Under Spelling Section

While we use British spellings, shouldn't we also use the British format for dates. See Forum:Date Month, thanks. 03:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

You mean "European format" — and the answer is NO. Neither European nor American (nor short Japanese) formats are suitable for use on any web page intended for international distribution, as they are too easily confused with one another. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:11, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


I come from the Star Wars wikicity where there is a policy of always putting the source of the information, ie what book it can be found in. This strikes me as a very good idea, especially to ensure accountability in your articles. Do you think you should adopt this policy? An eg can be found here: Skeeter. Eyrezer 02:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Married names

I propose that policy be that we leave the names as they have been throughout the series since this is how the are best known and are the names Rowling has developed the characters under. John Reaves (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the title should not change. I,however, think it necessary to change their name with reference to their maiden name (i.e.née Weasley). This should only goes for the ones were sure have changed their name though.Dbones2009 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
We should probably keep them as the name they are "best" known by. Alternately I would say we should use their "newest" name. I.e. Ginny is referred to as a "Potter" so we could use Ginny Potter, but Hermione is never referred to as Weasley (as far as I know...) so she would stay Granger. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The full name should be used in the article, IMO, but keep the page name the same. For instance, Ginny would still be at Ginny Weasley, but the bolded name would be her full known name as of her last appearance - Ginevra "Ginny" Molly Potter (nee Weasley). - Cavalier One 07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Family in Infobox

I'm gonna propose that the "family" field in infoboxes should only be used for immediate family. Meaning spouse, children, parents. Some of the articles are just getting ridiculous with that field. It becomes just too much information (for example see Sirius Black). We have family trees which should show all the connections, I don't think its necessary to show everyone they're related to. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ok on some of the larger articles that can support it (eg the Weasleys and the main characters), but I agree that it needs pruning in some articles that are little more than stubs or short entries. And no cousin once removed stuff, either. - Cavalier One 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems fair...although I think we should have the same policy for all articles - no matter whether its a stub or not. What about things like "distant cousins" or "ancestors"? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree if were doing it for one article, it should be done for all articles of chararcters with known imediate family. Some of the articles are getting really dumb that way...Dbones2009 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canon Content

So I think we should probably develop some sort of policy of what we consider canon. My thoughts on it are as follows (yes this based off my comment in Talk:Albus Dumbledore): I think it might make sense to say the books are more canon than the movies and games. In places where the movies, books and games do not conflict both are canon, yet where they do the books rule and subsequently the movies over the games. What do you all think? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that having a canon policy would be a good idea. Also, anything written or stated by Rowling herself should be consider canon, on a level with the books themselves. - Cavalier One 16:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, as a side note - when I refer to books I'm meaning the seven novels + Quidditch Through the Ages (real) and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (real). -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
So do I. What about the information from other sources, such as Famous Wizard Cards, and the Daily Prophet articles that were part of the Fan Club several years age? Some info contradicts others, such as birth and death dates for Bowman Wright that contradicts Quidditch Through the Ages (real). - Cavalier One 23:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in terms of levels: anything from JKR is the highest level of canon. My reasoning for putting the movies above the games is cause I'm pretty sure JKR has had more to do with the movies than the games (and the games take more creative licensing).
So, in my mind I guess we could have like a JKR level (all books, her website, interviews, etc.). If JKR contradicts herself I guess the books should outweigh what she says, or perhaps the newest source - what do you think? After that level would be the movies. The final level would be things that received licensing rights but had little/nothing to do with JKR (board games, Wizard Cards, etc.). If one of those things has more to do with JKR than I realize it should be moved up a level to on par with the movies. Does that sound like a decent idea? Obviously we'll need to iron this out and make like categories for things.
Also we should probably add in a template for ambiguous continuity (similar to the one on Wookieepedia I was thinking that just says that that section is of a conflicting canon source. So we can include as much information as possible (example on Wookieepedia). Also this might be a good reference.-- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 00:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think thats definitely the way to go. That way, we can add things from the games, such as the Glacius Challenge from the Prisoner of Azkaban game, or the subquests in the Order of the Phoenix game to assemble Dumbledore's Army, and label them properly. It might be an idea to create a policy page on this like the Layout Guide or the FA proposal and work on it. - Cavalier One 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DarkJedi613/Canon Feel free to edit it or use the discussion page. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

references policy

I think that the part of the policy that says: Should a reference be necessary, one may use the following templates to clarify which book the passage came from: [HP1], [HP2], [HP3], [HP4], [HP5], [HP6], [HP7]. To clarify from a scene of a movie use the following templates: [HP1 film], [HP2 film], [HP3 film], [HP4 film], [HP5 film], [HP6 film], [HP7 film] should be changed to say use the <ref></ref> tags as this is better and far more widespread on the wiki. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 01:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

no one seemed to notice so im bumping. Me_Potter_Fan (Talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I didn't see this on my recent changes for some reason. Anyway, I agree -- we really shouldn't use those templates...or we could just change them to insert the reference text automatically? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Language policy: filenames as well?

I'm wondering whether the "British English" policy should also extend to file names. We have a user called Мидейла (I think that transliterates to Latin script as "Mideila") who has done several useful edits, but who unfortunately tends to give uploaded files Russian names which convey little or nothing to Anglophones. For instance, is it really helpful to name a file "File:Харрис с Петой Уилсон и внуком Марлоу.jpg"? I shouldn't have to use Google Translate to figure out that this means "Harris Peta Wilson and grandson of Marlowe" (if it does, and this translation isn't a victim of the AYB effect as machine translations often are). — RobertATfm (talk) 08:25, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

E.g. and i.e.

I have just corrected a page where "i.e." was erroneously used to mean "for example" (it actually means "that is"; the correct abbreviation of "for example" is "e.g."). I think that one policy on this wiki is that these two Latin abbreviations should not be used, as mistakes such as this one are all too common. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:28, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

This confuses me. So, are we allowed FanFiction or not. If we're not I think we should allow it but there should be rules. You must add (FanFiction) after the title and label it as SFW or NSFW.

Mr Karismatic (talk) 22:15, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Technically, yes, fan fiction is allowed, but it must be contained to your userspace. Any attempt to insert it into the main article space becomes fanon; considered a form of vandalism, it will be reverted and repeated violations are grounds for blocking. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 22:38, January 21, 2017 (UTC)