This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered. |
Galanthus Nivalis[]
In the Builder mode of LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4, the white LEGO flowers are identified as snowdrops. While I realize the LEGO games about the lowest source of Harry Potter canon (with perhaps the exception of The Queen's Handbag) , changing the article name to a common name over a scientific name when both are known would create greater consistency with articles like nettle, as well as our policy of using spell names over incantations, even when the name may come from a lower canon source. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:52, November 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Bump. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this. It will create consistency. I don't recall if a game has even used the scientific title, in which case it should be renamed to a title that appears in canon. Two newer games, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite and Harry Potter: Magic Awakened have also included this flower where they are called snowdrops. It makes more sense imo to use a common name as it is a more helpful title for identifying what flower it is. - Kates39 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Man who gave Mr Roberts Galleons[]
This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered. |
I haven't placed {{rename}} because I couldn't figure out what it should be renamed to. Basically, why I felt the need is at Talk: Man who gave Mr Roberts Galleons#Two: the passage to me reads like two people tried to pay Roberts Galleon, and do we know they are both men? Assuming we don't in fact know both are dudes, I went asking on Talk:Wizardkind#Word usage for advise, and since the discussion there is starting to become helpful for this particular article, figured this is the proper place for further discussion.
Basically, even though the act of "trying to pay Galleons" is the most precise description, is it needed for the article title? Kate suggested "Unidentified payers of Mr Roberts", are we all good with this? Like, the original title itself didn't specify the person to be magical ("man" instead of "wizard"), even though they were. So I guess it's okay to leave that bit out? Thoughts? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 12:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oop, didn't realise this discussion was started here before I replied at Talk:Wizardkind, see my response there. (Though in my defence, two separate discussions about the same thing in two different places confuses things and thus should be avoided, though I do get why you did it.) - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still support my original suggestion. I suppose "Unidentified individuals who tried to pay Mr Roberts with Galleons" would work too even though that's very long, but I wanted to add: why do they even have to be witches or wizards? What if they were a Squib or the Muggle partner or parent of a witch or wizard? I don't think canon has ever stated they would be excluded at a wizarding event like that. - Kates39 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- OMG thank you for pointing this out, Kate! I feel like a bigot Dx. Forgot the possibility for Squibs and Muggle partners, sorry, folks! (Sending them love.) Thanks for the input, MSB.
- There's Unidentified five Muggles who saw the Flying Ford Anglia (though imo the number feels better to be put in front), so I guess "Individuals who tried to pay Mr Roberts with Galleons" isn't so bad?
- Though if we want to use "man" in a gender neutral way, it could just be "Men who tried to pay Mr Roberts with Galleons"? (Oh, and yeah, if it's conjectural title, most of the time I felt the word "unidentified" to be a little redundant to be put in the article title, but that's just me.)
- That said, is it at least agreed upon that there is more than one person who tried to pay Roberts Galleons? I'd hate for this discussion to be a complete waste of time if it ends up being a misinterpretation solely on my part. (Nowadays I need confirmation for the smallest things, sighs.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that at least two people tried to pay Mr Roberts by giving him Galleons. I think "Individuals who tried to pay Mr Roberts with Galleons" sounds best, since that's gender neutral and describes the characters. But if wanting a shorter name, then that could be worked out. - Kates39 (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Surely squibs and muggle spouses would be far more likely to know that Roberts was a muggle and that muggles don't use Galleons? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, maybe they just thought Roberts was just a really well-dressed (for the occasion) wizard like Bartemius Crouch Senior? lol. I wouldn't know how Squibs would do, tried to imagine Argus Filch acting super muggle... couldn't picture. But that's just me, haha. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 14:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Bump. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Chicken and turkey[]
This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered. |
Hi, this is more like several issues all sort of related; couldn't decide where to raise it, so here for now. (Let me know if there's a more appropriate place!)
Is there a reason why Chicken has to be a disambig, with Chicken (animal) and Chicken (food) as two separate pages? I mean, the food is what would happen if you cook the animal? Couldn't it just be the usage? And, if it's something specific, like body parts should they be mentioned in canon (dunno if chicken wing was ever specifically mentioned, but if a documentation from a User could be trusted, chicken leg seems to have been), then they can have specific articles, since plants sometimes got multiple articles for their specific parts as well?
I know on Wikipedia there's Chicken and Chicken as food, but it's sort of understandable for them because their purpose is to cover... like all the basics? Which is not the case for HPW? Separating the two, we have 2 "not-long" pages and an even shorter disambig page (so 3, all essentially for the same thing, since the disambig is just telling people one page is when it's alive and one when it's cooked), with all chicken dish having to link to chicken like [[chicken (food)|chicken]]
, if wanting to be precise.
If people still want the dead and live aspects as 2 separate articles, can the disambig at least be done without? A {{youmay}} would have worked? So yeah, raising the above in this Talk, because if not considering a merge; can 1 of the 2 articles be renamed to just "chicken"? (I prefer the food one just because all the chicken dish would link to it, but if the animal actually has more, that's fine, too.)
Now, onto turkey. So, does turkey the bird have an appearance or is it always cooked? Right now it's Turkey (food) to differentiate from Turkey the country, so the clarification is understandably necessary, but am wondering if the live form was ever featured. Can I assume this part "a half-plucked turkey" describing Fawkes is more about the bird and not the food version?
Again, on Wikipedia the bird and food are 2 articles, but it might not be the most ideal route for HPW. I'm more keen on "Turkey (bird)" than the "(food)", but also, if the cooked version ever featured in canon was "roast turkey", perhaps renaming it to just that would do, since we do have roast hog, roast beef, and roast chicken?
(The above is just my personal opinion, and I may not be privy to all justifiable reasons for naming those articles their current ways, and I mean no offense; am just trying to understand if alternatives can be considered.)
--Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've thought the same thing in the past about the articles we have on trees (wand woods, specifically) being separate from articles about the fruit said trees bear, but I just presumed there was some reason for it since there are a few. Can't see why they shouldn't be merged tbh.
- If the result of this is that no merges take place, I would be against deleting the chicken disambig and renaming either Chicken (animal) or Chicken (food) to just Chicken, because surely both are as likely as each other to be the specific article a person is looking for when they search up the word 'chicken'?
- To be honest, I'd be tempted just to call this whole thing a case of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' and let it be. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 10:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Bump. I suppose it could make sense to merge the Chicken pages. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Corvus Lestranges[]
This edit got me thinking, shouldn't we name the Corvus Lestranges without the parentheses ("Corvus Lestrange I", "Corvus Lestrange II", …), just like Sirius Black I or Regulus Black I? These Corvus Lestranges are numbered along the family tree lines too. MalchonC (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bump. Does the name "Corvus Lestrange V" (or whichever number) actually appear in this form anywhere in canon? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, "Lucius Malfoy I", "Sirius Black I", "Sirius Black II", "Arcturus Black III", etc. are not named as such in canon; they are simply known by their forename and surname. Therefore, the wiki must decide whether these pages should have their numbers parenthesised (i.e. Lucius Malfoy (I)) or to remove the parentheses of all Corvuses (i.e. Corvus Lestrange V) for uniformity. Castlemore (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hogwarts Headmaster[]
I support the suggestion of changing the name to "Head of Hogwarts". It should cover the female title too, and it has canon support. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 28 (Snape's Worst Memory), it says that Umbridge "has replaced Albus Dumbledore as Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". I don't know if the full school name should be included, but I think that would be okay too. - Kates39 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bump! ShawONWIKI (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- A firm no from me. This page is just a page specifically for Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, like there's Hogwarts Whomping Willow/Whomping Willow and Hogwarts Pensieve/Pensieve; unless the proposal is to also change Headmaster to just "Head"? I don't mind mentioning it within the articles, but I don't personally prefer the switch, since the official title given the source would be "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" and not "Head of Hogwarts" anyways. I will respect the community decision should this be in favor by the majority though, so no worries. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should cover the female title as well; however, the category system already extensively uses Category:Headmasters and Headmistresses which also is more common in the canon e.g. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 12 (The Polyjuice Potion) - "The walls were covered with portraits of old headmasters and headmistresses, all of whom were snoozing gently in their frames.", Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 11 (The Sorting Hat's New Song) - "Every headmaster and headmistress of Hogwarts has brought something new to the weighty task of governing this historic school [...]" (there are several more examples like these ones) Thoughts on "Hogwarts headmaster / headmistress" or something similar to reflect the more common wording and more easily keep the page and categories nomenclature consistent? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- (Reorganized according to timestamp time, hope that's alright since it's still the same discussion)
- If the lack of gender in article title is the core issue, there's Head Boy or Girl... Then shouldn't something like "Headmaster or Headmistress" be considered instead? I was under the impression that Headmaster is fine to be used in a genderless way if need be, much like "actor" when there's the word "actress" (we do that to CATs for real-world actress articles); obviously "Headmistress" is a thing, too, but it's stated within the article and properly redirected?
- (BTW, we also use Category:Wizards for all known wizards and witches, if we are having problem with Headmaster, then the CAT name is also up for rename consideration?) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reorg! (interestingly, the page did not throw an edit-conflict so something has changed about how those are calculated...) I think Head Boy or Girl is probably a good model to follow (such as with Head Boy or Girl badge) so the necessary related work to Headmaster, Headmaster portraits, etc, needs to also be considered with this "Head of Hogwarts" or "Hogwarts Headmaster or Headmistress" rename proposal.
- Along those lines, while I can see Category:Wizards changing to match Wizardkind, there probably needs to be a larger discussion as there appears to instances where "Wizards" appears to be used generically irrespective of gender, and other times where it is distinguished from "Witches" (whereas Headmaster and Headmistress always (?) seems to be used in a gender specific fashion?) Probably worth checking the various examples to get a better assessment if there is a major or lesser usage pattern one way or the other IMO. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think they sound like good suggestions Ironyak, I would support doing that. I checked the usage of "witches" and "wizards" in a few books. I'd say they use the term "wizards" for both genders over "witches and wizards". While they always say "Headmistress" or "Head of Hogwarts" when a female character has that job. - Kates39 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC
McGonagall refers to gender-neutral heads of Hogwarts as "Headteacher" in the Cursed Child, and that's also the term Hermione uses (I think?) about the heads of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang in relation to the Triwizard Tournaments of the past. Even though they too use the term Headmaster and Headmistress for the heads of those schools. Could that be an idea? "Hogwarts Headteacher?" I also remembered that Dudley Dursley received the Headteacher's Award at his Muggle school, and since the Headmaster page covers both wizarding and Muggle schools, and we now have an example of "headteacher" appearing both in the magical and non-magical worlds, how about it? -WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing other potential alternative. CC is 2nd tier canon, so while good, probably not good enough. I don't currently have a copy of GOF (or any other book) at hand, so if anyone can check and find a direct quote where Hermione does use "Headteacher", it'd be most helpful. Thanks for pointing out Headteacher's Award, though again, this is used in the film, so also 2nd tier canon (or lower), so it's a bit hard to compete, unless the word is also use in the books. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I checked, and I misremembered. Hermione said "heads of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang", not "headteachers" like I thought. I suggest we forego the "first-tier-second-tier" bit on this one, with the justification of a "the letter of the law vs spirit of the law" distinction, and just put this to a vote to get a consensus on the name. Second-tier or no, it's used by both wizards and Muggles, it aligns with what we're trying to do, and canon is canon at the end of the day. - WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately my stance has not changed. I'd also like to point out, for the "Today's Event" in Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells for 14 March, 2022, it is called "Honouring Hogwarts Headmasters"; regardless of canon tier, it makes "Hogwarts Headmaster" not conjectural (though curiously the article didn't have that template placed to begin with?).
- If we change Headmaster to "Headmaster or Headmistress" to match Head Boy or Girl, then I'm okay with changing Hogwarts Headmaster to "Hogwarts Headmaster or Headmistress", but yeah, not up for changing this page alone. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming that your response will prompt an increased interest in the matter from other editors as well, would you care to elaborate as to exactly why it is that your stance has not changed? Regardless of whatever name Portkey Games gave to "Today's Event" in Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells, the term "headteacher" is not conjectural either, as it appears by direct mention in a source that is Tier-Two and greenlighted by Tier-One arbiter J. K. Rowling herself. As for wanting it to "match" Head Boy or Girl", why is that important to do? There is no gender neutral term for a Head Boy or Head Girl, such as let's say "Head Person" given in canon. We are given "Headteacher", though, as a gender neutral alternative to "Headmaster" and "Headmistress", so why not use it since it's there? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, apologies, I completely forgot about the Headteacher suggestion. When reviewing the thread, I started from the top, and the original suggestion was mainly about altering the Hogwarts specific article, so coming back to the topic, I was saying my stance has not changed, I'm only supporting if both articles get changed. As mentioned, sorry, by the end of typing what I wrote, absentmindedly Headteacher was lost to me. I am not saying "Headteacher" is conjectural, however, the Hogwarts specified version, as in "Hogwarts Headteacher", kind of would be (unless it's also used in CC, sorry, I remember the plot but not the exact wording), whereas the Hogwarts specified version of Headmaster is not.
- It's completely a personal preference, I am in no way saying what I prefer is better, I just happened to prefer it in another way. We simply don't hear the bunch of Headmaster [something something] referred to as Headteacher [something something], and I honestly just preferred we keep the names directly used. You (as in people in general) don't have to agree with me. I'd also like to point you to Seth, who may very well just go for Headteacher lol. I never understood why Defence Against the Dark Arts Classroom, Transfiguration Classroom etc. couldn't just be called that, but like you said, it isn't contradictory info per se, so canon tier matters little, you probably have a good case, you just need to get people see it as important to actually do something about it. Best of luck! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Sammm鯊 Ah, I see! I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought your view hadn't changed in the sense that "headteacher" because it came from Tier-Two source Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and I didn't really get why that would matter at all. Yes, McGonagall refers to a singular, unspecified portrait in the galler of predecessors in her office as "a headteacher's portrait". I'm not sure that it matters all that much, to be honest, but if we were to change it to be gender neutral, for whatever reason, I think "Hogwarts Headteacher" would be preferable to i.e. "Headmaster or Mistress", or "Hogwarts Headmaster or Headmistress". WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
"Hogwarts Headteacher"? Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- If "headteacher" is explicitly used in an acceptable canon source, renaming the article to an inclusive gender-neutral title I would not be opposed to, so it covers both wizards and witches. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned further up (I think?) McGonagall used "headteacher" to refer to her predecessors collectively while talking to Harry in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe this rename template ought to be taken down by now, as no clear verdict appears to have been made. However, I will still state my opinion that all forms ("Headteacher", "Head", "Headmistress", "Headmaster") are canonically accurate, but for an article title, "Headteacher" is more informative in expressing the position's role than "Head". Castlemore (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Actually this was recently discussed in another section so you might want to continue there. There're a few people (including me) who support changing to "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". MalchonC (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hogwarts Headteacher and Headmaster's office[]
Combining the discussions here for simplicity. I oppose these moves for the reasons I stated in the original discussions, which can be found at Talk:Hogwarts Headteacher#Answering the question and Talk:Headmaster's office#Source respectively.
It would seem that the only way to resolve this is through a vote. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that my current inability to vote has nothing to do with that proposal, object to anyway, and point out that the reasons you gave are self-contradictory in the case of "Hogwarts Headteacher" and fallacious, and see where that gets me. Also, there is also the fact that definitive canon alternatives are preferable to conjectural ones to consider. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The word "headteacher" does appear descriptively in a canon source to describe this group of people so the rename isn't strictly necessary. Having a page saying "Hogwarts Headteacher" isn't inaccurate. When a job title isn't used descriptively, like in a title, then it would be in uppercase. An alternative is to do what is done at Hogwarts caretaker and having the title be "Hogwarts headteacher" instead. I also find "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" or "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" fairly decent names. The subject of trying to use gender-neutral titles for this has appeared on the wiki before so perhaps a vote to settle this is the best course of action. I'd be willing to wait until everyone involved is able to vote in just over two weeks. Also WIOK, let's not imply a user could have suggested a vote in bad faith please. - Kates39 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
So the fact that the current title is conjectural and the one I'm proposing isn't, that's irrelevant?
Also, you're right, that was uncalled for. My apologies, Sirius. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion, at least, is that non-conjecture, which means no combination of words that hasn't presented itself in the exact same way in canon, is most important. This may sound pedantic, but does adhere to canon the most. For this reason, I still think "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" or "Headteacher (Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry)" is what I prefer, since it avoids the rather subjective combination of words entirely. The only one that's gender-neutral and completely not conjectural besides these two is "Head of Hogwarts", but that contains both the abbreviation of the title and the short name of the school. The rest, like "Hogwarts Headteacher", "Hogwarts headteacher", "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", all seem equally proper and also equally improper.
- The difference between "Headmaster's office" and "Head's office", on the other hand, is only about non-abbreviation vs. gender-neutrality, since the exact phrases both appear in the books. Despite my previous comments elsewhere, I'm actually leaning towards "Head's office" now, as I think gender-neutrality weighs more than not using abbreviation. MalchonC (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"I'm going to assume that my current inability to vote has nothing to do with that proposal". - WIOK
Well you would assume correct. I genuinely forgot about the 1 month thing, and for that I apologise.
"I'm actually leaning towards "Head's office" now, as I think gender-neutrality weighs more than not using abbreviation." - MalchonC
Can I ask why not 'Headteacher's office' in that case? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's super conjectural, nowhere is the phrase seen in canon. MalchonC (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would beg to differ, calling back once again to the dictionary definition of 'Head' being short for 'Headteacher' in British English. I would also prefer 'Headteacher's office' for consistency, were we to keep the word 'headteacher' in the title of the other page, which is part of the reason why I brought the discussions about both pages together like this. It would make very little sense to me to have one word in one title and a different word in the other. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
In case you didn't see it, Sirius, it was a bit of a loaded statement on my part, so again, I apologise for said comment. I'm also positively surprised to hear you're coming around on "Head's office" as a canon, gender-neutral name for the article - did you know that the Harry Potter Lexicon called the equivalent article there for "Head's office"? That's what prompted me to look through PDF files of the seven books and click ctrl + f and look up "Head's office" too. To see if it actually appeared canonically, and it did. But I'm sorry that I jumped the gun on changing it and forgot about the tag. That said, while I can appreciate how the word "Head" can be an abbreviation of "Headteacher" in British English, or might even typically be used as such, when I read the uppermost passage of said chapter, my understanding was rather that "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" was sort of the official name on the position, and that "Head", as it appeared on the document in question identifies the holder as the literal Head of the school. As in "chief" or to "be in the leading position on", and that it's stylised referred to as "Headmaster/Headmistress" as something akin to an academic honorific. And because the "Headmistress"/"Headmistress" is in such frequent use, it's sort of become normative when people talk about the Head of Hogwarts. As I mentioned elsewhere too, , we do have a page called the "President of the Magical Congress of the United States of America", so it's not as though the name "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" will be this complete outlier, either, stylistically. In the interest. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- calling back once again to the dictionary definition of 'Head' being short for 'Headteacher' in British English
- Dictionaries likely have British spellings of American English words too, but we don't just change them to their British spellings. I still think whatever way canon writes it, we should write it in the exact same way. Consistency only comes next - would you change Crossed Wands Dueling Club to "Crossed Wands Duelling Club" because there's the Duelling article? MalchonC (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Go MalchonC! Looking back at my previous post, you're making a twice the case for this change that I do with one fourth the words. But that gives us - what, at least two yeses for renaming "Hogwarts Headteacher" article and three for the Headmaster's office so far? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- "would you change Crossed Wands Dueling Club to "Crossed Wands Duelling Club" because there's the Duelling article?"
- ...no, because it has never been referred to as "Crossed Wands Duelling Club" in canon. For the billionth time, the difference is that the word 'headteacher' has been used in canon. If it never had, if 'head' was the only gender-neutral form ever used, then I would agree with you. But the long form, 'headteacher', has. Therefore it will never make a shred of sense to me to use 'head' and I will never support it. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's you who said that a conversational, colloquial usage of a term shouldn't determine the name of an article, and what's more conversational and colloquial? A passing, textually lowercased remark regarding the function of a "headteacher's portrait" while McGonagall is lecturing Harry about not mistaking the portrait for the person, or an official document from the government announcing the appointment of Dolores Umbridge as Albus Dumbledore's successor as the "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I said that specifically about 'Head's office', a usage (also denounced for other reasons) by students. I'd say a deputy headmistress's usage is more official than a student's usage. As for the official document, I have already addressed that repeatedly. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It would also make sense to change both if you're going to change one. The "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", the "Head's office". Stylistic consistency. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here's something I just found from WizardingWorld.com:
- "Not to mention all the previous Headteachers of Hogwarts who reside in the Headteacher’s office."
- Now what do you make of that? Seems pretty stylistically consistent to me. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a date for when that article was written? Because it wouldn't be the first time people copied off the wiki, and if the article's been called Hogwarts Headteacher for a while now, and a random webpage attendant or what they're called on WW looking to pad the website and using a PC term that conveniently enough was revealed to them on the wiki is hardly the nail in the coffin for what should or shouldn't be taken as canonically accurate.
- Whatever gave you the idea that the students "denounced" the usage of "Head's office"? They certainly denounced Umbridge as the Head of the school, and denounced the idea of her occupying the Head's office, but the reason it were usually referred to as the Headmaster's office isn't because it's somehow wrong to call it the Head's office, it's because when Dumbledore occupies the office, who in said capacity is styled "Headmaster", embedded in said usage is a reference to Dumbledore himself. It's Dumbledore's, the Headmaster's office. When he fled, all right, it was barred and all, because the school itself recognised him as the rightful Head of the school, but he had in fact left, and wasn't there to run the school for some time, so when you talk about the Head's office, you're just talking about the office in and of itself, regardless occupant. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wizarding World content which wasn't written by Rowling is Tier Two Canon. - Kates39 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Is there a date for when that article was written? Because it wouldn't be the first time people copied off the wiki"
- No there isn't. WizardingWorld.com is considered a first-tier canon source by HPW policy, that's the simple fact of the matter.
- "Whatever gave you the idea that the students "denounced" the usage of "Head's office"?"
- I'm afraid you have completely and utterly misunderstood me there, though to be fair I did word that poorly. I didn't mean denounced in-universe, I meant that usage was denounced for other reasons on this wiki during discussion, said other reasons being "as the students have not actually said either "Headmaster's office" or "Head's office" before Umbridge was appointed or after Umbridge was sacked, we can't know from there if "Head" is only colloquial or only used to avoid referring to the office as the Headmaster's when it was actually a Headmistress's." Apologies for confusion.
- "Wizarding World content which wasn't written by Rowling is Tier Two Canon.
- I'm afraid this sentence contradicts our canon policy. All the policy says is that the whole website is first-tier canon, it does not break it down. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is not the policy page. see Harry Potter Wiki:Canon. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is part of our policy, a page created to further explain what is canon according to our tier-system. At the end of the day, Wizarding World is a valid, canon source and its content is accepted here within our tier-system. - Kates39 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but as the Canon page can be edited by anybody, I have some reservations as to how seriously we can take how official it is. Was this change ever discussed anywhere beforehand? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
All right, so I just checked, and it does indeed appear that WW beat us to it. The article was moved from the Headmaster's office to the Headteacher's office on November 16 last year, while the one you linked from the WW is dated "Oct 5th 2021". Still, all that proves is that either the operators of WW made a reactionary decision to switch "Headmasters and Headmistresses" with "Headteachers" in an attempt to appease readers with a gender-neutral synonym in the hopes that potential readers would be less likely to tie themselves in knots over it. It could be that they checked the dictionary and found a synonym that sounded about right. Or, alternatively, since I never saw that article before you showed it to me, the author has read and/or watched the Cursed Child too, noticed it like I did, and subsequently made the same, hasty extrapolation off McHonagall's passing comment in the middle of a conversation that I did, and incorrectly assumed that this was the only canon example of a synonym appearing in canon, just like I did until I re-read the fifth book. In either case, if WW articles not by Rowling are Tier-Two, then the tier-one counter-example still wins out, canonically. If MalchonC changes their mind or there are some massive influx of people disagreeing, then I guess I'm outvoted, for a lack of better term, and I'll concede my point, but until then, I maintain that Ministry legislation trumps colloquial conversation. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are fixating so much on how the text came to be on the website, because it doesn't matter in the slightest, all that matters now is that it is there. Anyway I found the discussion about the change on Canon here (which it turns out I was literally part of wow, my memory rules lmao), so okay okay, but we can work with this - a canon source beating another happens when there is a direct contradiction. How contradictory is Head of Hogwarts vs Headteacher of Hogwarts, really? Especially when that dictionary definition is taken into account? Surely we can say something like 'Headteacher (or Head for short) of Hogwarts' in the article's opening line, accepting both in this case? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WIOK: I'm not sure. If it were a proper noun like "Crossed Wands Dueling Club", and tier-two canon stylised it as "Crossed Wands Duelling Club", I would definitely not support a change to the latter. But "Head's office" and "Headteacher's office" both aren't proper nouns, so a mention of the latter in tier-two canon may not be completely outranked by the possibly colloquial usage of the former in tier-one canon. Since I still support switching the other article to "Headteacher (Hogwarts)", for the sake of consistency, if you ask me again, I might choose "Headteacher's office" this time, but it's definitely not a very strong preference. MalchonC (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
First off - Sirius - "fixated on the dates"? Dude, I just devoted a whole paragraph to moving past it as a point of contention, I just clarified that I had found the answer to my question. More to the point, though, and the next question question is both for you and for MalcholC, since I'm still not entirely clear on the matter: Exactly how even can the appearance of "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" on an official, legislative declaration be colliqual, though? I mean, in official court documents, would one refer the District Attorney as the District Attorney when they list the individual who act as the prosecution in relevant trials, or would you call them "the prosecutor"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- "fixated on the dates"
- I said 'how', not 'when'.
- "how even can the appearance of "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" on an official, legislative declaration be colliqual, though?"
- I would stand by my 'How contradictory is' question regardless of whether both were non-colloquial or otherwise. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, a colloquial, yet somehow uppercased alternative to official titles on official state document is the contradiction, that's the point. Colloquialisms falls within the category of informal, ordinary conversations, which a state document does not. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies, MalchonC, I mistook your allusion to "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" as the go-to alternative if it turned out that the use of "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" was shown to be colloquial in the source material. But if that is your actual preference, however, that obviously changes things. Sorry, I'm fighting the flu and haven't slept well over the last couple of days, as you saw, I misread a thing or two from Sirius too, so that's on me. If you and Sirius both think that "Headteacher" in whatever form is preferable to the alternative I've been advocating for, then I hereby concede the point. Sorry for being so slow on the uptake. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- For me personally, that is, if I don't factor the preferences of others into account at all, my choices would be "Head of Hogwarts" and "Head's office". My suggestion of "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" is only because of MrSiriusBlack's notion that the word "Head" is an abbreviation and an abbreviation should not be in the title if its expansion appears somewhere in canon. "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" was what I thought might've been the best choice that catered to everyone's opinion when I proposed it at Talk:Hogwarts Headteacher, but I was perhaps wrong at the time, since I may've missed your point that the "headteacher" word has not actually been referred to as the formal title of the position, but rather only used descriptively, which, now that I think of it, makes me more supportive of "Head of Hogwarts". So, to sum up, yeah, you can say that "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" is not my actual preference. MalchonC (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
And just to be extra, super-clear, when you say "Head of Hogwarts", is that "Head of Hogwarts" full stop, or are you referring to the name of "Head of" and then the full name of school, but just shortening it here for convenience? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just "Head of Hogwarts", since I've always supported taking exactly what's written from canon and not doing extra combination of words. MalchonC (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- No wait. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix says "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". I wonder why I missed that. Yeah, my choice would be "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". MalchonC (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
All right, in that case, I reassert my preference of "Head's office" and "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". I originally conceded because I didn't want to cause you guys as much headache as I did in the Aesop Sharp discussion, but if it isn't just me against the world and there's people who might agree with me this time around, that's what I will vote when I can vote. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Just realised that I've missed something a third time: MrSiriusBlack's quote "Not to mention all the previous Headteachers of Hogwarts who reside in the Headteacher’s office." does seem to refer to "Headteacher" as the formal title. Alas, as it's still tier-two canon, I think my actual preference will remain. But I can also easily consider "Headteacher (Hogwarts)" to be viable as soon as I begin to not think of only myself. And also "Headteacher of Hogwarts" if it comes to that. MalchonC (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion I've caused. This discussion can be hard to follow, as it involves two titles and more than a handful of choices. I can make a sheet of pros and cons of every choice so that it's much clearer to read (and later refer to when making the final decision), if it is needed. MalchonC (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, one is from Rowling, another isn't. That alone is enough to make up my mind on the matter, but I appreciate that there might be reasons why people might prefer other titles. I don't want to beat a dead horse again, so if you agree with me, cool. I'll vote it too. If, however, you do end up changing your mind and nobody else votes the article names I presented, I'll abstain from the vote, and there'll be no hard feelings. I think mine are canonically superior, and I don't want to be the cause of commotion. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will repeat: How contradictory is Head of Hogwarts vs Headteacher of Hogwarts, really? Especially when that dictionary definition is taken into account? Surely we can say something like 'Headteacher (or Head for short) of Hogwarts' in the article's opening line, accepting both in this case? If the wizarding world article said "Principal of Hogwarts" I would fully agree with you, but come on. How in the name of absolute sanity does an abbreviation contradict what it is an abbreviation of? If the educational decree said PM, all the lowercase uses said prime minister and the wizarding world article said Prime Minister, would you still call the article 'PM'? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, so that's the contradiction you were asking me about. Sorry, I'm reading your messages through this fever-y haze. I probably should be in bed, but if I do that, I'll fall asleep and mess up my sleeping pattern. All right, let me try to address your question properly: Language evolves over time, and words don't have static, inherent meanings behind them, they have usages. The contradiction is that while yes, we know from the dictionary that the word "Head" can indeed be used to refer to a headteacher in the form of an abbreviation, but it'd be inaccurate to assert it as fact if we've not been told that such is the case. This could easily be more of a multifaceted than we realize at first glance. When Hagrid introduces himself to Harry, for example, the title he identifies himself by is "Keeper of the Grounds". All right, so he said "Keeper of Keys and Grounds", but now that we found that they were two different positions and he were simply using an amalgamation because he occupied both at the time, for every intent and purposes, it is accurate to say that Hagrid's the "Keeper of the Grounds" at Hogwarts. Now, that's the title. The occupation, meanwhile, is "gamekeeper".
That is a little less of a mouthful to say, and it is accurate. That's the job, and when people ask or for other reasons talk about what Hagrid does for a living in book one and two, as Harry says, and as the Narrator describes, he is "the gamekeeper". How exactly are we supposed to rule out the possibility, however unlikely we may or may not think that it is, that the official title isn't "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", identifying the holder as "being in the leading position of" the school, and that "headteacher" isn't simply the occupation they hold at the school in that capacity, with the formal style of which is either "Headmaster" or "Headmistress" depending on the sex of the appointee? We may have cause to suspect, but we don't know. That's the contradiction, we can't claim to know something we don't know for sure.
Also, MalchonC brought an important point about accepting things as they appear in canon above suppositions about what those appearances actually meant or entailed. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the most straw-clutching, barrel-scraping argument you have come up with yet. Dear god. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, as straw-clutching and barrel-scraping as you consider this argument to be, I for one can't see why what's true for one Hogwarts employee can't possibly be true for another. At least, I've seen no information that rules it out definitively in the source material. Is it wrong to say that a headteacher of a school is the Head of a school? In what ways aren't these synonymous, like Keeper of Grounds and gamekeeper is? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
In trying to review this very (oh so very, very) extended discussion, it seems like there have been many words spent on justifications but few on what the texts and policies say.
In Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Act Two, Scene Ten, McGonagall says "A head teacher’s portrait is a memoir." Is there some other mention where "Headteacher" is used as my search function is not finding it.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 28 (Snape's Worst Memory) says "Dolores Jane Umbridge (High Inquisitor) has replaced Albus Dumbledore as Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." This means the title would be "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" to follow canon. This aligns with many similar roles noted such as "Amelia Bones. Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement" in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1 (The Other Minister) (spoken dialogue) and "Rufus Scrimgeour, previously Head of the Auror office in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement" in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 3 (Will and Won't) (newspaper article), (other examples include "Head of the Goblin Liaison Office" for Dirk Cresswell (spoken dialog), and "Head of the Muggle-born Registration Commission" for Umbridge (MoM job plaque), "Heads of Houses" (narrator), many etcs) so the use of "Head" as a gender-neutral term seems well established.
As there will be many redirects to this page the use of Headmaster, Headmistress, Head of Hogwarts, etc will still continue to be used throughout the articles when appropriate.
Yes any change here does open up questions about Headmaster, Headmaster's office, Headteacher's portrait, etc, so we should also keep those in mind going forward, but can we please cease the sniping at each other? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WIOK No but come on. This is the exact kind of argument you would usually rebuke, this "what if 'Headteacher' is the head teacher and 'Head of Hogwarts' means leader of the school in general" thing. What is it you like to say? Straw man fallacy? Whataboutery? No?
- In any case, surely the use of the word 'headteacher' and 'head' in the exact same context ('Headteacher of Hogwarts' and 'Head of Hogwarts', 'Headteacher's office' and Head's office') is the proof that you need that it's one being simply an abbreviation of the other?
- Ironyak Those other used of 'Head' (Head of Houses, Head of Department) are not comparable because they are not referring to 'Headteacher'; 'Headteacher of House' or 'Headteacher of Department' has never and would never be used. Just not the same thing. Curiously, did you see the wizardingworld.com source I provided earlier? I strongly believe that it is supplementary rather than contradictory; what would your answer be to my 'prime minister' comparison question? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. Just spotted the bit about 'sniping'. If the 'straw-clutching, barrel-scraping' thing is what you are referring to, then I apologise, that was indeed uncalled for. I won't deny being frustrated by this frankly bizarre debate that has indeed gone on for far too long. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Ironyak1:
- Hello there!
- Yes, that was my thoughts exactly. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 28 (Snape's Worst Memory) does say "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", and off of that same announcement, the surrounding students starts talking about how Umbridge had tried to get into the "Head's office", which is the only tier-one gender-neutral name for Dumbledore's study in canon that I know of. I don't remember who, if it was Sirius or somebody else, but someone pointed to the fact that it's also called the "Headmaster's office", but as I noted further up, when people in let's say Harry's time talk about going to the Headmaster's office, that's talking about the office in relation to who's occupying it as much as the room itself, if not more so. The "Head's office", meanwhile, alludes to the office of the "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" in and of itself. As I mentioned elsewhere, that's the name the HP Lexicon went with for the equivalent article for the office.
- Also, just so it's out there, I'm not familiar with what "sniping" is, or what it means to "snipe" each other, but as far as I'm concerned, if the 'straw-clutching, barrel-scraping' thing is what you are referring to, then Sirius owes me no apology. He's allowed to tell me if he thinks I'm making a bad point, it's not as though he's attacking me or anything. And I'm not sure what I did to "snipe" Sirius, exactly, but he didn't seem to be particularly upset with me either. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- In reviewing this and the related previous threads, there is a lot of bickering back and forth about " the cherry-picking continues, I see. A bit disappointing, but not really surprising", etc so both of you are engaging in this tit-for-tat attacking directed at the other person. So again, please just stop.
- I am just trying to start by figuring out where "Headteacher" is used in CC, as there it is "head teacher" in my copy (two words, no capitalization). Is this an UK difference or in an later update or something? I did see the WW article you linked MSB - Kates' point stands about it being lower canon (effectively if not officially as we've seen many canon problems with their non-JKR-written content) but it appears to be the only (?) source for "Headteacher".
- I agree that the other uses of Head are not as an abbreviation for "head teacher", but rather a separate commonly used, gender-neutral title for the head of the institution - which raises the question as to why Head of Hogwarts has to exclusively be an abbreviation of Head[teacher/master/mistress] of Hogwarts[...] and not just a similar official title? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
MrSiriusBlack
- "This is the exact kind of argument you would usually rebuke, this "what if 'Headteacher' is the head teacher and 'Head of Hogwarts' means leader of the school in general" thing. What is it you like to say? Straw man fallacy? Whataboutery? No?"
- Yes, that are indeed words I have used to describe certain arguments or objections I've encountered on the talk pages, but I'm afraid you're not using them quite right: A strawman fallacy happens when somebody actually misrepresents a previous argument, in this case, however, opinions just differs on what the implications of the word "Head" is in a certain setting. And it's not whataboutery either. But you know, I can understand why you'd think that, because they do look a bit alike, but here's the difference: Whatabaoutery happens when you reply to difficult questions by raising a different issue.
- For example, if I said: "Matilda Weasley is a red-head, and she is called a Weasley, so she's born a Weasley," and your counter-argument was that "Molly was a red-head and she was married into the family". That'd be whataboutery because Molly, while existing in the same fictional universe, is part of an entirely different story. What I gave was called an argument by counter-example. a situation which shows that the argument can have true premises and a false conclusion. And what I did to try to prove your conclusion false was for making a case that the title "Head of Hogwarts" could have been used in a manner like Ironyak1 indicated above.
- "In any case, surely the use of the word 'headteacher' and 'head' in the exact same context ('Headteacher of Hogwarts' and 'Head of Hogwarts', 'Headteacher's office' and Head's office') is the proof that you need that it's one being simply an abbreviation of the other? "
- Conceivably. "Head of Hogwarts" and "Head's office" are what it says in the book, though, so that's what I'm sticking too.
Do either of you have the British editions of the books handy, by any chance? I have a semi-related question I was hoping you could look up for me? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, Ironyak1, yeah, that's a just a big goof on my part. I remember seeing "head teacher", but I'm so used to thinking of the word "headmaster" in one word that when I announced on a wiki talk page that I had found a gender neutral term in the CC, and that we should use that, I must have written it as "headteacher" without thinking, and people ran with it, so I forgot all about the space between the two words. "head teacher" is in two words here too, when I'm looking again. Sorry. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have the British editions. It says "A headteacher's portrait is a memoir" so it is one word, no capitalisation. Interesting that the US edition separated it into head teacher. I could look things up for you, WIOK. What is it you would like me to check? - Kates39 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"I did see the WW article you linked MSB - Kates' point stands about it being lower canon"
No thoughts on the supplementary rather than contradictory thing then? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 22:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Kates39: Thanks, K.! So I realized that we have these three articles:
- Headteacher of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry during 1792
- Headteacher of Beauxbatons Academy of Magic during 1792
- Headteacher of Durmstrang Institute during 1792
These articles calls them "headteachers", but in the American editions I have, and this would be Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 15 (Beauxbatons and Durmstrang), what I find is this:
- ""Who are the judges?" Harry asked."
- "Well, the Heads of the participating schools are always on the panel," said Hermione, and everyone looked around at her, rather surprised, "because all three of them were injured during the Tournament of 1792, when a cockatrice the champions were supposed to be catching went on the rampage."
So here, we found another instance of Head of school used before Umbridge's appointment in book 5, it seems, and it's in uppercase and everything. So "Head", not "Headteacher" was used to describe these. But then I noticed something funny when Dumbledore announces the Triwizard Tournament in Chapter 12. He said:
- "The heads of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang will be arriving with their short-listed contenders in October, and the selection of the three champions will take place at Halloween. An impartial judge will decide which students are most worthy to compete for the Triwizard Cup, the glory of their school, and a thousand Galleons personal prize money."
Here, it's in lowercase. I thought for a second that the implication was of course that the reason why was that "Dumbledore was just a statement of fact - "The heads" - the people heading the different schools were coming, and that Hermione's were uppercased because "Heads" was a statement of fact and status, because of how their status as "Heads" meant they were entitled to said seats on the judge panel. Then I decided not to jump to conclusions, because I made a similar mistake a while ago with the word "wizarding" because in the US edition, the book capitalised "Wizarding". Wizarding law, Wizardkind, etc., etc., so I wondered how they compare? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- In the British editions, both of these chapters have "Heads" in uppercase. I have uploaded an image of it for you. Kates39 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Can I change the name of those from "Headteacher" to "Head"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WIOK - Please do not go changing those article titles as they are all related to this issue. Whatever resolution we find here will likely extend across several articles ultimately.
- @MSB - I find the PM example to not be completely apt as PM always means Prime Minister for that role; it's not clear that Head always means Head[teacher/master/mistress] in this context and seems in many instances to be an equivalent title, paralleling its use in other similar roles in various departments and institutions, and not an explicit abbreviation of something else.
- @Kates39 - When you have a chance, can you search the UK texts for any other use of "headteacher" or "head teacher"? With just the one use in CC and it not being capitalized, I'm not sure how it was even considered to be a proper noun and official title and not just a descriptive term for the role like leader/first chair, or point guard, etc. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ironyak1: I won't just go changing things, that's why I asked, in case you didn't want me to. :-)
I think that the reason why my edition of CC reads "head teacher" and hers "headteacher" is because mine's American and hers is British, and it's a grammar thing. For what it's worth, I went ctrl + f on PDF files of the books I found online, and I never found "headteacher" or "head teacher" in any of the seven books, and that's a pretty big thing to leave out. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ironyak, I checked every book and the word headteacher doesn't appear. - Kates39 (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Kates - I know we are busy with many other updates and such, but from this discussion it appears that we have only the non-JKR WW article as a canon use of "Headteacher" as a title, so the previous changes to this term don't have a lot to back them up, while the use of "Head" is used extensively in the books as a gender-neutral term for the position at Hogwarts, other magical schools, the Ministry of Magic, etc. I would say changing to "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" would best align with the most accurate term from highest canon. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will never agree with that, as a result of 23 and a half years of living in the UK hearing "Head" and "Headteacher" used completely synonymously/interchangeably in this context, but clearly I have no choice but to concede. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Trying to revive this discussion here after almost a year - although WIOK89 has been banned, there're still three including me who are in favour of a rename to "Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", but there's also one that opposes it. So, if I may, MrSiriusBlack, have you by any chance changed your mind, and if not, would you be OK if the rename is carried out, or would you prefer to continue in another way, with a vote, or more discussion, etc? MalchonC (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes[]
I think the suggestion "Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products" should be a sub-category. That's because the category now has files of both the products and the shop itself, so I think the place and the products need to be separated/split into two categories instead, a parent and sub-category. - Kates39 (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
en:Category:Images from Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4[]
"Lego" in the title of this image category needs to be correctly changed to "LEGO", since it is an official brand name, as well as LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 (and all other LEGO HP products) having this capitalisation. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Harry Potter: A Magical Year[]
I set up the page Harry Potter: A Magical Year, The Illustrations of Jim Kay under that name because that's what was on Wizarding World. However, I know that other websites use varying portions of that title. I'd be okay with dropping "The Illustrations of Jim Kay" out if people would like a shorter title. - Kates39 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Uncertain of this one. The 'The Illustrations of Jim Kay' part is displayed like some kind of subtitle separate from the book's name on Bloomsbury's own website, and left out altogether on the title of a recent video from their own youtube channel; however it is included as part of the book's name in the title of an earlier video on the same channel, and is also included in the book's name on multiple store websites including Amazon, Waterstones, WHSmith etc, so I am really not sure which way to go, though I think I lean towards keeping the longer page name. If the longer page name is kept, I think I would advocate for changing the comma to a colon and the existing colon to a hyphen, consistent with the aforementioned sources. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand the current title came directly from WW, the odd thing is, after that initial report, I couldn't find them following up with this book? (That or Facebook and Twitter are both failing me lol)
- I pitched it due to how Bloomsbury tells it when talking about the book:
- But I understand publisher websites don't often reflect the truest data (Scholastic has at least presented one false info before). If wanting to keep the full title, I also prefer the colon. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think if shortening it, it should still have "Harry Potter:" in it. When you click on the two links, they both have that in front of it. Scholastic have the full title at the top of the page too. I think since varying portions of the name has been used by every source, I'd pitch to keep at least "Harry Potter:" in it too. - Kates39 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
List of potion ingredients[]
I'm not super persistent about this, but could this article be considered renaming as simply "potion ingredient"? Right now, when I type that, I'd only get Potion Ingredients (Trading Card). I suppose alternatively a redirect could be set up for the list page, but... why not just be straightforward? It's still going to be a list page, but much like how book, sweets, Quidditch team were at some point all list pages, titling them by the subject themselves just makes linking easier? It's just a thought. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 11:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I support changing the name too. It's simpler and has the same purpose. It will lead people to the same thing. - Kates39 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I concur. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I think the current name of this article is suitable, since there is no universal "Potion ingredient", they're all separate items, and I think designating it as a list is useful, since it clearly tells readers that this is a comprehensive list of all potion ingredients and their uses. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Oliver Wood's Quidditch diagrams[]
(Disclaimer: I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony, when a User recently vocally protested about tag removal as if I was silencing their rights to express their opinion, and in reality they've done exactly just that themselves, without attempting to discuss it out. I'm a Mod and made my judgement call due to the lack of support in policy, what's your excuse? I don't want to be mean and act high-and-mighty, but perhaps next time, don't shift blames when you've done the same, with no legitimate reasons other than "you yourself disagreed with the propose". I can respect your disagreement, if you had followed the procedure and talked it out here. I can still respect your disagreement, I just think you were super rude about it.)
Right, now that's out of the way. I first pitched this article to be renamed and slightly repurposed, back at the end of 2019, as seen here. I've clearly stated out the reasons, and if people don't feel like clicking to check, I wrote:
- "Okay, the suggested name isn't great, so feel free to come up with a better one. The reason is because, in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, a blackboard is used for that exact purpose in the Quidditch Changing Rooms; after thinking it through, while in canon Oliver is the one known to have produced diagrams, but there's nothing to suggest other captains or team members didn't, it was just previously couldn't be proven. Now, while in lesser tier, it has been confirmed. This page could remain focused on JUST Oliver's, or simply repurposed to cover the entire use."
At the time, the rename pitch was "Blackboard used for Quidditch strategy", covering it as an "object" page; this was strongly influenced by the fact that the blackboard was the actual object in the infobox, and I figured if there's something like Desk of the Hogwarts Librarian and Desk outside the library, why not for the blackboard since it obviously have a specific purpose?
The pitch was dismissed without further communication. The whole point of the pitch was about whether or not it's necessary for restricting the diagrams to be specifically Oliver Wood's, I'm obviously not up for it, and the User is, so I would like to hear what other people think before being content with continuing the status quo.
I also want to point out, if you want to be super technical and nitpicking: Did Wood attempt to teach Harry Wronski Feint back in COS? Because if not, that GOF mention isn't even about the same specific diagram that appeared in COS. Oh, sure, "but they are all Quidditch diagrams by Oliver Wood", so of course they could be counted. I won't argue with that if you want to go that route; I'll just add, the pitch was about freeing the Oliver Wood restriction, applying that logic, HM would have counted just fine.
I'm making an effort here; when I pitched it back then, I already stated "feel free to come up with better ones", instead what I got was just total dismissal. Owells. If the blackboard one is oh so undesirable, "Quidditch diagram" is another possibility.
I'll repeat, I respect the disagreement from a specific User, I would just like to hear what others think. And no worries, I'll respect the opinion even if it's not the same as mine. I can't pretend I'm not bothered by the whole thing and write and phrase everything in a friendly manner, when I was just recently accused of something the person had no qualms of doing themselves with less justified reasons. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I support a general page for the diagrams. I think that keeping the same kind of diagrams together will be better than having short, separate pages for individual ones by separate people. I don't think it's necessary for the page to only detail Oliver Wood's diagrams. Lower canon should count when it does not contradict higher canon. I can't find a reason why the blackboard or employing Quidditch diagrams couldn't have been used by other captains and players too. I'd be okay with "Blackboard used for Quidditch strategy" or "Quidditch diagram".
- I know the incident happened a while ago, but I want to point it out anyway. If someone suggests a rename and you object to their suggestion, please discuss it here. Do not just unilaterally erase their suggestion by taking it off the page. I will be putting the {{rename}} template with the suggestion back on the page until the discussion here has found a solution to it. - Kates39 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Aragog's Lair[]
I personally think this one has a fine title, but another editor did suggest a renaming for this article a long while ago, and it was never discussed, along with many other articles, so what do people think? RedWizard98 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I first asked about it back in 2018 as seen here, and Seth's reply can be seen here, which was why I dropped the issue. It looks like you agree with Seth's take, so unless people wanted to make a case for "Spider's Lair", there's nothing new to add ATM? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 05:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I think it should be renamed to Acromantula Lair. That's just my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I need to learn human interaction (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 March 2022.
- We don't just make up the name, the name has to be from somewhere in canon. --EnderDragon233 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996) I[]
The category has a few pages similar to and including Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996) I. While I agree "I" should be put in brackets "(I)" like proposed, I think the placing of it should be changed to "Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (I) (1996)" too. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kates39 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC).
- Undecided. But if the numerals do move to before the years, it would make more sense to number them I to VI rather than I to III per year as they are now. Although, in that case, it would seem redundant to list the years in the title at all. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I agree that if the numerals are moved to before the years, they should be incrementing all the way rather than returning back to (I) when the year changes, but the years do seem redundant then. I personally think the year information should be kept in the titles so that it's easier to locate the right one when looking up a letter, so to accommodate that, the numerals should probably stay in their current place. --EnderDragon233 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Articles for Dewikipediafication[]
Hi, I've noticed this has had a rename tag on it, but never discussed. I see that this hidden category was created as to mark articles that could be seen as having too much Wikipedia content, but in my mind, I think that perhaps "dewikipediafication" is not an actual word, as I can find it used nowhere else on the net, so I think we should discuss potential alternative names for this category here. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a strange word which I can't find being used anywhere else. Looks like whoever set up the category invented the word. Other names for the category could be "Articles copying Wikipedia", or "Articles containing Wikipedia content". Thoughts? - Kates39 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel it is super necessary to rename this other than to fix the capitalisation. Sure, the word might not be in the dictionary, but it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads it what it means. It is attached to Template:Dewikipediafy, so if the category were renamed, that template would have to be rewritten and renamed also. I don't see a problem with using 'dewikipediafy', 'dewikipediafication' etc. Certainly can't think of a better word for the template name. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Harry Potter universe[]
Not sure I've ever heard of it being referred to as the 'Wizarding universe'? I've heard 'potterverse' colloquially, but I'd still prefer 'Harry Potter universe' over that for the article title as it is more formal. Also, I feel like calling it 'Wizarding universe' would have the potential to cause confusion with wizarding world. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I've never heard the term "wizarding universe" exactly used either. I also don't get why whoever used the rename tag on this article did not provide a reason in the tag as to why this rename could be desired. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
File:Screenshot from DHG1 NDS.png[]
Very certain that image depcits a brown spider, since I can make out what is almost certainly a brown body with mutliple long spindy legs, that of a spider. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Blood pact[]
I don't agree with changing the name of the article to Blood troth or Oath, since in The Crimes of Grindelwald Newt Scamander, when Albus Dumbledore speaks on the Hogwarts Viaduct, tells Albus that he made a blood pact with Grindelwald and therefore could not fight Grindelwald. Changing the name doesn't seem right to me as it is already known as the blood pact, although I agree that if those names are placed as aliases of the blood pact.
What do you think?
Jcarias123 talk! 16:35, April 25, 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was thinking the same thing. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 20:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, Newt called it a "blood pact" in CoG, but throughout SoD, it's referred to exclusively as a blood troth. Seems to me like Newt deduced what it was without necessarily remembering/knowing what it was called in fim 2, and the proper name was clarified in film 3. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Did the Movie Magic book call it a blood oath or just Oath? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore - The Complete Screenplay calls it a blood troth, so I've changed my opinion. I think it should be renamed now. - Kates39 (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Shall we rename it then? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:R[]
Would personally suggest renaming category as "R members", to better distinguish what the category entails. This is a category of allegiance to an organisation. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Grammar/capitalisation fixes[]
Hi, so this section here is for tracking the progress of the renaming of several categories that have wrong grammar or capitalisation in their names. Some previous exchanges about this can be found here. You can update the numbers below to reflect the current status and/or cross out entries that are done. You are also welcome to add a comment if you wish to discuss.
Category:Active Talk Pages → Category:Active talk pages (0 left)Done by MalchonC - Kates39 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC) (a while ago MalchonC (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC))Category:Common Rooms → Category:Common rooms (0 left)Done - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Dark wizards → Category:Dark Wizards (64 left)Not done - not capitalised in the books. The main page was renamed instead. - Kates39 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Where does the capitalization for Wizard come from? Book text has it uncapitalized as far as I saw e.g. "Investigations continue into the break-in at Gringotts on 31 July, widely believed to be the work of Dark wizards or witches unknown." Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 8 (The Potions Master) --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- In the UK editions of the books, it is also in lowercase. The sources given on the page Dark Wizard are for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone which doesn't capitalise it so I do not support this name change. - Kates39 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Hogwarts Secrets → Category:Hogwarts secrets (0 left)Done - Kates39 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Centaurs → Category:Images of centaurs (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Fire seed bushes → Category:Images of fire seed bushes (0 left)Done a while ago MalchonC (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Images of Gnomes → Category:Images of gnomes (0 left)Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Images of Goblins → Category:Images of goblins (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of House-elves → Category:Images of house-elves (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Gargoyles → Category:Images of gargoyles (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Ghosts → Category:Images of ghosts (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)- Category:Images of Gryffindor Boys' Dormitory → Category:Images of the Gryffindor Boys' Dormitory (25 left)
- Category:Images of Lestrange Mausoleum → Category:Images of the Lestrange Mausoleum (39 left)
- Capitalization source? "A faint light in the distance shows him the Lestrange mausoleum." Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, Scene 92 --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not capitalised in that sentence, but it is fully capitalised as "LESTRANGE MAUSOLEUM" in the scene names of the screenplay, so the "Lestrange Mausoleum" style might be taken from there. A similar but different one would be Flamel House which only appears in the fully-capitalised "FLAMEL HOUSE". I personally don't mind changing "mausoleum" to lowercase, but if we do that, do we also have to change Flamel House, since appearances in scene names do not serve as confirmation of them being proper nouns? MalchonC (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Images of Magical Creatures Reserve → Category:Images of the Magical Creatures Reserve (71 left)
Category:Images of Pixies → Category:Images of pixies (0 left)Done - Kates39 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Images of Pumpkin Juice → Category:Images of pumpkin juice (0 left)Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- Category:Images of Rubeus Hagrid's hut → Category:Images of Hagrid's Hut (183 left)
- The article title as "Hagrid's Hut" needs to be confirmed - current source is just PM and every mention I saw in the book text is just "Hagrid’s hut". --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's in lowercase in the books. In recent Wizarding World articles like this, it also says "Hagrid's hut" so I'm not sure where the capitalisation started. If Pottermore ever used the capitalisation of Hut, it isn't now. - Kates39 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not capitalised, then it's not a proper noun, so the article name should still probably be "Rubeus Hagrid's hut", not "Hagrid's hut", which means the category doesn't actually need changing. MalchonC (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hold on, "Hagrid's Hut" is used in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery. MalchonC (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's in lowercase in the books. In recent Wizarding World articles like this, it also says "Hagrid's hut" so I'm not sure where the capitalisation started. If Pottermore ever used the capitalisation of Hut, it isn't now. - Kates39 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The article title as "Hagrid's Hut" needs to be confirmed - current source is just PM and every mention I saw in the book text is just "Hagrid’s hut". --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Images of Sphinxes → Category:Images of sphinxes (0 left)- Kates39 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Images of the Gryffindor common room → Category:Images of the Gryffindor Common Room (127 left)Not done - not capitalised in the books. Article renamed the other way instead. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Headmaster's Office → Category:Images of the Headmaster's office (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Source for Headmaster being capitalized? The book texts I have all use "headmaster’s office" (e.g. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 27 (The Centaur and the Sneak) - "“You can come with me to the headmaster’s office, Potter.”"), but I have an old archived entry that it was capitalized on PM once as part of some extra explanatory text. Can someone please check the UK / later editions to make sure this wasn't changed and that it should be all lower case? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is in always in uppercase in the UK editions, e.g. "Harry hurried out through the portrait hole and off to the Headmaster's office" in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 20 (Lord Voldemort's Request). - Kates39 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Source for Headmaster being capitalized? The book texts I have all use "headmaster’s office" (e.g. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 27 (The Centaur and the Sneak) - "“You can come with me to the headmaster’s office, Potter.”"), but I have an old archived entry that it was capitalized on PM once as part of some extra explanatory text. Can someone please check the UK / later editions to make sure this wasn't changed and that it should be all lower case? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Images of the Hog's Head → Category:Images of the Hog's Head Inn (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Hogsmeade station → Category:Images of Hogsmeade station (0 left)Done by Kates39. MalchonC (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Images of the Hufflepuff common room → Category:Images of the Hufflepuff Common Room (20 left)Not done - not capitalised in the books. Article renamed the other way instead. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of The Leaky Cauldron → Category:Images of the Leaky Cauldron (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Ministry of Magic → Category:Images of the British Ministry of Magic (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the New York Ghost → Category:Images of The New York Ghost (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Ravenclaw common room → Category:Images of the Ravenclaw Common Room (22 left)Not done - not capitalised in the books. Article renamed the other way instead. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Slytherin common room → Category:Images of the Slytherin Common Room (48 left)Not done - not capitalised in the books. Article renamed the other way instead. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of the Trolley witch → Category:Images of the Trolley Witch (14 left)Main article and Image category Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)- Note: This should better be processed along with the main article Trolley witch, which is also proposed for renaming to "Trolley Witch".
- Category:Images of Unidentified Gryffindor girls → Category:Images of the unidentified Gryffindor girls (34 left)
- Why would this be "Images of the unidentified Gryffindor girls"? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's because the category isn't meant to be for just any unidentified Gryffindor girls, but only 2 specific girls (see the category page itself). Other unidentified Gryffindor girls should be sorted into the category for general unidentified students, unless we want to create categories for both genders and all four Houses. MalchonC (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah, that's a mess lol. This category needs some cleanup and be separated out to be specific to the 2 distinct articles involved. Not a task for automation. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this approach, since renaming the category to include "the" still isn't clear unless you actually click into the category page, and there's no reason why these two unidentified girls don't each get a separate category. I can start splitting the existing category soon if there's no objection. MalchonC (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, yeah, that's a mess lol. This category needs some cleanup and be separated out to be specific to the 2 distinct articles involved. Not a task for automation. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's because the category isn't meant to be for just any unidentified Gryffindor girls, but only 2 specific girls (see the category page itself). Other unidentified Gryffindor girls should be sorted into the category for general unidentified students, unless we want to create categories for both genders and all four Houses. MalchonC (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would this be "Images of the unidentified Gryffindor girls"? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Images of Unidentified Hogwarts Employees → Category:Images of unidentified Hogwarts employees (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Unidentified Students → Category:Images of unidentified students (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- Category:Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes → Category:Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products (235 left)
- Note: Unsure if we should just rename the category (as the description says it is for WWW products), or turn it into a category for the shop itself and remove images that don't depict the location.
- As we only have one article, Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, the image category should match that naming and if we move the products into a separate image category they would not be part of the article's {{imagecat}}. I would suggest we just edit the article and image category text to note that "Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes" was both a shop and product line so that the article and image categories all line up and are consistent. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think that would work. However, I also like the idea of separating the images of the shop itself to the products. Would placing "Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products" into the "Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes" sound okay? - Kates39 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- WWW products are visible in the vast majority if not all of the images of the shop though. If the WWW imagecat was split into images of the shop and images of the products, with the products category a subcat of the shop category, then the shop category would be redundant on potentially every file it would appear on. I think the best thing to do would be to just leave it as it currently is. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 11:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think that would work. However, I also like the idea of separating the images of the shop itself to the products. Would placing "Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products" into the "Images of Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes" sound okay? - Kates39 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- As we only have one article, Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, the image category should match that naming and if we move the products into a separate image category they would not be part of the article's {{imagecat}}. I would suggest we just edit the article and image category text to note that "Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes" was both a shop and product line so that the article and image categories all line up and are consistent. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Images of Werewolves → Category:Images of werewolves (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Images of Zouwu → Category:Images of Zouwus (0 left)Done by Kates39. MalchonC (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Laws of Magic → Category:Laws of magic (0 left)Done by Kates39. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Ministry of Magic allies → Category:British Ministry of Magic allies (0 left)Done by Kates39. MalchonC (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Ministry of Magic campaigns → Category:British Ministry of Magic campaigns (0 left)Done. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Ministry of Magic departments → Category:British Ministry of Magic departments (0 left)Done - MrSiriusBlack Talk 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)- Category:Ministry of Magic employees → Category:British Ministry of Magic employees (68 left)
Category:Ministry of Magic locations → Category:British Ministry of Magic locations (0 left)Done by Kates39. MalchonC (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Ministry of Magic positions → Category:British Ministry of Magic positions (0 left)Done by Kates39 - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Category:Objects with Personality → Category:Objects with personality (0 left)Note: It is also proposed that it be changed to Category:Sentient objects. See Category talk:Objects with Personality.Done by Kates39 - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Soundtracks from Harry Potter Films → Category:Soundtracks from the Harry Potter films (0 left)Done by Kates39 - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Category:Soundtracks from Harry Potter video games → Category:Soundtracks from the Harry Potter video games (0 left)Done - MrSiriusBlack Talk 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Spells with Incantations of Latin Origin → Category:Spells with incantations of Latin origin (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Spells with Modifiers → Category:Spells with modifiers (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Three Broomsticks Inn Employees → Category:Three Broomsticks Inn employees (0 left)Done by Kates39. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Category:Unidentified Goblins → Category:Unidentified goblins (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Category:Unidentified Hogwarts Students → Category:Unidentified Hogwarts students (0 left)Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
MalchonC (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Where does the capitalization for the common rooms come from? In checking the books (US 1st ed.), the text sems always to be lower case e.g. "They all scrambled through it — Neville needed a leg up — and found themselves in the Gryffindor common room, a cozy, round room full of squashy armchairs." Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 7 (The Sorting Hat) and "“What we’d need to do is to get inside the Slytherin common room and ask Malfoy a few questions without him realizing it’s us.”" Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 9 (The Writing on the Wall) etc for the other houses. Are these capitalized in the UK texts? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, these are not capitalised in the UK books. The Writing by J.K. Rowling feature on Wizarding World capitalised it in the title of the Hufflepuff common room page but the article doesn't, so this could be the origin of it. - Kates39 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking! I think there some other there that were given Title Case somewhere (like with the Hufflepuff common room at the top of the PM/WW article), but are not actually proper nouns that are fully capitalized in the main text. Everyone should try to flag those and double-check if it's the article or the category name that actually needs fixing. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- If the article titles are the only sources of the title case style, then I support renaming the articles instead of the categories. Another one that I've doubted for a long time, but am not able to check due to the (supposedly archived) webpage still missing, is Hagrid's Pink Umbrella. I'm not saying it has to be discussed here, but it does suspiciously look like the name is taken only from the article title, since it would be weird if the article itself keeps referring to the umbrella in that unusually formal term. MalchonC (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ironyak1 has renamed the articles instead of the categories, and so I have struck off the common room items above. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- No worries at all. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I suggest renaming ghe category instead of redirect and create. This keeps the history in one place. SeichanGrey (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough - takes some extra steps as the automation does the create and tag for deletion by default, but can do. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Letter titles[]
There are several pages for letters suggesting that the numeral appearing at the end of their titles be placed in brackets.
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996) I
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996) II
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996) III
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1997) I
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1997) II
- Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1997) III
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1994) I
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1994) II
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1994) III
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1994) IV
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1995) I
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1995) II
- Harry Potter's letter to Sirius Black (1995) III
- Hermione Granger's letter to Harry Potter (1991) I
- Hermione Granger's letter to Harry Potter (1991) II
- Hermione Granger's letter to Harry Potter (1991) II
- Hermione Granger's letter to Harry Potter (1991) III
- Hermione Granger's letter to Harry Potter (1991) III
- Minerva McGonagall's letter to Harry Potter (1991) I
- Minerva McGonagall's letter to Harry Potter (1991) II
- Minerva McGonagall's letter to Harry Potter (1991) II
Is this really necessary? Do you agree with this renaming suggestion, or is there a better idea for how to rename these pages? I did suggest once here that the numeral move to before the years, and another user questioned whether they even need the years. They suggested removing the years and numbering the letters differently. - Kates39 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- It seems a bit awkward to have two pairs of brackets in a title. Removing the years helps avoid this, but then the titles can be a lot less clear. How about "Albus Dumbledore's letter to Harry Potter (1996, I)"? MalchonC (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I would support what MalchonC said, more than the suggested rename. Makse more sense as it is a disambiguator for the separate pages. SeichanGrey (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree or have better suggestions? We can't exactly have dozens of letter pages stuck with renaming templates forever. MalchonC (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be better to rename them like Minerva McGonagall's 1991 letter to Harry Potter (II), that way there's only one bracket and the year is part of the title. Silver Discusión 18:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- An interesting idea, but I would not really agree to that, as we may then have some letters that have years in the middle of the titles and others that don't (in cases where adding the year is redundant). Additional information like year numbers is perhaps still best put at the end in parentheses. MalchonC (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Language pages such as French moved to en:French language[]
I suggest rename French to French language. Then the left over redirect be renamed to France. Applies to every other language in Category:Languages. SeichanGrey (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Seems unnecessary when names such as "French" are already the formal names of the languages? At best we could perhaps move them to like "French (language)" but I also don't see the need, since all we need to do is to be careful not to link like "[[French]]" when we mean "[[France|French]]". Nothing that can't be resolved by extra attention from the editors' side. MalchonC (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Jacob's sibling[]
I think we should rename this page "Pip". It's the in-universe designation for both genders, and it's more consistent with the in-universe depiction of the character. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- We do not use nicknames in article titles. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 23:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Because? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Formality. Per HPW:LG, article titles must use full first and last names when they are known. When they are not known, we use formal identifiers such as 'Jacob's sibling'. Please note that this has been discussed before and decided against. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 23:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there an example on wiki where the article name is at the nickname? SeichanGrey (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not to my knowledge. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 23:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, they didn't vote against changing the title "Jacob's sibling altogether, they voted against changing the title to "Vault-Breaker". I would contend that my proposal is a bit different, though, since we're not talking about changing the title from one descriptive label to another, but rather to an in-universe identifier. "Pip" is something people are actually called/call themselves, after all. Now, I could understand why we would stand on formality on someone like the the Marauders or Henry Potter, where do in fact have the full names to choose from instead, but since we don't have a full-fledged character name to choose from, "Pip" is the closest we got in-universe. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The wiki does not, and should not identify people like this by informal nick names. A totally unnecessary and unproductive idea. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Pip" is a largely informal nickname that can be applied to virtually anyone in a colloquial sense. If the article went by this name, it would poorly identify the subject as it would not ascertain this person's known identified relationship. At the very worst it could confuse people because they would have a unclear understanding of who this person is. Furthermore, Jacob's sibling is used thousands of times throughout this wiki so it would be bothersome mass changing it anyhow. This is not a useful idea in mine or MrSB's eyes so its removal I would promptly recommend. The current name tells us exactly who they are and this idea has even been rejected in the past. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the discussion be at Talk:Jacob's sibling since it concerns only one page? That's where I replied days ago. To repeat it here, I also strongly disagree with renaming to "Pip". In fact, I can't stress how strong my feeling towards this is. Renaming the page to "Pip" feels like utter destruction to me. Reasons already explained on the article talk page. MalchonC (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, it is not a very good idea. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've restored this for now just until this discussion is concluded. It is always a bit difficult trying to find the best name for articles like this. I never particularly thought "Jacob's sibling" was a great name, though being an active user here, I have gotten used to it. This character is deliberately nameless. Therefore, Pip isn't short for anything. To be honest, I don't think changing the name to Pip is going to improve the article name. Everyone here is used to typing "Jacob's sibling" and I don't think players are going to be looking for "Pip". How often is the character even called Pip? I think it is better to use something that is often used to describe the character, which is what the wiki typically does in the absence of a given name, because it is more identifiable. If the name Pip was more formal, I would be okay with it but that doesn't appear to be the case. - Kates39 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah 'Pip' definitely doesn't feel formal enough for me. IMO, 'Jacob's sibling' is more compatible with what policy says about article naming. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
We should also perhaps close this section here and continue on Talk:Jacob's sibling. Not really ideal to have to repeat the same thing on both pages. MalchonC (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
RedWizard98:
- Wherever did you get the idea that "Pip can be applied to virtually anyone in a colloquial sense"? Can Mike be "applied to virtually anyone" too, or is it short for Michael? Or how about Gabe? Would that be short for Gabriel, or is it just a "colloquial" nickname, whatever that's supposed to mean?
Kates39
- I thought canon outranked "formal"? And in any case, what gave you the idea that "Pip isn't short for anything"? There's such a thing as a placeholder, and since the character can be of either gender and the nickname "Pip" is specifically used for individuals named Philip or Philippa. It follows from this that Jam City is sharing, and being a bit tongue-in-cheek about it, what the Main Character has been referred to as internally by the developers during the production of the game. Jacob referred to MC as "Pip", Pip replied; "you're still calling me that?" with Jacob going; "It's a quality nickname!". It's just how there's been sparse references to how the characters hasn't aged in seven years found here and there in the dialogue. The article should be called "Pip" because that's the name they were given canonically, and the fact that "Philip" and "Philippa" being the (heavily) implied in-universe name from the developers' side should be in the BTS section because that's what "Pip" refers to. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide a source backing up that the developers chose Philip(pa) as the in-universe name of Jacob's sibling, that is not valid reasoning for a rename. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- And in response, WIOK89 stop reposting in all my messages in quotation form just to denounce them word by word, it is bloody tiresome and I care nothing for it. Renaming this character is also still downright terrible idea that nobody (apart from one) supports. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
MrSiriusBlack: I just did. The developers named the character "Pip" as a nickname. The character can be of either gender, and "Pip" is a unisex nickname referring to "Philip" or "Philippa". That's the development sharing information with us. That's the source - Jam City.
RedWizard98:
- I'm sorry, but when you gish gallop the way you do when responding to me, breaking what you say down and replying to one thing at a time to make sure that I actually addressed everything you said becomes necessary. As for what a "terrible idea" it is to rename this character, it's interesting to note that you've made that point about half a dozen times or more so far, yet not once have you gotten anywhere close to making an actual case for why it is a terrible idea, which effectively reduces your objection to a Bandwagon Fallacy until you do. Do you think that your personal distaste for the nickname "Pip" makes it any less canon or something? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Pip is not short for anything other than pipsqueak. It is just a nickname. The character is purposely nameless by the devs so we can name them whatever we want and not have their name dictated by a nickname. Everyone is so used to the current name, they will be confused once users search for the name and cannot find it. It is easier and more efficient to leave it where it is. Andrewh7 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Andrewh7
- Let's have a look- ah yes, again nobody wants a rename bar one. I guess it is indeed a terrible idea that nobody thinks is useful. Renaming templates should not be kept just to appease a minority and if a "majority" agrees the tag can be binned. And I think I (and everyone else) have explained why it is a shoddy idea clearly so I won't waste my time doing it again. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
"I just did. The developers named the character "Pip" as a nickname. The character can be of either gender, and "Pip" is a unisex nickname referring to "Philip" or "Philippa". That's the development sharing information with us. That's the source - Jam City."'
Nope. I said provide a canon source that states it, not give me your interpretation of a source that may or may not even imply it. Yes, Pip can be short for 'Philip' or 'Philippa' in the real world, but this is definitely an example of a situation where the real world should not be taken as gospel for in-universe fact. The Harry Potter universe is full of weird and wonderful wizarding names that you would be hard-pressed to find in the real world in this day and age, like Abraxas, Caractacus, Dedalus, Elphias, Severus, Nymphadora, Porpentina, Merula, Linderina, Harfang, to name a few. The possibility of Jacob calling his sibling 'Pip' because it is short for Philip(pa) is equal to the possibility of it being because it is short for some other funny wizard name, or indeed because it is short for pipsqueak, or maybe a reference to apple pips, who knows. There is utterly no point in speculating as to why the nickname 'Pip' was chosen, because there are a range of possibilities and absolutely no confirmation. And as some possibilities include non-name-related things, 'Pip' should not be made the article title. So far I count five users against a move and one user in support, and if the move were to happen it would cause widespread disruption across the entire wiki to change instances of 'Jacob's sibling' to 'Pip', even if bots were to be used, and it would be changing from a term everyone is used to to a nickname used once in a tiny pocket of the game that a minority of users would be familiar with, risking confusion for a vast majority of readers. It is for all these reasons that I fully believe that the chances of this move happening are very very very slim. It would therefore be in the best interests of the wiki and of the time and efforts of everyone involved if this discussion were to end here. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 11:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Andrewh7:
- Whatever gave you the idea that "Pip" isn't short for anything other than "pipsqueak"? I've looked it up, and to be perfectly honest, I've been hard-pressed to find a single place stating that it is short for "pipsqueak". And for that matter, "pipsqueak"'s not a nickname either, it's an insult. (noun. informal. a contemptibly small or unimportant person; a twerp.) Not sure if you're a native speaker, but I've even checked in with those who are, and in the English speaking world, Pip is a name of English origin, it's used as a nickname for individuals named Philip or Philippa, and it has been since 1861, when we were first introduced to Philip "Pip" Pirrip, the protagonist of Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Moreover: They might be momentarily confused, but only for like five odd minutes when they connect the dots. Most people who are familiar with the game has either played or watched through the game past Year 5. (We'll even get Year 8 either later this year). If in some remarkable manner it has not registered with them after Jacob's used it to refer to us in every appearance he has made between Year 5 to date, it's also listed in the infobox, I believe?
RedWizard98:
- Argument by assertion, I see; another fallacy. Smooth.
MrSiriusBlack
- Ah, so we're back to the whole "the real world should not be taken as gospel for in-universe fact" argument, are we? But... what about your whole "basic facts of how the English language works" counter-argument you responded with when I tried to use the same regarding the necessity of "Head" being short for "Headteacher"? As for the likelihood; you're conflating possibility with probability, but all right, I get your point: "The probability of Jacob calling his sibling 'Pip' because it is short for Philip(pa) is equal to the probability of it being because it is short for some other funny wizard name." Except - not it's not, because not only is this negated by the fact that Jacob has a common "Muggle" name, and with "Pip" being short for Philip(pa) being also a common "Muggle" name, there's a logical consistency in the naming conventions being used, but there's also the matter of how Rowling contradicts you. Those "funny wizard names" you're referring to came from Naming Seers, and the practice of using Naming Seers to find a "suitable moniker" for one's child was a rarity by the time Harry's generation came around, and picking what we might think of as Muggle names (e.g. James, Harry, Ronald), was much more common because of how so many parents had fretted themselves silly on the way home from the Naming Seer, wishing that they had not heard the Seer’s predictions about their child’s personality or future. Only a certain sector of magical society followed the ancient wizarding practice of consulting a Naming Seer, (e.g. the Malfoys and Blacks), and that sector was the old, (pure-blood) guard. And whatever else Pip is, an old, wealthy, influential pure-blood family who lives on old money with a long history of anti-Muggle sentiments isn't one of them. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a source where the game creators say they chose the name Philipp(a) for their character. It also doesn't appear to be a nickname the character is often called by in-universe (I could only find one scene where Jacob says it). Suffice to say, the majority of people here are okay with the current name and do not wish for it to be changed. Therefore, I think it is best to conclude this discussion. - Kates39 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
So once again canon goes out the window... I wish I could say I'm surprised, but who'd I be kidding... WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Canon is very much not going out of the window, what an utterly bizarre thing to say. Canon does tell us that Jacob's sibling is the sibling of Jacob, after all. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 19:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student → New fifth-year student[]
This rename is one I’ve considered putting up for a while. In game, the student is constantly referred to as the “new fifth-year student”, both by staff and students. With the dialogue spoken as is in game, the page should be moved to reflect the in-universe manner, even if it is slightly more wieldy than a name with “unidentified” in it. SeichanGrey (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have considered proposing a rename to shorten it. It's not a big deal but I find it kind of tedious typing out the longer title even though it is the first suggestion when linking it now. "New fifth-year student" is a good suggestion supported with in-universe dialogue so I think it should be considered. - Kates39 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- How about "New fifth-year student sorted in 1890" to fully meet HPW:NG? Since Percival Rackham and Isidora Morganach were also "new fifth-year students" once. MalchonC (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's a difficult one. While I too am absolutely fed up of typing "unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student" on every page related to HL, "New fifth-year student" is too unencyclopedic. I would advocate for "Hogwarts student (1890s)" or "Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890s)" or something. Play around with removing the dates or not, I guess. It's a bit hard to say "Unidentified" when they have a whole story centered around them ... Maybe consider this for Unidentified Muggle-born Hogwarts student too. Castlemore (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- These are also good possibilities. I think I'd prefer "Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890s)". I agree it is strange to call this character "unidentified" when so much is known about them. They technically have a name but it's what you make of it. Other, similar pages can also have a similar rename if this goes ahead. Does anyone else have a preference? - Kates39 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- '1890s' makes it sound like the year is unknown. I'd prefer '1890'. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, "fifth-year" is not really future-proof in case DLCs or sequels are released and the student is no longer in their fifth year.
"Hogwarts student (1890)" seems fine with me.(I don't know what got into me back then, it's obviously not in line with HPW:NG MalchonC (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)) MalchonC (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, "fifth-year" is not really future-proof in case DLCs or sequels are released and the student is no longer in their fifth year.
- As there are no current plans for DLCs or anything of the sort, I don't see the point in such a future-proofing. If any DLCs or sequels do come out, then that particular discussion can happen. But for now, "Hogwarts student (1890)" is far too general imo. I'd prefer "Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)", or "Fifth-year Hogwarts student sorted in 1890" or "New fifth-year Hogwarts student sorted in 1890" or "Hogwarts student sorted as a fifth-year in 1890". More distinctive. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
"Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890s)" has my vote. Unless, of course, there's anyone who'd want to go with something a bit more distinctive; like "Late-bloomer (1890s)" or "Late-blooming fifth-year student"? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am considering moving the page to Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890). If anyone does not object in 5 days, I will do so. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I like "Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)" without the "s" like MrSiriusBlack suggested. It will also line it up with my proposal in the section below for renaming Unidentified Muggle-born Hogwarts student, so I support of it. I'm also not too concerned with future DLCs/sequels for now. If they happen, it will probably take considerable time. - Kates39 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- One would presume that the imagecat will also have to be renamed accordingly? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)" does not distinguish this individual from all the other fifth-year Hogwarts students in 1890 which is part of the article naming criteria previously highlighted from Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines. "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)" or "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890" (paralleling the Headteacher of Beauxbatons Academy of Magic during 1792 example) would uniquely refer to this individual however and separate them from other 1890 fifth-years and other new fifth-year Hogwarts students like Isadora and Rackham.
However, why does this article not even have {{Rename}} on it with a link to this conversation so the entire community is aware and can participate and then a time limit being dictated to force a change? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ironyak brings up a good point about not distinguishing the character enough if we drop "New" out of the title. It makes more sense to keep it in to further identify which character it is. What does everyone think about "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)"? - Kates39 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I do support renaming to "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)", as I find using "new fifth-year Hogwarts student" in articles to be very handy and smooth. And it does make sense to only consider moving to another name after it's confirmed that DLCs will be released. MalchonC (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Bump. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Bump. Can we come to a consensus for a new name? Personally, I like fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890s). SeichanGrey (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, there cannot be a better name than "new fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)". Perhaps it's time to rename the article :) Peregino (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I find myself leaning more towards "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890" now, probably because it'd be weird to do a parenthesised distinguisher without "New fifth-year Hogwarts student" also being another page's title. MalchonC (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- So "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890" and "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)" are our choices. It's time to choose a name for the article to be renamed.
- "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)" has my vote. - Peregino (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I have more of a question than a suggestion; Why hasn't anyone suggested something like "Hogwarts Legacy's Main Character"?, is there a naming convention about not using "Main Character" for articles names?. All names are conjectures "HL's MC" is too, WE the readers know this is a videogame character so it's irrelevant what conjectural name it has, but can "videogame name's MC" be a posibility? for this and others games MCs. Silver Discusión 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Articles about subjects that exist in-universe have to be completely written from an in-universe perspective (apart from the behind the scenes sections), and I believe this applies to article titles too. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 01:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Now, thinking about specific roles for the character, they could be named based en what they did as mentioned in their talk page, "Hero of Hogwarts", they could be "Victor Rookwood's killer" or "Ranrok's killer", but for me their main characteristic is being a late-bloomer because he can use ancient magic.
So, I propose "19th-century late-bloomer Hogwarts student", at first I just thought of "Late-bloomer Hogwarts student" but I know that would be replied with that that could be confused with Percival Rackham and Isidora Morganac (I think not because we know their names) but being able to use ancient magic is so rare that the student IS the only "19th-century late-bloomer Hogwarts student". Thoughts? Silver Discusión 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- But other characters often refer to them as the "new fifth-year student", whereas the term "late-bloomer" is not even mentioned in the game, so I would still say that the former is far better. MalchonC (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're right as is a conjectural term, thinking of it, it could have just been "19th-century late-bloomer" because like I said it's so rare he's the only one period.
- In the interest of resolving this after {{PlayerHL}} being created, how does everyone feel about a rename to "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)". This was the popular choice above that everyone appears to have been okay with. If there are enough users still happy with this name, then it can be considered a consensus, the rename can go ahead and the template can be deleted. I will move on to the Harry Potter: Magic Awakened player proposal below when a decision is reached for Hogwarts Legacy. - Kates39 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Months later, I have now changed my mind and consider "Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student" and "Unidentified Muggle-born Hogwarts student" to be fine names, and believe they should not be changed. The reason I have diverted from my prior opinion is because these names have been used for over a year, and have not led to any loss of popularity for the articles despite their lengthy titles. I admit I lack formal statistical data for this, but I assume this is the case because they both appear in the 'Trending' list for 'Unidentified Hogwarts students'. While all the options individuals have presented for renames are somewhat decent, I think we ought not fix what isn't broken, and as the pages are still popular despite their lengthy names, I don't think there is a problem at all. Castlemore (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should have a vote for one of these names: "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)", "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890", and "Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student" (the current name). This discussion has been going on for almost a year now and it better be done as soon as possible. - Peregino (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- bump. SeichanGrey (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Another bump: I think we should have a vote for one of these names: "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)", "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890", and "Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student" (the current name). This discussion has been going on for almost a year now and it better be done as soon as possible. - Peregino (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- And another bump: I still think we should open a "vote" for one of these names: "New fifth-year Hogwarts student (1890)", "New fifth-year Hogwarts student in 1890", and "Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student" (the current name). This discussion has been going on for almost a year now and it better be done as soon as possible. - Peregino (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- As barely any admin is active, the most active content moderator just stated he was going to be away for months, and nobody is showing interest in this despite your several bumps, now is certainly not a good time to hold a vote for this. It likely won't even have seven participants, let alone a +3 majority, both of which are required for a valid vote. I suggest that we give this matter a rest and revisit it when activity on the wiki picks up. MalchonC (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to rename Unidentified Muggle-born Hogwarts student[]
As suggested by Castlemore in the section above, I'd suggest we rename this page similarly too. Perhaps something like "Hogwarts Student (2000s/2010s)" or something similar.
Largely because the student has a sizeable amount of "personal background" in the form of Harry Potter: Magic Awakened's story line, it is hard (for me at least), to say the student is "unidentified".
The name is something to be discussed. SeichanGrey (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion above, this could be renamed in a similar way. However, I think the best thing to do here is drop the "Unidentified" at the front and just call it "Muggle-born Hogwarts student (2008)" to be more descriptive. - Kates39 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Same issues apply here as above - the {{Rename}} template needs to be added to the article with a link to the relevant discussion and the proposed name needs to uniquely distinguish the individual. "Unidentified" seems to be more in the sense of "Unnamed" as no individual is truly unidentified otherwise we'd have no information at all to begin to identify them with :) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Bump. Would be good to get this done as there are now other things tagged for renaming that depend on what this article's title is. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I personally like "Muggle-born Hogwarts student (2008)" suggested by Kate. I also could think of some other names: "Muggle-born Duelling Club member (2008)" (I prefer this one) , "Ivy Warrington's Muggle-born friend", "Daniel Page's Muggle-born friend", "Muggle-born Dance Club attendee (2008)", and "Muggle-born student who freed Gossamer". I hope this helps :) - Peregino (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is really really really tricky as this character does not have any quality that distinguishes them from all others (like "New fifth-year Hogwarts student") besides the events they've participated in, so it would be difficult to choose from the myriads of events. The following suggestion is definitely not ideal, but to be as objective as possible regarding what we choose to identify the character, we can perhaps just use the first depicted event that happened to them and is unique to them, something along the lines of "Muggle-born individual who met Ivy Warrington in Ollivanders" (since they're not a student as of this moment), but probably not this long. MalchonC (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
My preference would be Kate's suggestion of ""Muggle-born Hogwarts student (2008)", or "Muggle-born Hogwarts student sorted in 2008" if a parenthesesless version is preferred (though that being said, the correct capitalisation of 'sorted' seems to be unclear and inconsistent across the wiki?) - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- The capitalisation of "sorted" is already inconsistent in the books, so what can we do ( ・_・) I don't know if those suggestions can be considered in line with HPW:NG because on one hand, this student is indeed the only known Muggle-born student sorted in 2008, but in-universely speaking the chance is very slim for them to actually be the only one, and if another one is introduced later, that would be bad news. MalchonC (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that "Muggle-born Hogwarts student (2008)" is too risky in case another Muggle-born Hogwarts student in 2008 is later introduced.
- Why are we stuck with "Hogwarts student"? A Hogwarts student can be more than just "a Hogwarts student". Most student characters have some specific roles/titles in the school: some are Gryffindors, some are Seekers, some are Prefects, some are club members, etc.
- Are there any such things that aren't player-determined? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Bump. SeichanGrey (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Renaming (video game) articles[]
As part of the PS2 tag discussion, it's become clear that all the video games articles need an overhaul. The start of that would be to rename all the (video game) articles to (video games) so that there is a base page that discusses the set of video game adaptations for each book/film. That is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game) would be "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video games)" so that the name makes clear that the article is about multiple different games. Same goes for COS, POA, GOF, etc. I'm adding {{Rename}} to all those article and pointing to this discussion to start. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with this rename proposal, because I disagree with the notion that the article is about "multiple different games". The way I see it, the article is about multiple versions of the same game. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 17:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reasons stated above. Castlemore (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:Images of Rubeus Hagrid's hut to Category:Images of Hagrid's Hut[]
category:Images from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (video game)[]
I was thinking we can split this category into two, “part 1” and “part 2”. a “rename” in a way. SeichanGrey (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- See Category:Articles to be split instead perhaps. Castlemore (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unidentified Irish witch[]
I will not support renaming this article, for I decided it would be best to use this simple, short title rather than have it long and verbose. It does not need to mention that she slept for 600 years, that makes it too long for no discernible purpose. Titles should be short and sweet. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- If "Irish witch who awoke after 600 years of sleep" sounds too long, why don't we think of another name? How about "Irish witch from Donegal"? - Peregino (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is, the name has to abide by HPW:NG. Being specific is way better than just saying "unidentified", which provides no real information. MalchonC (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I apologise for renaming this article before joining the discussion. For future reference, this discussion should have taken place on the article's talk-page which the {{rename}} template directs us to. I agree with Peregino and MalchonC that the rename abides by HPW:NG and is more helpful for those wanting to find and read about this particular Irish witch. "Unidentified" tells us nothing. - Kates39 (talk)
File:Surgito HM.png and File:Surgito wand movement HM.webp[]
Author request; I have realised that the game formally calls this spell the Disenchantment Charm. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Castlemore (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Images of films' staff and crew[]
I’m suggesting a move to Category:Images of film crew. It seems “staff” and “crew” are reundant, unless there is an extra reason for it. Also, I’m not sure if there is a need for plural and apostrophe, as it seems a bit awkward in my opinion. SeichanGrey (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems like changing this would be a lot of hassle for nothing. The category may be verbose (indeed, a lot of categories here are, like Category:Individuals of unknown or undetermined gender) but there is ultimately no point in changing it just for aesthetic value. Castlemore (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Merpeople[]
I can see the reason proposed to rename this to the singular "merperson", but I believe that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them uses "Merpeople" in its A-Z of magical beasts. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Castlemore (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Classrooms[]
Should ideally specify that these are Hogwarts classrooms, in case we ever create any articles for classrooms in other schools in the future. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Towers[]
Category name should specify that these are Hogwarts only towers. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Bathrooms and Category:Storerooms also come to mind. Also -- perhaps Category:Rooms and Category:Hogwarts locations should be split up into more subcategories since it's quite a weighty category, but that's a discussion for another page I guess. Castlemore (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student's wands[]
I want to discuss about moving these pages.
- Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student's first wand to Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student's lent wand
- Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student's second wand to Unidentified 19th-century Hogwarts student's first wand.
Reason: This was the student's first owned wand that they purchased from the Ollivanders while this was merely lent from Professor Fig.
Thoughts? - Peregino (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the current names are inherently incorrect, is it said in the game that the second-hand wand would need to be returned to Professor Fig? MalchonC (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not opposed, but it would preferably be 'borrowed wand' over 'lent wand'. Castlemore (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also prefer the term "borrowed wand" if the renaming goes ahead. I don't think it is particularly necessary because it is technically still the "first wand" they had their possession and used, but if others wish the title to be more specific with regard to how they possessed it, then that's fine with me. - Kates39 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Bewitched book owned by Kevin Farrell[]
This book is specifically said to be cursed rather than hexed or jinxed. In addition, maybe "Kevin Farrell's cursed book" is less verbose. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the task, Robyn mentioned the story of the witch in Bath and said "[...] I'd bet my wand Kevin's book has been similarly bewitched". I don't oppose to change it to "Cursed book owned by Kevin Farrell" but I do on "Kevin Farrell's cursed book" bc he no longer owns the book as it's destroyed and "Kevin Farrell's cursed book" implies he still has it. Silver Discusión 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Simply calling it "bewtiched" however implies it is charmed, whereas it's really cursed. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Muggles[]
I don't mind moving this to Non-magic people to match the article name, but the suggestion that it could be split up into words for Muggles depending on nationality I think is utterly absurd and illogical, since nationality does not mean there is a single difference between Non-magic people. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't think there's real need to split non-magic people, the different names are just what are used in different regions, not different identities. MalchonC (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the name change, since it would mean flooding the Recent Changes with thousands of edits, and it also opens questions like having new theme names to replace the "muggle" theme which would lead to even more edit spam. Best to leave it alone IMO, since everyone knows what it means anyway. Castlemore (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually yes I will change my mind, and oppose a rename. It will involve updating over 400 articles and will possibly future involve the erasure of the word "muggle" altogether. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't flood recent changes if Ironyak1-bot or another bot-flagged account made the changes. And the 'muggle' theme wouldn't need to be changed imo, that would be a purely superficial change that would only be visible in the editor screen, plus the infobox themes are usually kept to simple words anyway. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 17:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I disagree with flooding RecentChanges having anything to do with the necessity of renaming a category, plus if it is done by a bot it won't affect RecentChanges (unless you choose to unfilter bot edits). Themes are different since they're just parts of codes that do not appear in the final presentations of articles, but categories are shown exactly as they are. If "Non-magic people" is not worse than "Muggles", and potentially better even, then I think we should rename the category. I don't doubt the necessity of this for even a microsecond. MalchonC (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Department of Magical Law Enforcement (Magical Congress of the United States of America) to MACUSA Department of Magical Law Enforcement[]
Shorten the name but still keep the same meaning. - Peregino (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe "Department of Magical Law Enforcement (MACUSA)" since having "MACUSA" at the start suggests that might be its proper name, when it isn't. Anyway, I support shortening the name. We already have pages with "MACUSA" in the title so it wouldn't be against precedent. Castlemore (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I support this rename suggestion, it would be consistent with a few other MACUSA department pages that are titled with 'MACUSA' at the start. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 01:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't aware it was the case for everything but ok yes, in that case I agree. Castlemore (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Might bit a bit too late, but I would actually contend that it should be named at least "Department of Magical Law Enforcement (MACUSA)". Adding "MACUSA" to the front is, for wiki purposes, conjectural. What's next, "British Ministry of Magic Department of Magical Law Enforcement"? Few would actually call these departments in this way should it be necessary. MalchonC (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Arthur → King Arthur[]
Due to the number of Arthurs there are, I think a rename to King Arthur would be good as it provides more clarity. As far as I can tell he's only ever referred to as King Arthur anyway, so from that perspective you could look at it as more cannonically correct. AD Vortigern (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per the HPW:POLICY, titles are not to be used in an article's title. I propose to change it to "Arthur (king)" instead of "King Arthur". Thoughts? - Peregino (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Arthur (king)" does adhere to the policy much more than "King Arthur", but I find it just a bit cringy… "Arthur" on its own at least looks formal, but "Arthur (king)" makes it sound to me like he's some kind of king character in a fictional work. Don't know why, just does. MalchonC (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is he not a character in a fictional work? Castlemore (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy with Arthur (king) or something else to that effect, I mostly just feel that having the article for an obscure character in the Harry Potter fiction be something as broad as "Arthur" would be detrimental. AD Vortigern (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, since Arthur Weasley is more worthy of that redirect imo. Castlemore (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Is he not a character in a fictional work?" - Oops maybe he is indeed. I thought he was real when I saw the {{Real world subject}}, but then I realised, Merlin can't have been a real wizard, can he ;) So I believe I'm OK with "Arthur (king)". We should probably remove that template from the page though, it's not really used for subjects that exist as fictional subjects in the real world. MalchonC (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Rubeus Hagrid's Porlock, Rubeus Hagrid's Murtlap, & Rubeus Hagrid's Fire crab[]
I'm combining all the talks here since all the articles have the same question.
MalchonC made a very fair point that since none of them definitely belong to Hagrid, then they shouldn't be named with the prefix Rubeus Hagrid's- etc. My reasoning for naming the articles as such was due to the fact that since at least one of them would be correctly named as Rubeus Hagrid's (pet) and since we don't know which one, it would be better to label them all as Rubeus Hagrid's (pet) due to that possibilty. I can understand why this might cause some confusion though, so I'm open to any suggestions. AD Vortigern (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- We should aim for all information on the wiki to be 100% accurate, not at-least-some-are-accurate. The best format I can think of is "<creature> offered for Rubeus Hagrid". I'm not sure if "offer for" is considered correct English, but "offer to" doesn't sound right either, since they aren't really offered to Hagrid at the same time. MalchonC (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, since we know they all belogned to the Ministry and/or the department for the regulation and control of magical creatures, we do something along the lines of "Ministry of Magic's <creature>"? AD Vortigern (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Bly's animation charm[]
If this is staying, it should not be labelled as a "charm", since transforming statues into living beings is quite obviously transfiguration, which is typically separate from charms, and this should be confused with the actual Animation Charm. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Albino Bloodhounds[]
"Bloodhound" is wrongly capitalised, it should be lower case; the article does not use such capitalisation, so I have no idea why the category does. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 22:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Naasz's Pixies[]
"Pixie" is not capitalised in the books. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done - MrSiriusBlack Talk 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Flitterby Bush HM Icon.png[]
It should be "Flutterby Bush", this is a very old misspelling. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done - MrSiriusBlack Talk 00:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Category:Bathrooms, Category:Classrooms, Category:Storerooms, Category:Towers[]
Is there a reason that only these are tagged for renaming to add 'Hogwarts', and Category:Common rooms, Category:Corridors and passages, Category:Courtyards, Category:Dormitories, Category:Dungeons, Category:Entrances and Category:Portrait rooms aren't? Asking for consistency. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say all should be renamed to clarify these are Hogwarts locations, but some perhaps don't require it, like "Common Rooms", "Dungeons" and "Portrait rooms" since these are so far only found in Hogwarts anyway. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- All of them are so far only found in Hogwarts, aren't they? That we have articles for, anyway. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 21:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Alice HBPF.jpeg[]
Misspelling of "Alys". RedWizard98 (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Paintings of merpeople and a giant squid[]
Title could be much more concise, such as "Merpeople paintings" or "Great Lake paitings". The article title does not need to excessively describe the paintings. In addition, I would appreciate it if people could discuss this first before a user hastily renames this without discussion (Peregino). Regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, despite I agree that the title could be more concise, I still think both "Merpeople paintings" and "Great Lake paitings" are not specified and too in-general. Secondly, I wasn't going to "hastily renames this without discussion". Please don't say that someone is going to do something when he/she/they isn't. Your message sounds accusatory (and probably a bit discrediting) to me, and as you surely know, both accusatory and descrediting are considered as personal attacks. Thanks. - Peregino (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with RedWizard that you have, on a small account, rename pages without opening a discussion first. But, this topic is about the article, I believe that "Merpeople paintings" and "Great Lake paintings" are too generalised. My proposal would be "Great Lake painted rock" or "Painted rock at the Great Lake", as we only know about the one. Silver Discusión 04:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Secondly, I wasn't going to "hastily renames this without discussion". Please don't say that someone is going to do something when he/she/they isn't. Your message sounds accusatory (and probably a bit discrediting) to me, and as you surely know, both accusatory and descrediting are considered as personal attacks."
- "Hastily renames this without discussion" is not a personal attack. Castlemore (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Images of Ogres[]
Haphazardly capitalised. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not done I have actually deleted this category as there is insufficient purpose for having it, given that there is only one known image of an ogre in existence. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's very fair dues, yes I only generally create categories for creatures if several exist. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Mountain Troll in the Forest Grove[]
I suggest this should be renamed into "Mountain troll in the Forest Grove", as "mountain troll" doesn't need to be capitalised. - Peregino (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Pool in the Forest of Dean → The Frozen Lake[]
The name is mentioned in a video that is a canonical source. - Peregino (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because it seems inappropriately capitalised (all video headings are usually always in caps and that makes it unreliable) I will support retaining the grammatically better current title. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Images of Kelpies → Category:Images of kelpies[]
The word "kelpie" shouldnt be capitalised. - Peregino (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)