you think. Try to be calm and constructive, rather than simply aggravating everyone by reverting. Also, fandom should be addressed in an encyclopaedic manner - I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic.  There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. isn't helpful. Michaelsanders 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, John, in this case though, it wasn't the question of whether fan sites were notable or not, it was whether to include a comment (using ). However, Harry Potter fandom is notable because of JKR's connections with, primarily, TLC and MuggleNet, and then you can expand on all the notable things done (like the Lexicon, wizard rock, Muggle Quidditch, etc.). But that article is in such a state now that it doesn't exemplify that notability too well. Hopefully in the future we can collaborate on that. Speaking of which, anybody up for a collaboration of the month? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for assuming. I'm working with an unreliable and infrequent access to internet, so I figured I'd wager. I don't see any thing wrong with a comment. I'll check out the talk page when I have a chance. I'd be up for a collaboration (though discussion should go under a new section ) John Reaves 06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 4 or 5 websites which JKR endorses on her own website (though I think at least one is in a different language). I don't know if she has endorsed others in the past. I don't regard this as as a necessary condition for inclusion, but a helpfull one. Inspection is usefull, if it has poor content then strike it from the list. If it is blatantly advertising, then strike it from the list. Sandpiper 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rowling-endorsement would, I think, be THE condition for getting in - if she endorses a fansite, there is no sane way you can justify NOT including it in such an article. Inspection would merely be common sense - the problem coming when people disagree over what should be included based on 'common sense' (some people really believe that Hermione is secretly Harry's sister, for example - the rest of us, on the other hand, read such theories for comedy value). I would think that Red Hen should be included - I consider her the 'higher end' of Harry Potter theorising and analysis (Bradley she isn't, but could get there) - but what happens if someone disagrees, thinking her site blatant rubbish, and that some site they like should be promoted instead? Is it better to ignore such cases, or try to legislate some means of dealing with them? Michaelsanders 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say the former. Delete, Ignore, and if they really feel the need to have it in there, leave it up to them to prove notability. On the Fandom talk page I also support destroying the entire fansite section. Cheers, TonyJoe 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia could be written by computer, then it would be (or, at least, someone would have done it on a different website). The point is that it can only be done by human judgement, what to include and what to leave out. There is a whole raft of people writing content rules like mad, but I find the whole thing ultimately self-defeating, because there are too many rules to waste time staying up to date with what they say. So, ultimately, everything comes down to personal judgement. This is exactly such a case.  Sandpiper 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Going off of TonyJoe's comments -- how about this? If a fan site is mentioned in the prose of the article (in which case its notability would be established with a cite and by the surrounding text), it should be linked in an External links section, as per WP:EL. However, if the fan site is not mentioned in the prose, it should not by any means be in an external links section. I'll bring this to the fandom talk page too. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Revival of the WikiProject Harry Potter
With the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows imminent, it is a pleasant surprise to see WikiProject Harry Potter recalled to life, albeit haphazardly. I would however hope that within the next week we can make its return more formal so as to allow the project to move foward more cohesively in the New Year.

To do this, I'd like to make/refocus on some proposals.

1. We should strengthen our membership by following through on the proposal of RHB, Fbv65edel and John Reaves, of informing inactive members of the revival via the Dumbledore Member Box, as well as actively recruit new members via the Community Bulletin board and the talk pages of other promienent HP articles.

2. Make the project more purposeful by firmly establishing our priorities via a "scope" and "Articles of Importance" section, as well as making our To-Do list more current and definitively choosing an "Article to Improve."

3. Patroling HP articles for vandalism as Deathly Hallows' release approaches.

4. Promoting "Project Togetherness" via a Project Award and a new Userbox. TonyJoe 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It all sounds good to me. However, what's the Dumbledore Member Box and Project Togetherness? As for the notice to old members, we were still deciding on a format we liked until… erm, we forgot about it. I'm still away for a week, but I've left my thoughts at User:John Reaves/Sandbox. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Dumbledore message box is the inactive warning we've concocted. As far as "Project Togetherness" goes: all I'm going to say is I'm not opposed.  John Reaves 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "project togetherness," that was the best way I knew to phrase it, and considering recent developments, it probably now sounds a bit insincere. Nevertheless, other projects are really effective because they work well together. And I thought that bringing some of that here would be a good thing... TonyJoe 23:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All right then, I'd say go out and send the "Dumbledore Member Box" as there have been no objections to it, probably using AWB. I'll have more time to think about all this when I return on the 1st. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * RHB sent it. John Reaves 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Character template
Should we do a template for characters, like many video game (Template:Resident Evil series characters) or television (Template:Star Trek regulars) ones? igordebraga ≠ 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is already a character template at Template:HP character. :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not singular characters, ALL or most characters (i.e., LOTR has a template for the Fellowship of the Ring and Ainur) igordebraga ≠ 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NA into Non-Article
Is anyone proficient enough in templates to change NA to Non-Article in the talk page template? John Reaves 08:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your difficulty is that the HP template itself uses templates named Template:Na-Class, etc., which are substituted into the output. I'm not absolutely sure why they did it this way, which seems to imply some added work for the system. You will need to create Template:Non-Article-Class for it to be displayed, with different versions for each different wording. Alternatively, the template could be edited  to print out Non-article for the several cases NA na, etc. But we are again getting into the difficulty that this system is designed to assist creating a  published a version of wiki, not for ourselves. Sandpiper 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While on this subject, as currently written the template basically says the same thing twice on successive lines. I don't exactly see the point of this. Sandpiper
 * Oh, I thought we made up the template. I only wanted to change it because there was no explanation to what NA meant.  John Reaves 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I didn't like it either, but I'm not sure what we ought to use as wording, exactly. I suspect the template was basically copied from a master version somewhere. Sandpiper 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLC
List of Harry Potter films cast members is currently a featured list candidate. I'd advise you to assess the article neutrally and head over to the FLC nomination page, if you so wish, and discuss. This article is especially important to me as I've worked it from a cluttered table, out of AfD, to what it looks like now. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins
I've requested on the participants page that Admins add (Admin) next to their name so we know who can help with deletions, vandals, et cetera. John Reaves 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful template
I've created a new user warning template warning against speculation and OR. It's speculationwarning or sw. Using a parameter (|), you can cite the page name the user edited. John Reaves 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Example: Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, some of your edits are speculative and/or constitute original research and cannot be included. Please cite your edits with a reliable source, one that is verifiable. Thank you.
 * Hmmm... for new templates like this, especially since they should be applied Wikipedia-wide, I suggest you propose it to the general community. There are various ways of doing this, but I think Village pump (proposals) is the best way of doing so.
 * In the meantime (you can include my feedback wherever you post your template proposal, if you wish), the message as you have it now is similar to the warning, which is for cases

of blatant vandalism, and doesn't quite apply here (the stop sign is a Wikipedia-wide icon used for a "final warning"). If this is used at all, it should use a progression of warnings with stronger language in each iteration, such as with the "test" track. I'm not sure if blocking is really necessary (perhaps it can for blatant or obvious bad-faith cases), but the first welcoming template is appropriate for new users who are simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, and the progressively stronger wording is also appropriate depending on the situation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful as a specific warning. I've removed the images since you pointed out that fact.   I don't think blocking is necessary either (at least not for the first or second offense), that's why it's not mentioned in the warning.  Are you proposing a separate series of  style templates for speculation warnings?  John Reaves 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he is suggesting that you are creating a new set of warnings for situations which are already covered by existing ones? Sandpiper 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it, I'm proposing a series of test-style templates. I suggest you make a level 1 warning for someone doing it the first time (and it should be worded very nicely), then level 2 and 3 warnings for those who continue to add it even after being warned. I don't think the next two levels are necessary, but level 4 would be a "final warning" and level 5 would be the block message. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New AfDs
Three new articles are up for deletion. See WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. John Reaves 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To anyone who hasn't already done so, please add WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD to your watchlists. :-) (perhaps we can put together a small suggested list of things to do, including adding the AfD subpage to your watchlists). --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add a suggestion box to the page. John Reaves 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the pastel box while keeping the text. I hope you don't mind, but the pastel box seems to look overpowering, especially for a page that is traditionally short and sweet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Don't you think it'd be a good idea to watch the AfDs them self to keep up with their progress? John Reaves 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's up to the individual. When I !voted in a lot of AfDs (VfDs back then), I didn't, but when I started being a lot more specific in AfD !voting, I would. It really depends on the person and the situation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List class
Does anybody think a class=list option would be a useful addition to the WPHP template? John Reaves
 * I don't really like this because it's discriminating against lists, which are just as well part of the article namespace. Lists can have qualities too, that's why there are featured lists, etc. If there's a list class then everything that's a list is assumed to be of the same quality, which isn't true. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point. John Reaves 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the point behind all of this magic?
Hello -

I am an avid wikipidian, and as such I figured there are likely not many better places on the web to ask this most basic and fundamental question about the Harry Potter books/films.

I am a fan of the Harry Potter movies, though I have not read the books. Recently, while watching the most recent film, I asked myself "what is the PURPOSE behind all of this magic learning?" What is the point of having this school, and everything that goes with it, if none of the magicians can execute their skills in the "real world"? If someone was to answer my question with "to learn how to use magic", or something along these lines, it would not quite be to the point...

Are they being groomed in order to mount some really cool "Magician's Army"? Is there some devine plan that serves as the primary reason for training people to use magic? When they graduate, what will they have....A DEGREE IN MAGIC? For what purpose? To teach others to perform magic? If that is the reason, then what is the point in teaching it?

Its almost the same thing as if, for example, people attended school to in order to be dentists, and yet were never able to work on teeth.

Any assistance in helpng me to understand this most fundamental element of the "Harry Potter Universe" would be nice, because I am baffled.

--Mrlopez2681 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have seen numerous adult wizards using magic outside Hogwarts. We have seen that magical households, such as the Burrow, are run by magic. All wizards in the series use their magic outside school, once they finish school. I would be fascinated to know where you have got the impression that 'none of the magicians can execute their skills in the "real world"?' Michaelsanders 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and I think it arises from the movies not showing a complete dimension to the universe, in contrast to the books. The movies, as of yet, have not shown the Ministry of Magic, which is the wizarding world's government. A large percentage of wizards go on to work there. Others are professional athletes. Some, like Charlie Weasley (Ron's second-oldest brother) controls dragon in Romania, keeping them out of Muggles' view. Others go on to teach at Hogwarts. Others run or work in stores. Others stay at home, like Mrs. Weasley, tending to her family and house. The life of a wizard is not shown very often in the films. I'd highly recommend you read the books and get a real idea of what Rowling's vision is like! :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MrLopez: In a nutshell (or several of them), Rowling presents the wizarding world of  "Harry Potter" as a magical society within the normal everyday "Muggle" (non-magical) society. Wizards and witches are portrayed (largely) as benign, friendly folk who are naturally blessed with special talents, and who are often fascinated by the plight of the Muggles, who substitute scientific pursuits to achieve progress and conveniences, in lieu of using magical skills. It is a juxtaposition of the "normal" (or at least Muggle) point of view: through Rowling, we can see ourselves in an amusing light through the eyes of our magical brethren. For example, Mr. Weasley is portrayed as absolutely fascinated by mundane Muggle household appliances and conveniences, just as Muggles would be fascinated by magic wands and potions. The wzards and witches are free to perform their magic at will, provided they cause no harm, and provided it is hidden from the Muggles. Rowling also produces a novel historical reference to witchcraft and wizardry, through discussions between characters, who point out that "no real witches or wizards were actually harmed by being burned at the stake", since some simple spells or other magical actions would counteract the fires, but that "some witches loved to put on a great show for the Muggles". Historically, humanity has not been kind to "different folk", and history is replete with examples of tribes and nations going to war to exterminate each other because they are "different". As a parallel - there is emerging evidence and reason to believe that different human species of the past competed with each other for resources, and sought to destroy each other when resources were scarce (eg: the European Homo sapiens Cro-Magnon may have killed off the Asian Neanderthals, and perhaps also inter-bred with the last few - putting a new spin on the "make love, not war" principle). Anyway the modern wizarding world is highly regulated, as members are basically forbidden to perform magic in front of the Muggles, except in extreme emergencies. There is a liason between the magical world and the world governments. The wizards try to avoid interracting too much with the Muggles, and the Muggles try to ignore that the wizards exist. It is sort of an opposite to the symbiotic relationship. The worlds are carefully segregated philosophically, to avoid interactions, but part of the "fun" lies in areas where the two worlds must occasionally intersect. Wizards and witches are "trained" in magic in order to preserve their heritage and to improve their chances of survival in a historically hostile world. Most have no ambition beyond living very long but quiet lives, anonymously among the Muggles, as Pilgrims in a foreign land. A few on occasion get overly ambitious and power hungry (eg: Voldemort and the Death Eaters) but it is rather unclear exactly what their ultimate goals are: World domination? Destruction of Muggle society? Elimination of all but the "dark wizards"? If so, then what? The "good" witches and wizards seem very content to co-exist with the Muggles, perhaps a bit smug that they have special skills, but mostly wanting to be left alone to get on with their lives and have a little fun on the journey. The agenda of the "dark wizards" is not as clear. In summary - Rowling presents the magical wizards and witches as normal everyday folks, blessed with certain special skills that the Muggles would find baffling if not threatening, and thus keeps the two strains of humanity separated for their own good, to get on with enjoying their lives in the ways each sees as fitting, without harrassing each other. The Wizards are just as baffled with the Muggles as the Muggles are baffled with the Wizards. The main difference is - the Wizards, who are in a tiny minority, know full well the Muggles are out there, and mostly try to stay out of their way: magic is a sort of necessity for survival for the "chosen few". The Muggles on the other hand are officially ignorant of the existance of the Wizards, and go blundering on without the advantage of magic. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And, conversely, she uses the idea of magic to show that the world will not be improved simply by making tasks easier: the wizarding world is hopelessly corrupt, it has a strong history of prejudice that it has not easily left behind, most wizards have no concept of ethics, and there are as many nasty wizards (proportionally) as there are nasty muggles; magic can not be used to deal with the bad guys, because 'they have magic too'. She shows that the 'advantage' of magic is not quite that: it can cause harm, does not prevent typical problems, and leads to damaging situations. That a person can be magic and not be any more or less morally reprehensible than a person without. She did apparently say she wanted to warp the traditional fantasy to show that magic leads to problems (despite numerous examples - Edith Nesbit, for one - of that before her). Michaelsanders 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First Featured Article!
Let's give a cheer, our first featured article is here! Well, actually, it's a list… but just as good! Check out the recently promoted List of Harry Potter films cast members. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, now for the rest. I've updated our statistics grid for Version 1.0.  John Reaves 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, all! --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Announced
Should we count this a verifiable source? The date only turns up on a search, it's not on the main page. I've yet to find any other sources to verify this, including Rowling's website and Bloomsbury. John Reaves 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The UK site lists the date as July03:08, John Reaves 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, definitely wait until something shows up on a fan site, a reliable international news site, or something other than Amazon, etc., as I see you decided over at the DH page. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation of Redirects
John Reaves wants to categorise characters whose individual articles exist only as redirects e.g. Caractacus Burke, Amy Benson, and a few others. The only redirect articles I can find that are categorised are about five, all of which have been categorised by him. Is there any need or point to this (Reaves justifies it by saying it allows the creation of a list of Harry Potter characters; however, List of Harry Potter characters serves that purpose more coherently). Michaelsanders 12:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to categorize all of the redirects, I was just defending the Burke categorization when PeaceNT deleted it and I added the rest to stop Sanders from bitching. I don't really care enough to categorize all of them, I was just defending one that was categorized.  John Reaves 12:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was categorised because you didn't remove the category when you merged the article into Minor Harry Potter characters in the first place. And if you're going to have the nerve to lecture me on civility, you could try it yourself. Michaelsanders 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my harsh words hurt your sensitive ears, you're just annoying sometimes. There's nothing wrong with the cats, they hurt nothing. You're just trying to turn something minor into something major because your bored. John Reaves 12:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So far today, you have violated 3RR, been repeatedly uncivil, attempted to sledgehammer through a change in policy without the slightest support and two voices of opposition, denigrated my work for wikipedia and taken the path of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of simply doing it for poor reasoning. All of which you have, in the past, had the audacity to accuse me of. You are right in your insinuation that I am enjoying this: watching someone else's self-destruction through the very faults they have accused me of is, I have to admit, rather satisfying. Shall we keep to the issue at hand?


 * You have effectively demolished any reasoning to keep the redirects categorised: you have said that you don't want to categorise all the redirects, that you only started because you wanted to stop me 'bitching'. "There's nothing wrong with the cats, they hurt nothing." I believe that when I tried to retain the summation of fan theory regarding RAB in the Regulus Black article on that basis, you threw it out of the window...


 * So. Do you actually have any reason or justification for keeping the categorised redireccts, or can we assume that they will be gone by tomorrow? Michaelsanders 13:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, an inappropriate use of non-user talk space by you again? I guess I'll do it too. You're quite full of yourself aren't you? Never wrong, won't back down, blow anything out of proportion to get you way or be entertained. 3RR and uncivilty seems to be a way of life for you, so you hardly have a place in warning me. As far as "denigrated your work" goes, I don't recall doing that, any criticism was warranted. The RAB article was complete OR, and poorly written at that, and needed to be deleted. As I've stated before, and you've yet to be able to comprehend, I don't care enough to defend this. I've stated my opinion that they hurt nothing and and allow navigation through a series of articles that are related. Not every article has a link to list of characters in Harry Potter, but every character article could very well be placed in the category. But I'm fine with leaving it out, especially if means less interaction with a curmudgeon like you. John Reaves 13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I rest my case. Michaelsanders 13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Typical, you can't prove anything or have no valid examples, so you simply stop talking. Are you aware that you never actually presented a "case", therefore you have nothing to rest?  John Reaves 13:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you want to continue this, do you?


 * You dropped the issue: "I'm fine with leaving it out...". I did present a case: that such categorisation was pointless, because of the character list, because it went against convention and because it would create confusion when faced with multiple name forms (Barty, Bartemius, etc). Furthermore, since you admitted to not caring about the issue, that would appear to be a rather telling sign against you.


 * The 'rest my case' remark was principally directed at the comment from you preceeding it: the most self-defeating, self-condemnatory temper tantrum that I have ever had the misfortune to come across. You dare call me a curmudgeon, when your only reason for defending the Burke categorisation appears to have been pure conservatism? You have the temerity to accuse me of contesting your categorisation simply because you think I'm bored? You have the audacity to claim that '3RR and uncivilty seems to be a way of life for you', when you have breached both this very day? How dare you. If you don't care about this issue, if you can't be bothered to defend the categorisation, drop the issue as you claimed you would. If can't bring yourself to be constructive, go away. You are indulging in pure nastiness and rudeness for its own sake, and that is something I have done only one - and I still regret it. So if you can't be useful or polite or quiet; if you are not willing to either drop this issue or defend it intellectually instead of with insults; then go away. Or, so help me, I'll drag you up for 3RR violation, incivility, and anything else I can throw at you.


 * Am I clear? Michaelsanders 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue this in user space so you don't get as much of the attention you crave. John Reaves 14:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - you are the one who started it off again after claiming to have dropped it.


 * Am I to assume that you now have no objection to the category being removed from Caractacus Burke? Michaelsanders 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to have dropped it, I responded to your unrelated comments.  As far as the cat, do what you want. John Reaves 14:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "As I've stated before, and you've yet to be able to comprehend, I don't care enough to defend this...But I'm fine with leaving it out, especially if means less interaction with a curmudgeon like you." Was that not, as I believed, a decision to 'leave' the category 'out' of the article? Michaelsanders 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous comments have referred to the issue of your off-topic comments, not the category issue. John Reaves 14:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't know that. Next time be specific about what you are or are not defending. In any case, if you have abandoned your stance, then we can consider the issue settled as Do not categorise redirects. Thank you for your congenial debating. Michaelsanders 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time try and keep up. Maybe if you didn't post off-topic comments, you'd be able to. John Reaves 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (***)And that was the sound of my patience dying. You know perfectly well that you started off the 'off-topic' route by describing my complaints as 'bitching'. Next time a discussion is begun, try to refrain from offending the other participant. Michaelsanders 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You choose to few it as off-topic and offensive, maybe it offended you because you're not familiar with informal American words. John Reaves 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious - quite apart from the fact that you are trying to pass off 'bitching' and 'jackass' as informal American slang, you have the cheek to suggest that I don't recognise them as inoffensive because I'm not American? Quite apart from the fact that you were persistently rude throughout this so-called discussion, which you repeatedly turned into a slanging match. Now, stop writing here - you've already said you don't care if the categories stay out of redirect pages, so there is nothing more to say here. Michaelsanders 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page John Reaves 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)