Named = Notable?

So the guidelines were using is that if a character has a name, then they're automatically considered notable? If so, then maybe we need to do some more consideration of the guidelines. Because those characters announced on the radio broadcasts on Potterwatch seem exactly like the sort of articles the policy was designed to combat. Copy the same exact information, substitute name and gender pronouns and an etymology section here and there and you're looking at otherwise exactly the same article for some thirty or forty people. All of that information could easily be combined into a hub article titled something like "List of missing individuals announced on Potterwatch" and probably should. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:15, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

"An unidentified character can have a separate article if there is unique, specific information available that can be used to distinguish them from other characters in the title of their article." As the guidelines are currently worded, every specifically named character is article-worthy. Personally, these Potterwatch (I'm sure you meant Potterwatch) announcement characters do not bother me as much as the "Unidentified such-and-such who appeared for a fleeting moment in the background of some scene". I say we should keep these articles, as merging them all would set a precedent that would result in a resurgence of "List" articles that are not at all desirable (except for those unidentified characters) instead of separate articles: i.e. "List of (named) background Hogwarts students in the games", "List of minor-importance Ministry of Magic offices", "List of real-life locations", etc., etc. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:39, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, I did mean Potterwatch. Fixed. And I suppose you have a point, though it still seems like the individual pages add little of value when it's just the same basic thing over and over again. But it's probably better to leave it as it is, due to the precedent. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:10, July 24, 2012 (UTC)


So, do podcasts need to meet both guidelines or just one?

Felix Alan Cadmus Scamander 16:44, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

Wand policy

Can someone with the history explain why wands were singled out as canon objects with notability requirements? It seems odd to single these out while also making articles for Hermione Granger's pencil case. Why are canon mentions of wands not considered sufficient to merit an article? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:25, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed a few, I think, years ago, that wands are only considered notobable if there is something specific to say about them. For example: Material, Noble collection design, History... It was a time when every single wand from LEGO Harry Potter got its own article with very similar content. "Wand that belonged to this person, was made of unknown materials, probably purchased it at the age of...". If you can write something specific about a wand's History or design, it is considered notable as far as I know.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:47, June 30, 2017 (UTC)
Here are the discussions in question if you're interested: Forum:Wands guidelines & Forum:Notability Policy Discussion. - Nick O'Demus 11:13, June 30, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the background! I can see where this arose from, but I would have argued that canon appearances of wands, especially first-tier canon appearances, would make them sufficiently notable and deserving of an article, if only to track their specific appearances & references. If nothing can be said about the wand other than it appeared in a single source (e.g. LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4) then it should probably just be referenced on the character page, but if a wand appears in multiple sources or played a specific role in events, then having a separate article helps clarify these details IMHO. My very late 2 pence on the matter. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:14, June 30, 2017 (UTC)