Talk: Candidates for renaming

Revision as of 05:39, 29 March 2014

This discussion is listed as an active talk page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Please discuss candidates for renaming here

For old discussions, please see the Archive.

Current discussions

File:Muggle Lady Employee of Subirton.JPG

The name of the diner has been identified as Treats, and the article about her is currently named Waitress at Treats, so why not go with that? - Nick O'Demus 10:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

This file should be renamed in any case, as "Surbiton" is spelled wrongly. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:16, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Flying Ford Anglia

I suggest renaming this article "Ford Anglia 7990 TD". Apart from being its actual registration name, as confirmed in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film), it makes the article look neater and more professional, as it is opposed to the quasi-speculative and descriptive current name. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that this article will be found with the new name? "Flying Ford Anglia" everyone knows, but a name with number? When you will use the new name then there should be a redirect to the old name, otherwise no one is able to find it. Harry granger 21:04, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

A "quasi-speculative" name? If that isn't trying to sound stuck-up, I don't know what is. Sorry, but this is a Wiki on Harry Potter - articles are allowed to not have a scientific or professional name if it helps people find them, and the name of the vehicle page is absolutely fine as it is. 91.125.159.6 22:05, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

So sorry to disagree with you, but this wiki has always chosen the most encyclopedic way to present facts and, yes, that includes calling things by their proper names, when backed-up by solid canonical fact. That's the reason why the article on Ron Weasley is called Ronald Weasley and the article on Ginny is called Ginevra Weasley. The only reason there are articles with conjectural titles is that there are characters/objects that are sometimes not named, and as this is not the case, I don't know why we should keep this title that, in-universely, would be deemed descriptive and unfounded. (A side note: name-calling, unlike my "stuck-upness", will not help you make a point). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:36, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

The film is not entirely canonical; the books always come first, but since there is no information is given on the registration of the car is given in the book, the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case. People will find it easier to search flying Ford Anglia, most people would type; 'Flying Car', 'Ford Anglia' or 'Flying Ford Anglia', not 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; so there would have to be a redirection anyway. The title 'Ford Anglia' is too general, so 'Flying Ford Anglia' is the next most logical, as I don't think there are any other flying Ford Anglias.So, I think the title should stay the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.76.172.243 (talk • contribs).

According to our canon definition the car's registration name as seen in the film is a valid canon information, so why not to take it into account? You said it yourself, and very correctly, that "the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case". Of course, people searching for 'Flying Ford Anglia' would be redirected to 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; pretty much like searching for Hogwarts Express food trolley redirects you to Honeydukes Express. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 15:17, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

But does this wiki choose "the most encyclopedic way" over "the most user-friendly way?" The purpose of this wiki is to easily help fans find information they need. People will always search "Flying Ford Anglia" before they search "Ford Anglia 7990 TD," perhaps because the fact the car flies is more distinguishable than its license number. Also, I argue that it's not a simpler, cleaner, neater title. "Flying Ford Anglia" are three simple, easily pronounceable words, not "Ford Anglia" and then a bundle of numbers that had absolutely no plot significance. Harrypotterfan7 03:51, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

People will still be able to find the article via a redirect, so there's no actual harm in renaming it. As for whether or not it should be renamed, well, my opinion is that we should call it by its most canonical name; if its called "flying ford anglia" in the books, then keep it. If not, use the registration number. We could even include its nickname in the description i.e. the article could go something like "the Ford Anglia 7990 TD (a.k.a. the Flying Ford Anglia) was..." —Green Zubat (owl me!). 04:34, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the rename, but maybe you can rename it to "Flying Ford Anglia 7990 TD"

--.Nobody Cares .Owls • Darkmark.

12:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Riddler14 (talk) 23:38, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

We should keep it as flying ford anglia. Because it'll be harder for people to find if we change the name to something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.197.58.254 (talk • contribs).

The old one will also be available in searches, particularly if they set up a redirection.

By the way, in regard to the license plate number, Moment 2 in Chapter 3 of Chamber of Secrets on Pottermore gives the license plate number as COS 207; hopefully this information has helped. 99.252.196.61 04:11, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea since when you search for that link, some different links come up so people will still recognize it. Just add flying Ford Anglia so people won't mix it up with the car in general.minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:22, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls

I think it should be named "Flying Ford Anglia 7990 TD". --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:21, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Halloween

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Title changed to Hallowe'en. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:28, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if we changed it to "Hallowe'en" due to the fact that is what the event is referred to in the British books. Seeing as this wikia strives for constant British spelling in its pages, why can't the names of them strive for that too? RandomYoshi 16:48, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I shall rename it right away. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:28, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1 January

I think it would be nice if the page in question could be renamed to "1st of January", as it is would be even closer to British, nowhere close to American. If this change would end up being accepted, can ALL dates change from "Day Month" to "Day(st, nd, rd, th) of Month"? RandomYoshi 09:59, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

You're right 1st of January does sound better but we will have to let the Admins see if this is acceptable.minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:28, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls

If it is standard British practise, then I believe per policy it should be at that. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 03:05, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Category:Users who support the Durmstrang Institute

Why should there be the word "the" in the title? In the category of Beauxbatons there is none. I think because of the consistency it would be better to rename to: Category:Users who support Durmstrang Institute. Harry granger Talk contribs 19:33, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Burrow - Duelling Arena

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Title kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:41, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why should we rename The Burrow - Duelling Arena to Duelling Arena (The Burrow). It is only known as what it is called now. So why???? ----94.191.186.160 10:18, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the renaming as well. "The Burrow - Duelling Arena" is the actual name that it's given to that area in-game and we have, in the past, kept names as they were written regardless of awkwardness (i.e. Warning! Keep Out! Dangerous Creatures Inside!, Keep Out! or No entry due to flooding - Mr. Filch), or misspelling (i.e. Defence Against the Dark Art's Store Room, or Tatoo Artist). This would be simply another of those cases. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:49, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right - if we have a name that has been given in canon, then we should stick with it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:20, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Totally right - the user who put in the Rename template is called GhostUser, he joined last year at the 2nd of April, he only made 498 edits, he hasn't made any quality-updates to his own page, and he probably did it only to do it and make fun, like A cool troll did with another page. --78.156.209.213 19:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Please, there's no need for that. We can discuss whether or not the change is reasonable without attacking the proposer GhostUser has made nearly 500 edits and hasn't received any warnings on his talk page. He is a legitimate user and I believe his suggestion was made in good faith. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:51, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys, if I wanted to troll, I would've renamed the page without putting on the template. I don't really mind if the name is kept or not. GhostUser (talk) 23:14, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

No one thinks you are trolling anyone, really; I do believe 78.156.209.213 did not mean what he said. We all value your contribution here at the Harry Potter Wiki and we all know it was made constructively and in a spirit of good faith — so kindly ignore the unpleasant comment.

So, as for the matter at hand: we need majority (+3) to take action; there seem to be two users for keeping the title (ProfessorTofty and myself) and a user for changing the title (GhostUser) — and I am deliberately disregarding 94.191.186.160 and 78.156.209.213 as they do not meet voting policy criteria. What shall we do, then? -- Seth Cooper owl post! 02:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need a +3 if the existing title matches current standard and no compelling reason (in fact no reason of any sort) was presented for the renaming? ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:51, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

(Resetting indent.) The page should be at whatever the game calls it, no matter how "awkward" it is. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 20:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune)

I suggest that Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) is renamed Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's not only the story but the fountain itself that is called so. ----94.191.187.26 19:35, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the two pages should be titled Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the object) and The Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the tale), with appropriate "youmay" tags on each article. Thoughts? -- Seth Cooper owl post! 02:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the object Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) (remember, we should add the (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) because the fountain is actually fictional. The story name can be kept in its own state, but "Point Me!" tags should be added to both pages. This is only my suggestion. -- RLB01 (talk) 12:05, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Seth. There's no reason to have the parenthetical notation on all the Beedle the Bard articles. I remember a bunch of those were removed at one point, and I think they should be removed from any articles they still remain on as well, except those that may need it for disambig purposes. As for the actual page name, the very first sentence of the story calls it "the Fountain of Fair Fortune", so it seems like a cut and dry move to me. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 20:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Quidditch Cup

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Title changed to Inter-House Quidditch Cup. Lady Junky 02:33, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

This was brought up on the talk page a long time ago, and I'm bringing it back up now. Dumbledore refers to this cup with the name "Inter-House Quidditch Cup" in GoF, and I think the article should be at this name. Not only is it apparently the full official title of the tournament, but it helps distinguish it from other Quidditch cups like the World Cup, All-Africa Cup, etc. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 20:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:43, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia user, if the name can be referenced as the official. I agree. 201.143.51.88 23:03, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

In my copy of GoF, at least, Dumbledore calls it the "inter-house Quidditch Cup" in Chapter 12. The fact that "inter-house" is not capitalized suggests it isn't part of the event's proper name. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 23:44, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting this. It's capitalised in my (Scholastic) version of GOF. But I guess if it's not in the British version, it was just a printing error. Perhaps "Hogwarts Quidditch Cup" (from Harry Potter:Quidditch World Cup) would be a better name instead, then? Or should it just remain at Quidditch Cup in this case? -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 18:37, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I like "Inter-House Quidditch Cup". I think that it sounds better that way, and, well, if the proposed title is canonical, then why not? MTG1989 says hello. 02:57, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Me too, I prefer "Inter-House Quidditch Cup" :) Lady Junky 20:47, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Renamed :) Tofty agrees :) Lady Junky 02:29, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second-floor girls' lavatory

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Moved. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:23, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Is the current name official? There's no conjecture tag, but I kinda assume it's supposed to have one and it was just never added. Anyway, if its not (and probably even if it is), the page should be moved to Moaning Myrtle's Bathroom, per many of the video games and, more importantly, Pottermore. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 18:37, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Moved. It was descriptive, and wrong anyways (Pottermore clarifies that it is located on the first floor, not second). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:22, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Treacle fudge to Treacle toffee

According to this here, this was changed from treacle fudge to treacle toffee, but I can't recall ever seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Can anyone verify "treacle toffee"? ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

In the books, it is always refered to as treacle fudge. Treacle toffee wasn't metioned once.24.23.51.129 23:18, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

I think the renaming is suspect. Fudge is similar in composition and taste to toffee, but it isn't the same; fudge is crumbly, toffee is chewy. The illustration for "treacle fudge" shows slabs of a very light brown; treacle toffee is much darker, almost black.

And by the way, the Trio once used some of Hagrids's toffee to stick Fang's jaws together to stop him barking; I think this was treacle toffee, though as it has been a few months since I last read this passage, and I can't remember which book it's in, I'm not certain. — RobertATfm (talk) 19:43, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked the Lexicon reference, and the corresponding passage of CoS, and it seems that not only the name of the article needs to be changed (fudge wouldn't have stuck Harry's jaws together), but the associated picture (which is definitely of fudge, not toffee) needs to be changed as well. Not only is treacle toffee much darker in hue than shown, but it is usually glossy or semi-glossy (like all toffee), whilst fudge is always matt. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the difference betweent the two, and fudge is made with sugar, milk, and butter, while toffee is made with sugar and butter. And besides, I never remember seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Dr. Galenos (talk) 19:08, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Fudge is unquestionably in both the CoS video game and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and therefore the current page stands as is. If the novel changed the wording to toffee, then a separate "treacle toffee" page should be made. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 02:27, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

King's Cross Station -> King's Cross station

This capitalization is the standard one used the books, on Pottermore ("The Hogwarts Express departs from King's Cross station in London..."), and in real life. King's Cross is a proper noun, station is not. Besides, the current name is inconsistent with Hogsmeade station. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 04:54, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Lily Evans/Lily Potter -> Lily Potter/Lily Potter II

A decision was made on this a long time ago, however, this decision was made on false pretenses and needs to be overturned, as it violates policy. Our naming policy states that the last name used in the books for a married character should be the one used for the title. Lily Potter is last called such a scant few pages after she is called Lily Evans, true, but by current policy, the articles need to be renamed regardless. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 02:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Lily Potter' would be a better name, but I wonder if there is a way of distinguishing, if it is moved, which pages have been adjusted to link to 'Potter' instead of 'Evans'. Pretty much every page on the wiki links to Lily, and it'd be a pain trying to remember which ones we have and haven't adjusted.--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:57, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be renamed, but you do bring up a good point Hunnie Bunn. I think that, failing any method of finding all the 'Evans' links (worst-case senario) that we could get all the users to go through and change them manually. Slow, but, it may be the only way... Dr. Galenos (talk) 18:40, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

There is a way to find out: With the tool Special:Whatlinkshere. And perhaps a bot can do instead of manual changings. Harry granger Talk contribs 21:39, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to rename to Lily Evans Potter or Lily Potter I. Andre G. Dias (talk) 09:33, January 14, 2014 (Brazil)

I, too, agree with the rename. -- Saxon 15:00, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

4+ for, 1 against; though I would like to point out, no offence, that she isn't called "Lily Evans Potter" or "Lily Potter I" in canon. Lily Potter I is understandable by the precedent set by "James Potter I" and "James Potter II". But personally I think Lily Potter is what it should be at. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the only person, but I kind of like Lily being called Lily Evans. I feel that it is the easiest way to distinguish between Lily Potter nee Evans and Lily Luna Potter. I might be the only one, and if that is the case then you can ignore me, but if there are others who like the page being titled "Lily Evans", should we really bother to go through all the trouble of rewriting source codes on other pages? I don't know. I guess it is the decision of whoever owns the web site in the end.

Eliza272 (talk) 04:50, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian Minister for Magic -> Oblansk

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Moved. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:29, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

I feel this may get more attention here, perhaps. Full reasoning here, restating it seems a waste of time. An admin needs to move the page as its a current redirect. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 04:11, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming of Ollivander's Wand Shop employees to Ollivanders Wand Shop Employees

Will there ever be a decision? It's lasting already so long. Harry granger Talk contribs 14:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I think the name of the Category Ollivander's Wand Shop employees is incorrect because its contents is about the supposed employees of the shop in the The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, so the name should be "Ollivander's Wand Shop employees (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)" to distinguish of the shop that appears in the book series. Andre G. Dias (talk) 05:39, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 ==Renaming of Ollivander's Wand Shop employees to Ollivanders Wand Shop Employees==
 Will there ever be a decision? It's lasting already so long. <span style="border:1px solid #E56717;">[[User:Harry granger|<font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;">&nbsp;'''Harry granger'''&nbsp;</font>]][[User talk:Harry granger|<font style="background:yellow;color:black;">&nbsp;''' Talk&nbsp;'''</font>]]<font style="background:yellow;color:;">&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Harry granger|<font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;">&nbsp;'''contribs'''</font>]]<font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> </font></font></span> 14:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
+I think the name of the Category [[:Category:Ollivander's Wand Shop employees|Ollivander's Wand Shop employees]] is incorrect because its contents is about the supposed employees of the [[Ollivander's Wand Shop (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)|shop]] in the [[The Wizarding World of Harry Potter]], so the name should be "Ollivander's Wand Shop employees (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)" to distinguish of the shop that appears in the book series. [[User:Andre G. Dias|Andre G. Dias]] ([[User talk:Andre G. Dias|talk]]) 05:39, March 29, 2014 (UTC)