Harry Potter Wiki

Inclusion of fandom on the wiki

11,618pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 12:26, December 1, 2009 by Nick O'Demus (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Inclusion of fandom on the wiki

Recently, two articles were added to the Wiki - Emerson Spartz and Mugglecast. Both are part of the Harry Potter fandom, and could be included on the wiki if properly marked and formatted, like Wizard Rock. I previously championed the inclusion of well known fandom elements on the wiki, and still do to a point. I believe that articles on notable fans/ events can find a place here as long as they are well-known enough and not obscure.

The problem, however, is one of vanity. In their current state, both articles are unencyclopedic, and future articles on fans/ events could become biased and little more than vanity pages unless properly watched. So the question is - should we allow articles about the wider fandom at all? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if say, Mugglecast, did a interview with J.K. Rowling within which new canon was released, then that particular episode should be included.
Either that or not at all because if one aspect of the fandom gets a page, then why not all of them ? Alex Scamander 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the slippery road we might head down. If we have one, why not all? What makes a subject "worthy" of inclusion on the wiki? So, maybe a simple vote is in order? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bumping for further responses/ comments. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that things such as mugglenet and leaky couldron should be in this wiki but things like fanfiction exept possibly in the case of Potter Puppet Pals shouldnt be included.Me_Potter_Fan 11:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Notable fan websites (or things like Pottercast) should be included. What defines notable? If its generally heard of throughout the community. How do you judge that? I have no idea. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it should just be a case of common sense - if the majority of the community know about them, then I think it's fine to add them. The major websites and their well known webmasters for example. However, pages such as "X is a major fan of HP and posts over at the X forums" should definitely not be allowed. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The major HP-related websites, podcasts, and conventions are definitely notable, as are fan creations which have reached a wide audience, like Potter Puppet Pals and wizard rock. These things are widely known to members of the HP community and have also been covered by the outside press. The question is where to draw the line. Pottercast is an easy call for notability and "My Very First Harry Potter Podcast!!!" would be an easy call for non-notability. It is things like Snapecast which would be a tough call, because, while Snapecast is intensely popular among one segment of the HP community, it's probably obscure to the community as a whole. I'd say the best solution would be to set clearly-defined standards of notability, such as minimum number of listeners for podcasts, endorsement by J.K. Rowling for websites, and coverage by a media source outside of fandom for art, music, or fiction. We should consider distinguishing Potterverse articles from fandom articles within the article titles themselves (e.g., Potter Puppet Pals (fandom), The Leaky Cauldron (fandom), Lumos (fandom), etc.). -Starstuff 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe even an article with simple list of known fandom that redirects to their own webpages would suffice. I mean we shouldn't have to research and detail fandom in individual articles. It speaks for itself, i think. Mafalda Hopkirk 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Detailed research on each subject/ site is maybe too much, I agree. However, by giving fandom articles their own page we 1.) discourage their creation by anons who contribute one or two lines, and 2.) possibly encourage the sites to update the pages themselves (if they know about them) within the guidelines of a neutral point of view. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 13:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with using something as (fandom) in the article titles, I would rather see a template placed on each page. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we appear to have stalled on this a little, I have updated the relevant pages to an NPOV (little more than stubs, really) and categorised them so they won't get lost! - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

we so need to include this --Bluelantern 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) =D
Advertisement | Your ad here

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki