1. Expand:

These articles have little or no text in them. Since we cannot build an encyclopedia out of infoboxes, I believe this is what we have to do first.

2. Upload

There are many file paths leading to nonexisting pictures. This is the next step to comprehensive reading material.


for starters.

3. Write

The writing of completely new articles is necessary for the existence of this Wiki - it must not (may I repeat, NOT) be an exact copy of En articles, lest people take this to be an unnecessary carbon copy of the orig. articles. I myself have been frustrated many times when I searched for a topic on different pages, only to find that they contained the same text.

That's all for now. I'm sure this will keep us occupied for a couple of weeks or so. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 18:00, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The list of wanted pages should give everyone an idea of pages that are desperately needed but don't exist yet :) --Batiu-Drami 09:16, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fixed link above. - Vostok 09:39, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I did Percy, Caractacus, Violleta and Erumpent on that wanted list. I think we should all start working on it. I'm off to do Reparo now.

- Lemniwinks

There has been a vandal attack on the Lord Voldemort article. Damit. Can someone block that IP adress? I will get to fixing it.


I was wondering how I should categorize Inferius - it's not a magical creature, nor is it a spell. Any suggestions? Chosen One 10:44, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

i would say creature if you want to follow suit with the likes of how wizards of the coast would categorize it. Essex 10:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


User:Lord Voldemort once remarked that we should post mention of this wiki on public forums, e.g. Mugglenet. We could do this, but first, let's have your opinions.


  • more editors
  • work gets finished faster


  • risk of vandals
  • risk of misprints
  • bleak and unfinished pages are turn-offs

Feel free to voice out whatever you're thinking. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 00:27, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Approximately how many regular editors do we already have? Hermione1980 01:06, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think we should publicise it once we have about 250 articles. «Rainer» 06:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'd say 200 articles, but 200 decent articles. Not 200 articles that are either copy-pasted from Wikipedia or just empty pages with infoboxes. We certainly need more editors and I tend to think a mention on Mugglenet will attract more willing contributors than vandals. But the unfinished pages are a turn off, so lets get 200 finished ones done. - Vostok 07:58, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wiki is now at a stage where we can start advertising to get more editors. Anyone agree? - Vostok 06:46, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 13:12, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well where is the best places to start? Veritaserum? Any regulars from those sites willing to do a bit of publicity? - Vostok 09:11, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think that the Harry Potter Wiki should adopt either an entirely new, shorter / more attractive name, or just consider one as a nickname, before trying to advertise for new editors. First impressions count. "PotterWiki," perhaps? —qrc 03:23, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
What about a play on words like Flitwiki? - Vostok 04:26, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And maybe we can call the editors "Winkypedians". :) Hehe. Should wwe start attracting vandals from the Main 'Pedia or from somewhere else? I'd like to block someone other than myself. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 12:28, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Potterwiki sounds good. Should I post us on the Mugglennet forums? Chris Chaud 01:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if anyone else has done, but I e-mailed MuggleNet about advertiseing us.

I posted us on Mugglenet forums, 9 views so far! The PostChris Chaud 00:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Let's work to expand the major articles before we get into too much detail on other topics. I just saw that The Quibbler had an article but Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban did not. This is the kind of thing we need to remedy. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:12, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

What if we started...

What if we started an informal "Collaboration of the Week" or something of the sort. Then we could focus our attention on the major articles that are considerably lacking. Perhaps start on the books whose articles are VERY VERY weak (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). Just a suggestion. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:01, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the Dark Lord on this one. Maybe one or two articles we could collaborate on each week, it would really up the value per article. And I definitely agree that we should start on the big articles, especially with the help of a bunch of editors. It's really scary trying to add something to a big article all alone. And I'd like to suggest Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.Ginny Weasley 19:35, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Book, Film, Game...

Following on from my above thought, what should be the purpose of those pages that end in (film) and (game)? I'd like to suggest that whereas the link to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone goes to the story of the book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) goes to information on the film itself. That means rather than repeating the story again, the film page really just contains information such as the date it was released, who directed it, and other things usually associated with films. Somewhere on the page could be listed "Main differences to the book", but apart from that it should not go too deeply into the story.

Similarly with the game pages, these should provide details like date of release, platforms it is on, etc.

This could also open up a third type of page which would be Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (book), which provides details on the publication itself, rather than the story. So again, date released, copies sold, etc. - Vostok 08:12, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)


To date we have had two vandals visit our Wiki. In the next week I hope to do up a policy dictating what is and is not suitable content for the wiki, but in both of these cases the vandals didn't need a policy to know what they were doing was wrong.

Currently I'm the only user with admin powers and therefore the only one with the power to block IPs. At the moment, with editor numbers being what they are, I'm not sure we really need more than one admin, however if enough people believe we need a second admin then I'll begin a process to nominate a second admin.

If you see vandalism, please revert the page to its original text and report the act to me so I can take appropriate action. - Vostok 08:19, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I think one admin should be enough. However, if the wiki's ever publicized on Mugglenet or some such, one or two should be added. One thing that might be good at that point is having the admins be from different time zones, and then one might be quicker to respond. Just my thoughts. *shrugs* --Dragonclaws 08:39, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
One admin should suffice for the time being. But when more admins are created, I'm not sure if requiring them to be from different time zones is so good. I have a dream that one day, admins will not be judged on their geographical locations, but on the quality of their content. Or something like that... --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:15, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Well, suppose there's a fastacting vandal who messes up a bunch of stuff in the middle of the night for both admins. It will take a while to clean it all up. Whereas, an awake admin could reach the vandal faster, ban him before the damage can be too extensive, and revert everything before people view the site. Surely it's important to ensure that a user is trustworthy before giving them admin powers, but the time zone thing should (IMHO) be a second concern. --Dragonclaws 00:05, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Theres been another vandal attack on the Lord Voldemort section. -Lemniwinks


I know this isn't much of a concern right now, but some time in the future, will we need vandalism warning templates like test1 and so forth like those used at Wikipedia? Just a thought. Hermione1980 23:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Requests for deletion

Deletion issues should now be discussed at Category talk:Candidates for deletion. - Vostok 08:24, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Dunno if I overstepped my bounds, but I changed the speedy deletion part to just deletion, as speedy deletion is generally for pages where it's obvious (e.g. an article called "Test" or something) that the article should be deleted. Things that are put up for a vote are things like Places vs Locations for the category name. The main difference is that speedy deletion doesn't get a vote - it's just deleted by an admin as soon as they get around to it. --Schrei 23:23, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
How long will it take before the articles are deleted? The notice was put up in August and it's Sept already and nothing has been done since. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 13:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I was waiting to get at least three votes for a page before it is deleted. Pages that have three votes are now deleted. -Vostok 09:12, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Page title

Should the page on Petrifying be located at Petrify, Petrified, Petrifying, Petrification, or what? Hermione1980 18:51, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Petrification. --Dragonclaws 00:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the title meaning "the act of Petrification". But create redirects on each of those pages. «Rainer» 09:34, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme

I guess I never thought about it before, but the welcome on the main page and the logo are the only parts of the site with a black background. We should stick with either all black or all white I think - or is there some technical issue preventing that? --Schrei 20:30, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is doable. I had a search through the Wikicities stuff and couldn't find any reference to changing colours... but then I am new to this whole Wiki Admin thing :) - Vostok 08:19, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Turns out the stylesheet for Wikis is MediaWiki:Monobook.css. From Furry:MediaWiki:Monobook.css, it looks like admins can create it like any other page. --Schrei 23:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you're quite correct. If you've got a style sheet you'd like to try out submit it to me and I'll put it up. - Vostok 08:47, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know anything about stylesheets. Maybe someone else who does will read this and be able to help out. --Schrei 14:04, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I would be able to make one for you to add to that page, I'll just need to know what colours and styles and stuff you want. «Rainer» 09:57, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
CSS isn't hard... there are a couple of good tutorials that are easy to find floating about the net... its just a lot of telling the web browser what defaults you want. (for instance, you could tell it to give images a 3 pixel pink boarder by default) i'll get you links if you cant find any, i would post them now, but im recovering from a hard drive crash and ive lost all my links. Essex 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found the file path for the German HP wiki logo [1]. Do we still need to change logos or does the present one suffice? Btw, my internet connection is broken, so I can't pop in very often. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 12:40, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should just copy their logo. We can be more original! I quite like the current one, though. Better than anything I've created! «Rainer» 08:57, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I personally like the idea of the current logo, but it could be more iconic... and by that i mean less a picture.
an example for contrast:
stark contrast, but you get the idea, something easily recognizable, yet simple and elegent. not to mention its easier to stick an icon like that wherever you want and on top of whatever you want than it is to stick that picture of the deer where you want it when you need it. Essex 11:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki Skin

Hey guys, I'm testing out the style for this wiki here. If you want to experience it, just copy the code I used and put it on your monobook.css page, User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.css. What do you think? Remember I haven't finished yet. I've fixed many of the awful looking stuff, but there's still a few things I need to fix. Otherwise I reckon it looks pretty good. «Rainer» 14:28, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Not too bad, Rainer. I've got a few comments, although you're probably on your way to dealing with them but haven't finished it yet.
  • External links are particularly hard to read
  • Categories boxes are virtually unreadable
  • I think perhaps a darker colour would be better for empty links (links top pages that haven't been created yet). The pink still seems to say "I'm a link" as opposed to the standard red in the normal theme that indicates something isn't right.
  • Personally I find it easier to read dark text on a light background rather than the opposite, but that is a personal preference; I'd be keen to hear other people's opinions. - Vostok 09:20, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your input! I agree with the red links, I'll make them a bit darker. I'll go and fix all the other stuff that needs fixing. As for the light on dark text, I personally think it's not too distracting, but we'll see what other people think. Something that is distracting is the Google ads bar, the white doesn't suit the page. Maybe we can get Angela or another Wikicities admin to change the colour for the HPWiki if it's possible. «Rainer» 13:31, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I am grumpy right now) I'm not particularly fond of it myself. (Perhaps because I don't like yellow.) Somehow the font size in the navigation bar got changed. I agree about the Google ads thing. I tried changing the colour for empty links to a brighter red to make it easier to see — the red that was there was just a bit too dark. One thing I do like is changing the colours of the links at the top right to green. (I think I'll go reinstate that to my monobook.css!) Hermione1980 22:39, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's alright. Just wondering, what shade of red is good? Because I've been having trouble deciding on the particular shade of red. And as for the yellow links, perhaps another colour is better? «Rainer» 03:21, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wiki:Policy

I'm all for punishing vandals and whatnot, but isn't blocking people for 72 hours for one act of vandalism a bit harsh? 24, maybe, with longer blocks for repeat offenders, but I think blocking for 72 is going a bit overboard. Thoughts, comments? Hermione1980 21:54, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

24 was the recommended blocking time, but I thought it too short. Let's say someone vandalises a page one night, then logs off. We block them immediately. In 24 hours when they next log on, they're unblocked already. Doesn't seem like much of a punishment. For the most part vandals will be one time offenders, and a 72 hour block gets the vandalism out of their system and they'll have forgotten about us and moved onto the next Wiki to vandalise. So that was my justification. I usually gives vandals the benefit of the doubt before blocking them anyway. However, as always, I'm open to debate. - Vostok 03:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
72 hours is fair enough. And there isn't much chance that within that time someone else with the same IP tries to edit the same wiki. I mean, if it were, say "10 months" for just one bit of vandalism that's unfair, but 72 hours is alright. I don't think it is a "punishment", since most vandals (or "trolls" as they're called on the H*R Fanstuff Wiki) wouldn't care whether or not they could edit some site. It's more a measure to prevent them from vandalising again. «Rainer» 08:10, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see. I'm just used to Wikipedia's policies, but you have justification here. Hermione1980 13:53, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Personally I'd block the vandal a week. 48 hrs ain't enough to cause him harm. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 21:13, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

We've just had our first repeat vandal, from IP As a result, they are the first person to get the full penalty of a 12 month ban. Speak now if anyone thinks this is too harsh a punishment. - Vostok 08:37, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That's too harsh. Double the penalties every time he/she vandalizes until the third time, I'd say, where the vandal receives a 3-month penalty, then 7-month, then indefinite. That's how I'd do it. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 15:47, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We should never block a vandal for "indefinite" if he/she is an IP address, because IP addresses get shared around and everything, and other users who want to make a good edit could be unable. «Rainer» 08:47, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, registered vandals then. And after what User:Quebeck did the other day, I'm surprised that this whole wiki is still standing. More active RC patrollers, anyone? The Chosen One (Choose me!) 14:20, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New Admins

I can't be everywhere at once and I haven't got a lot of time for visiting the Wiki as often as I'd like, so I've given Admin privileges to Hermione1980 and Chosen One. That's probably more admins than we actually need right now, but I felt there needed to be someone other than me with these privileges. - Vostok 04:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I do not know where to place this anger, I think what was done here is a stolen idea from another site. The other site was registered before this one. Sorry.

What was "stolen" and what site was it "stolen" from? Do you mean this whole wiki? To my knowledge there is no other English Harry Potter Wiki... «Rainer» 09:30, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
There is, through FictionAlley, but it seems to be geared more toward information for fanfiction writing. It also doesn't look very complete at all. Hermione1980 14:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think if something has been stolen you should have a complete refund. 16:15, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was "stolen". «Rainer» 06:16, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Other stuff

  • I belong to the star wars wiki too, and they have improvement drives and featured articles on the main page. I dont have access or the know how to change anything.

What does everyone think?Padme829 20:03, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829

  • Yeh we should have those features from wookiepedia. I'm all for having a listing of new and popular pages too like on wookiepedia--Darth Mantus 22:13, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

But, CAN anyone change the home page, Because I can't.Padme829 01:20, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829

    • Chosen One protected the page because a lot of anons were changing it to American spellings. Admins can modify the page. We were originally going to have a daily/weekly featured article, but the active editors at that time decided to discard that for the time being until we have more editors and more decent articles. New pages can be found at Special:Newpages and popular pages can be found at Special:Popularpages. Hermione1980 01:34, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Article titles

Should we have Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game) or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (game)? Hermione1980 01:36, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Definitely video game. There are board games, card games, combination DVD board games and all kinds of other games. If you're talking about a game which includes videos, then it should be noted. Magnoliasouth 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Film

Who's seen the new film? It is fantastic. Voldermort is portrayed perfectly! Fantastic! Great!--Darth Mantus 20:20, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't like Voldemort at all. He was shorter than Lucius, for crying out loud! I think it's better than Prisoner of Azkaban, at least, but Philosopher's Stone is still my favourite. Hermione1980 21:22, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • What? I have just had this same conversation with some friends on another forum. I still think that the last section with Voldemort was the best part of the film!--Darth Mantus 16:29, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it was really good!Padme829 23:12, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829
  • Yet to be released in Australia :(. Come on, 1st December!... «Rainer» 11:21, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • The only problem I think, is that Michael Gambon cannot match Richard Harris as Dumbledore. They should get someone else, like David Attenborough.--Darth Mantus 22:44, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Ian Mckellen, who played Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" would also be a good choice. Too bad Mr. Harris passed away. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 19:13, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes definitely Ian McKellan would be good, but perhaps that would be typecasting him. Perhaps we would start getting confused between Dumbledore and Gandalf!--Darth Mantus 18:35, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Current events

Our current events should perhaps be a little more ... current. There's no information whatsoever on the release of "Goblet of Fire" the movie, and the last entry was for the release of Book 6. Perhaps someone should update this once in a while. (Sorry for the criticism - I should be doing it but I'm going to be busy until mid-January. Hehe :p ) The Chosen One (Choose me!) 19:17, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Template

Is it really neccessary to use the spoiler template on this wiki? After all, one would expect that a site that covers every detail of Harry Potter would include spoilers about the books. I mean, we might as well have a spoiler template on every page, which is pointless. We could just warn users on the Main Page of spoilers or something. I do think, though, we should use a spoiler template for spoilers of Book 7 when it is released, and then remove it after about a month. What do you guys think? «Rainer» 10:26, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, I personally would like to see a separate spoiler template for each book, saying something like "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details from book 2 follow." If we don't have that, then yeah, I think it's pretty useless. The thing about putting spoiler templates in is if/when we start getting linked to by other sites — they're not all going to link to the Main Page, and then we'd have people whining about how "You spoiled the book for me/my friend/my dog/etc.!" Hermione1980 13:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we can change the code so that we can have a generic spoiler warning below the actions bar. And put a spoiler warning on the Main page (which I still think should remain black unless we take out the two torches and the Hogwarts seal). The Chosen One (Choose me!) 14:19, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that the horizontal rules at the top and the bottom of the spoiler tag tend to go through the character templates and anything else next to them. If you just make the whole thing as a blockquote tagged paragraph, and maybe all bold, you really don't need the horizontal rules above and below it. Travlr23 17:43, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
We might still need some spoiler tags for the books and/or some of the characters. Even if we have a generic tag on the MP, some readers might enter through Google (as Hermione1980 said), and we might spoil their fun. Perhaps some well-placed spoiler tags might do, perhaps just before the character dies? or something like that. And of course, we have to put spoiler tags in the book summaries for those people who haven't read all the books yet. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 08:06, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely agree with you and Hermione1980. We should not have spoiler warnings for minor plot spoilers, after all, that's what you'd expect from a Harry Potter Wiki. But we should have a spoiler template for a major plot spoiler for a major event in the Harry Potter series, and, as Hermione said, tell the reader which books the spoilers concern. As well as that, we should have a spoiler template on the Main Page to warn readers about minor spoilers (I've already done this for my New Main Page Designs). «Rainer» 10:42, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. A general warning on the main page, and warnings on individual pages for hugely significant events. But we'd have to specify what a significant event is... perhaps I'll start a list of what constitutes a spoiler warning... - Vostok 05:31, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I've made a list of what constitutes a spoiler warning. Feel free to discuss any other events that you feel deserve spoiler warnings on that page, as the whole page is full of spoilers. - Vostok 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Second Grawp Discussion

All right, I think it's time to settle down for a talk now that we have some new editors and new stuff to work with. All your opinions are welcome!

  1. I've noticed that some of the articles are copies of Wikipedia articles of the same name. Though it is possible, copying should (imo) not be encouraged as the HPW is not supposed to be an exact copy of Wikipedian content. Or is it?
  2. Some of the articles are poorly written, some are okay, and some are up to par. I think we should have a common standard and form that we should follow, instead of just following our own ideas of how an article should be written.
  3. New Main Page, anybody? Perhaps a navigation section (Places, Characters, Objects, etc.) and an article of the week, etc. (I like the torches, Rainer)
  4. And how about getting some more new editors?

The Chosen One (Choose me!) 17:12, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  1. I don't think we should allow copying from Wikipedia. But, the problem is (and it's true IMO) at the moment Wikipedia has more info on Harry Potter than this wiki. So maybe copying just sections or something could be alright.
  2. Yep, standards are absolutely neccessary.
  3. I'll start my Main Page redesign now (here). It'll have some sort of article of the week thingy. I'll try my best to incorporate those cool torches in the new design!
  4. I think it's time to tip Mugglenet and other HP sites about this. Vandalism shouldn't be a problem, we have enough active users here.
That's what I think, anyway. «Rainer» 06:45, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not like we can just post advertisements for editors. Also, what are you planning to do with the main page? Padme829 16:34, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)Padme829
No, but if this wiki gets linked to on a site like Mugglenet, I'm sure more editors will come. Also, you can see my Main Page design at User:Rainer/New Main Page Proposal, but it is not finished. Please don't say "it's too small", because I'm still adding stuff to it. «Rainer» 22:59, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Page Style

So far, every page I've seen is simply a large chunk of text. This community page is the first I've seen that even has a table of contents. Should we try to make it more like Wikipedia, or is the goal essay-style articles? MadMuggle 02:33, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

List of....

I ran across two articles today (Ghosts and Teachers) that got me thinking: a) shouldn't these be List of ghosts and List of teachers and b) are these lists even necessary, considering that the goal is to have an article on everything and the existence of categories should cover it? Lachatdelarue 00:41, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nuke 'em, I say. Nuke 'em all! ::pounds fist on keyboard:: But make sure the info on the DADA teacher position is in the Defence Against the Dark Arts article. Hermione1980 00:55, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. My one thought is maybe there should be a list for things that don't already have articles about everything that should be on the list. Like, say, spells. Anyone want to compile a list of spells?? and then the list can die when all the articles exist. Lachatdelarue 12:03, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I created a temp. list of spells page here (actually, I stole all that from mugglenet, but w/e). I wiki-linked all of the spell names. There may be some missing, who knows... Have at creating articles for them! Lachatdelarue 22:49, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Ok, how do you guys feel about articles that will never (probably) be more than a single sentence (like: "So-and-so was Sorted into Ravenclaw in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire")? Have the article anyway, or not? If not, then some lists are needed to house this tiny bit of information, amongst a bunch of things with articles... Lachatdelarue 00:31, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You mean like the students on List of students (thanks for moving that article, btw) that just have a one-line description actually in the list? At this point, I think we should create redirs to the appropriate list unless more information is given (for example, Euan Abercrombie would redir to List of students). Hermione1980 00:35, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Guess that means that anything else (spells, people etc) that are only mentioned once and very briefly should be in some sort of list too? also, I think we need a list of minor characters to encompass people like Molly's second cousin the accountant and such. Lachatdelarue 00:52, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, that's what we should do if this was Wikipedia. If an article on Euan Abercrombie was on Wikipedia with just one sentence, it would be deleted. But this is the Harry Potter Wiki, which means we should have articles on anything, even if it is a one-sentence-stub. «Rainer» 09:04, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I can really go either way on this. Maybe we should take an informal poll to see what all of the major editors (and anyone else for that matter) think? Lachatdelarue 19:19, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rainer. Everything should have its own page, even if it is just a single sentence. Otherwise, we would have to be putting the single sentences with bits of information in the list pages, which is inappropriate. - Vostok 04:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

DeWPfy template

In response to the large number of copied articles on the HPW, no, I have not rewritten them, but created a nice new template and category for articles that need to be dewikipediafied. Includes copied articles, redlinked articles (w/ links that lead to Prime Minister, London, Bloomsbury, etc), and the like.

New template goes as such: {{dwfy}}

Or, if you hate yourself that much: {{dewikipediafy}}

The Chosen One (Choose me!) 11:12, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Article titles, part 3

Should spells, when both a name and an incantation for them are known, be located at the name or the incantation (e.g. Disarming Charm or Expelliarmus)? I've been putting them at the name, but I see Chosen One has done the opposite, so I was wondering what others thought. Hermione1980 17:04, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I checked Lachatdelarue's list of spells, and I worked from there. Most of the spells were at the name, so I created redirs for the incantations and moved the spells listed under their incantaions to their more common names. Of course, if you want the opposite, that can easily be remedied. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 12:55, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I think we should put them at the incantation, because, for example, "Lumos" would be what a user is more likely to type in then "Light Charm" or the name of the spell is. Also, most spells have official incantations, but there are not many spells that have official English names. «Rainer» 09:04, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Well, I only did that because, as I said a while ago, most of the articles were at the name, instead of the incantation. And (now the rationalization) I don't think young wizards would refer to their spells as "Diffindo" or "Avada Kedavra" or "the Levicorpus Non-Verbal Spell", otherwise their wands would be going off every now and then, wouldn't they? The Chosen One (Choose me!) 10:37, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but spells are more known for their incantation then an unofficial name we've given them. «Rainer» 03:50, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Just wanted to take this moment to say Happy New Year, y'all! Hermione1980 03:29, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

I noticed that Chosen One used the term Winkypedia on the front page, and it brought a smile to my face. The Star Wars wiki is known as the Wookieepedia, And I certainly think it would be cool if we had a similar play on the name. The other possible name I thought of was Flitwikipedia. Does anyone else have any other suggestions? Or should we stick with Harry Potter Wiki? - Vostok 04:59, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I like Winkypedia personally,Padme829 15:23, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)Padme829

"Winkypedia" would be a clever nickname to use internally, but I think we should stick with "Harry Potter Wiki". "Harry Potter Wiki" tells the visitor exactly what the wiki is about, and will do better in search engines. I don't object to a different name though if it's really good and/or references a main and/or well-known character, though (like Potterpedia (?) or something). «Rainer» 08:21, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
"Harry Potter Wiki" should remain the official name, though "Winkypedia" could be a nickname. "Potterpedia", for me, is definitely out of the picture, esp. because it's not very pun-ny, and doesn't have the play of words that Winkypedia has. Regarding "Winkypedia", I'd like to comment on the similarity between us users and the Hogwarts house-elves. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 05:58, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Potterpedia was just an example to show that a new pun title should mention a main character. And I never noticed that similarity (Wikipedia = Winkypedia = Winky = House elves = us!). «Rainer» 10:15, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Convince the contributers to HPwiki to come here (if they are even there anymore), and take their domain name. i suggest a focus of consolidating the existing HP wikis... but thats just me. Essex 11:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about, I don't think we want to "steal" their contributers, or take their domain name. The only way to do that would be to discuss with the admin of that site a possible merger, but I doubt that would happen. «Rainer» 13:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
yeah, thats what i was saying... not just steal contributors, but it would benefit the "community" as a whole, not just this specific wiki, to consolidate. Essex 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Character stubs

There was discussion about lists and stubs a while ago, so I thought if that is all the current possible information about that Character we should just refer to that as an article. Padme829 15:23, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)Padme829

A Few Things...

First off, I reckon we should do something with Harry Potter Wiki:Community Portal. I think we should either make one like Wikipedia's, move Project HP to the Community Portal, or rename the Community Portal to Project HP (which would mean changing MediaWiki:Portal and MediaWiki:Portal-url to Project HP, and also moving this talk page to the talk page of Project HP). Personally I think we should just move Project HP to the CP, and just keep the Community Portal name.
Also, I think we should do something with the Current events page. At the moment it is unupdated, and hasn't really been made into anything yet. I think that we should change the Current events link to "Harry Potter News", and make it point to "Harry Potter Wiki:News", unless someone has a better name. Once we've done that, we can launch it and actually update it with current Harry Potter and HPWiki news. I'd be happy to get the page started and all that, and update it (as well as other users). «Rainer» 05:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and made a community portal. I'm about to make a redirect at Project HP to the CP, because most of the page's content is on the new CP. If you object to this, feel free to comment. Anyway, what do you think of the new CP? «Rainer» 15:01, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Great. Definitely nice. I don't object to the redir, but wouldn't it be better if we delete Proj. HP? The Chosen One (Choose me!) 17:10, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I'd never have dreamed up something like that in a hundred years (maybe, but with some effort). Good work! An edit tab for the to-do list is lacking, however. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 17:32, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You could probably delete Project HP, but there's not much harm having a redirect. People might wonder where it went, not realising the page has been merged with the CP. «Rainer» 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


  • What do people think of having a user of the month type of thing on the new main page?

Padme829 05:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)Padme829

That'd be a grand idea, if only we had more editors. If we do that now, we'll just see our names over and over again. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 11:47, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If we did, though, it would be better suited on the Community portal. I think the Main Page should focus on the content of the wiki, not the wiki community. The Community portal should be like the "editor's Main Page". «Rainer» 13:45, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

A Task For An Admin

Could an admin please edit MediaWiki:Sidebar? Just replace all the text with the below:

* navigation
** mainpage|mainpage
** portal-url|Community Portal
** Harry Potter News|Harry Potter News
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges
** randompage-url|randompage
** helppage|help

This will remove the Donations link, make the first letter of "portal" a capital P and change Current Events to "Harry Potter News" (this should be good for now, unless we come up with a better name). «Rainer» 02:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems one of the WC admins has removed the Donations link automatically (but we still need the code copied). «Rainer» 10:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To Google, or not to Google?

Do we need the Google search in the sidebar? To me, it is unnecessary (does anyone actually use it?) this is just confusing for visitors. If we want to disable it, apparently you can just add a hyphen (this symbol: -) to MediaWiki:Google-search, and Google search will disappear. Also, if it is possible, we should change the "Wikicities" logo in the search part to something else. «Rainer» 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I just added a hyphen and nothing has happened. Chosen OneThe Chosen One (Choose me!)Chosen One 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought maybe the problem was that you had to clear the cache, but after trying that myself, wc:Help:Searching#Google search|this page must be wrong. «Rainer» 23:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the MediaWiki page (MediaWiki:Googlesearch) but I'm stumped as to where to put the hyphen. I tried it once and cleared cache, and nothing happened. And by the way, since I changed the sidebar text, the label doesn't pop up anymore when I put my cursor over "Community Portal" and "Harry Potter News". Big Problem! The Chosen One (Choose me!) 11:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I must've read the page wrong, because the code on MediaWiki:Googlesearch seems to control the radio buttons under the Google search (search Wiki, Wikicities and Google). We could restore the tooltip for the CP by making a page at MediaWiki:Portal with the text 'Community Portal' (no quotes), and then changing 'Community Portal' to 'portal' on MediaWiki:Sidebar. «Rainer» 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 10:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In-Universe and real world articles

Currently, there isn't really a consistency on pages with regards to the perspective from which the article is written. I think all articles should be written from the perspective that the information contained in the article is real, not just something from a fictional book. This is In-Universe. However, articles dealing with the books/films/games, actors/filmmakers, and JK Rowling herself need to all be written from the real world perspective, that is, outside the Harry Potter Universe.

For an example of what I'm on about, let's take Alicia Spinnet's page. Previously it read "She was a Chaser on the Gryffindor Quidditch team in the first five books". This is from a real world perspective, as it makes reference to the books. To change it to an In-Universe perspective, I've changed it to "She was a Chaser on the Gryffindor Quidditch team from 1991 to 1995."

- Vostok 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Editions' Spelling

I've moved (and edited) Sibyll Trelawney to Sybill Trelawney, and Minister of Magic to Minister for Magic, because we shouldn't be using spellings from the U.S. editions of the books. Just reminding people to use "Sybill" and "Minister for Magic" when editing, and also other words that have been changed in the U.S. editions. «Rainer» 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

whats wrong with the US spelling? anyhow, for conformity, is there some way to automatically change them all anyhow? i know in phpbb you can get a mod that allows you to "filter" words. it is normally used to make swear words show up as [filtered], but it can be used to pretty much change any word that shows up on the message board system into anything else. for example, "wut" could be automatically changed to "what", and "sibyll" into "sybill". as a side not, it doesn't change the coding of the actual post, so the code would still show up as "wut" in the first example. anyhow, im not huge on the technical side of things so i dont know what plugins you can add to a wiki and whatnot, or if you can adapt anything from phpbb to work outside of itself. might be able to use the general idea of the coding from the addon in wiki, or as a general server side script, though. Essex 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, in fact we should note the different spelling on its article, but we need to be consistent. There's probably not too many instances of "Sibyll" that can't be changed by human to "Sybill", so a automatic filter probably isn't needed, even though I think you can add one to MediaWiki. «Rainer» 06:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
well i say if anyone knows how its always a good idea to have a filter... you can use it for anything, not just the sibyll/sybill thing. and also filter out racist words and "foul" language. Essex 04:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It really sounds good, but perhaps it isn't necessary, as Enwiki with its large number of admins shows. They have some bots over there, but there's only so much stuff a bot can do! The Chosen One (Choose me!) 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer part of the original question, as far as I understand it, we use the British versions/spellings because 1) they are the original, 2) it's left over from Wikipedia rules about using British spellings in British articles, and 3) it's better than American English. (Okay, 3 was my own personal less-than-two cents.) As far as Sibyll-Sybill goes, I think I'll just go do a search within the site for "Sibyll" and go change all those. I've got an hour and a half before Dancing with the Stars comes on… Hermione1980 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, less than two cents indeed. Insulting American English isn't going to earn this site a good reputation. You are dealing with content and what is appropriate, not debating which English is better. Please keep that in mind. Magnoliasouth 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It was meant in fun. I happen to be American, thank you, and I am allowed to state my opinion on a talk page. Hermione1980 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. ::sigh:: Personally I like "Sibyll" better than "Sybill", but Rowling's word is law. If there's any other common thing that needs to be changed, let me know and I'll search for it and change it. I've been looking for something to do on this site aside from creating new articles, which tends to take brain cells I don't really have. Hermione1980 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Family Tree

Here's something interesting. JKR is selling a handwritten "Black family tree" for charity. There's a picture of it (link) and it fills in many gaps, however it's a bit obscured. It even connects to the Longbottoms and the Bulstrodes. Anyway, this gives us heaps of info, but is it considered canon? «Rainer» 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say anything that JK Rowling creates is canonical. After all, we're taking information from Quidditch Through The Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as canonical... aren't we? I'd say that unless it conflicts with existing information in the Black Family Tree, then we should accept it. - Vostok 04:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
We now have more of the family tree, although some of it has been blurred out. «Rainer» 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I know somone who was at the auction and I have the full tree. Should I make an article on it? Chris Chaud 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be excellent! HPL has added some info based on the tree too ([2]), scroll down "February 20, 2006", on that page. «Rainer» 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created a tree like the Lexicon's, here, so we're not just copying theirs. What do you all think? I know it's boring, but it gets the information across. Hermione1980 20:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great! A bit wide though, but we can't really help that. «Rainer» 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking the Lexicon for permision to use their copy of the Black Family Tree Chris Chaud 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


For ease of linking to templates, I have copied {{tl}} from Wikipedia. Mostly because I wanted to use it on a talk page, but there you go. Have fun. Hermione1980 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New Main Page


Winner: Design 4 by Rainer
Votes: 5/0/0

I think it's time to change the rather obsolete Main Page (besides, lots of anons are clamoring about it). Please vote for your most favorite temporary MP design (found here) so that our newbies can stop complaining until something else catches their eye. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Design 4. - Vostok 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 4 too. «Rainer» 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Design 4 too. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
4, but I'm not crazy about the featured article box colour. Hermione1980 13:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've switched the Featured Article and the list of books box colours - does it look better? «Rainer» 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Hermione1980 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I Like 4 as well Thai420 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think with 5 out of 5 votes, Design 4 must be the winner, unless we want this poll to go on for longer. «Rainer» 07:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'll change the code now, and we can see how it looks. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 12:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

I think we need to have a vote or something on this topic. Here's what I think the policy should be:

  • Do not use spoiler warnings, until Book 7 is released. When Book 7 is released, for about a month, have Book 7 spoiler warnings for any new information from that book, even on talk pages.

Other than that, no spoilers. We have a warning on the Main Page already, I think most people who read this site already have read all the books anyway, and if not, the giant spoiler warning's there. I mean, all Harry Potter readers know the ending to Book 1. «Rainer» 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghost site?

It really seems as if the HPW will fall into ruin if nobody else comes. Right now, we have an average of 1 new user every half month, and most of these guys don't stay anyway, so we end up with an empty site. The Collab of the Week hasn't been changed for a month now, and it wouldn't really matter - not much people are making a great effort to help. New faces are nice to see, but they don't stay around very long. And if some deranged vandal decides to blank each and every article on HPW, I guess even the long-term admin skeleton crew wouldn't be able to revert each edit the vandal made in, what, say, a day? With these nice shifts we have, a vandal could easily wipe out our whole encyclopedia in an hour or two without us noticing until half a day has gone by. If situations don't improve, should we shut down what seems to be a failed enterprise? The Chosen One (Choose me!) 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I randomly decided to visit today. It is true that we don't have activity, but if we advertise this, activity will pick up. Chris Chaud 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject, we really need to advertise, go to Mugglenet, and the leaky cauldron and post it on their forums...Chris Chaud 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Are we allowed to take stuff from the Harry Potter Lexicon? I'm not sure if it's company owned or a free website. (Only documents, I mean, no pics of course). Therequiembellishere 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Original. Just change your wording. Glad to have you here. And if the old admins dont come back (they have been gone for 2 months) then the Wikia admins are going to appoint new ones. Squee!

I'm here! Just started adding stuff. I fixed up the Dragon page so it's not a stub any more, check it out. I'm adding what the spells mean in Latin, and right now I'm starting work on some Ministry of Magic Stuff. I really want to help out. -Lemniwinks


I really think that we need to kickstart this site off, by pretending in never existed and having a grand opening. We could also rename it Winkypedia or something. And we could have one of those free stores where users can by promotional material....And we could have a paypal account up for donations.... (Could I be an admin? *Hopes*)Chris Chaud 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)