Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Pottermore Links as References?

I would advise against, where possible, using links to internal Pottermore content (content that is not available to unregistered/not logged in) as references in articles. Any link that requires a user to have an account with the site is probably not a good choice as a reference. Thoughts? ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:44, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree that it would be unsuitable for users to require an account to view references and links; however, if the information is exclusive to Pottermore, and cannot be found anywhere else, what other options are there? Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:09, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
Most everything that has been posted on Pottermore has been transcribed off-site on other sites. I don't know that that's necessarily ideal either, but perhaps another solution could be to link that as a source and also offer the direct Pottermore link with a note that access is only granted to registered and logged in members of Pottermore. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:39, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know it had been transcribed onto other sites; I agree, however, that your idea is quite good. However, is there anyway to... I don't quite know how to explain it... sort of like, make a page with links to all the different sources on Pottermore (like the page on the Gryffindor Common Room or the page on zombies), and at the top put that you have to be logged in and registered to view it?
Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, is it possible to add a category for all the pages with information from Pottermore? Please and thanks? 23:46, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. By your logic, merely providing a reference to a chapter in the Harry Potter books would be insufficient, since there's a chance someone may not own the books. And I think you'd agree that providing links to free transcriptions of the books online is not only ridiculous, but legally questionable. If we require our readers to purchase a set of seven (or ten, or even more) books to verify the given references, certainly we can require them to make a free account on a website, and thus properly provide attribution.
And @Hunnie Bunn (I assume that's who you are, anyway), you can find such a category here, at least until the Pottermore heading is outmoded (which it honestly should be already). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 00:09, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
I see your point about the books, but not everyone can register for Pottermore for one or more reasons. There was actually a proposal a while back to transcribe certain of the items we've been using as references directly here to this wiki (and apparently nobody was too concerned about copyright when it came to that), but nothing ever came of it. Oh, and I agree, the Pottermore template really ought to be outmoded by now - wasn't it supposed to have been removed several months ago per the original proposal? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:14, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Oh... thanks. Now I feel sort of stupid, not having seen that. By the way, yes, I am Hunnie Bunn, but unfortunately I can't log in (hopefully I can soon).
I have a few questions, though, and hopefully you wouldn't mind answering them:
1. Although I do see your point (1337star) about providing links to free transcriptions of the books online (which is ridiculous), people have already been making transcriptions of information from Pottermore, and such is already being used as reference here (for instance, see the page on wand woods).
2. Yes, I understand that the category page should only be kept until it passed into open use, but I don't quite understand why it shouldn't be kept until Pottermore has finished with the seventh book.
3. In reply to ProfessorTofty's comment about how there was a proposal "a while back" to transcribe certain references directly here onto this wiki, and nobody being too worried about copyright, do you think we should do that, or no?
Hopefully I haven't become irksome or tiring for you, but I've always been quite fascinated by this wiki, and I really want to help make it a better place (although it is quite outstanding as is). 00:32, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
There was another discussion a few months age similar to this, when AccioQuote had gone down for a few weeks. Since we weren't sure if it would come back, the idea was to create our own archives for that information. Archives for Pottermore and JKR's old website were also suggested. However, AccioQuote did eventually start working again, and the discussion kind of died out. I've already archived the new Pottermore info and some of the stuff from JKR's website on a couple of my work pages, here and here, just to get a feel of how this might be done. - Nick O'Demus 13:03, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Speak of the devil. It looks like AccioQuote's gone down again. - Nick O'Demus 17:18, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to ask you about that - it`s been down for two weeks or so (at least that I`ve noticed). Do you think it`s just going to be down another couple of weeks, or do you think that it might be going for good, just as a general opinion. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:34, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Last time it was down for at least two weeks (that I noticed anyway). It's gone down a few other times before, and it's always come back so far. It just makes me nervous when this happens because they don't update the site anymore, and I worry that one of these times it really will be gone for good. Since we use so much of what's there as references, it would be a major problem for us. - Nick O'Demus 17:47, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
When this site is back again, is it allowed to import the text into this Wiki?  Harry granger   Talk  contribs 20:35, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
It'll have been three weeks (that I noticed) tomorrow; perhaps everytime they go down they'll add another week to the time they stay down until it's gone infinitely? That's a rather good question. If AccioQuote returns (it might not) are we going to import the text onto this wiki? What if AccioQuote doesn't come back again? Is it against the copyright policy to import the text on here? I'm not trying to raise panic, and I'm not all too worried myself, but these are questions I think we consider. Should we open a new forum for the whole AccioQuote thing, or are we going to keep it on this page? If AccioQuote shuts down for good, are we going to have to remove all the information from this website that uses AccioQuote as a reference? Or just make note that it was stated somewhere, but that the place it was stated got deleted? 21:10, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Most everything that's on Accio Quote! is on the Web Archive. If push comes to shove, we can just use that as a backup, as has been done in the past for other references, so there's no need to panic. For those not familiar with that, by the way, that's - you just put in the address of the site you want to look up past archives of. Doesn't work for all sites, but it works for a lot of them, including Accio Quote!. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:33, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Nobody's really panicking, just a few people are getting a tad nickey (for those who don't know, 'nickey' is a slang word for 'nervous'). By the way, what happens if happens to shut down? 22:37, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that were to shut down, too, then the information disappears, unless somebody else backs it up. But I don't think it's going anywhere - it's been around since 1996 and is very stable. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:41, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
The last part was meant as a joke, but oh well... it's nice to know there's an emergency plan. 22:54, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Bumping this up to state something. According to Pottermore's Terms of Service, we can't transcribe Pottermore's written content as was suggested here. The ToS clearly says that "none of our content, including books you purchase from us, may be republished, posted, transmitted, stored, sold, distributed or modified without our prior written consent". While the images are okay (due to fair use for the sake of display and commentary and all that), the text itself is not. I know a few of these transcriptions have been made already, so I guess those should be deleted. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:03, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Legally, we shouldn't be quoting complete song lyrics either, and yet we're doing so. Still, I would agree, if this sort of transcription is against the site's terms of service, then those transcriptions should be deleted ASAP. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:09, September 21, 2012 (UTC)