Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Archive
File-manager
The talk page has the following archives:

Errors[]

I personally believe that we need to get rid of the errors section. This is because we already have a whole article dedicated to this topic. I believe that rather than deleting the Mistakes in the Harry Potter books article, we should just delete the section showcasing errors on these pages. I feel this way because it is not doing the books justice to showcase all of its errors on the page showcasing the book itself. If people want to know the errors, they can find the separate article.

  ArrestoMomentum | talk  07:57, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the title italic?[]

It's a book, why isn't it italic? So does every other book. MalchonC (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, to make titles italic, apply a tag called "DISPLAYTITLE:", and then "PAGENAME" at the very top of the article's source, which I've just done now, so thanks for noticing this. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Contradicting what I have just said somewhat, I am unsure if this exact tag applies to real world book articles. I will have to ask admin about this. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Spells / Deaths / etc[]

So this article happens to have a summary of Spells first introduced in this book, along with a list of deaths. I'm wondering why these extra details shouldn't be kept, although perhaps in a shortened table for the Spell & class when it was learned. What was problematic about the section? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but what is there to talk about? Even if something like this should be maintained on pages about books, it needs a complete rewrite. It has fan speculations. "The first time we hear this spell", "We don’t hear the incantation for it the book, but it could be a variation of Incendio", this type of writing cannot be allowed on wiki pages. The format is also very inconsistent. MalchonC (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Improving a section makes more sense than deleting it entirely or trying to tell new users that "we don't keep track" of such info as if there was a policy or even a community discussion had on the matter. The goal is to encourage participation, not unilaterally veto what is or isn't allowed for other users to contribute. Also, please do not remove Talk Page comments, even your own, per the Harry Potter Wiki:Talk Page Policy. I will reformat the information for now to help improve the layout and consistency and go from there. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Got it, then I'll say this: I really don't think we should keep track of such info on these pages. There's simply no need: why would someone reading these articles find a section of all spells (and even deaths) helpful? Is that what readers would expect to see? I would imagine the majority of people going to these articles for information about the books themselves, not information about in-universe things, as they are by definition out-of-universe articles and really should focus more on out-of-universe contents, besides the inevitable chapter synopses. And as RedWizard98 said below, there're just too many spells, documenting all of them on these pages as a convention is unrealistic, and documenting only a part of them (the so-called "main" ones or whatever that certain users consider them to be, even after a discussion) defeats the purpose of building a impartial wiki. Maybe we can create a separate page or pages specifically for them, but definitely not on the main articles.
Also, since the articles about books are here for years and have already formed their structures, I see no reason for others to add contents that aren't usually kept track of without first discussing them themselves. I don't really see what's wrong with deleting a section which feels particularly messy (borderline chaotic) before possibly adding it back later in good format, if that even is what we're going to do. MalchonC (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
One common use I know of for listing out first introductions of various items is for users who are writing fan-fiction and want to know when certain spells/potions/creatures/etc first appeared so their stories are grounded in the proper context for a time-period. Also, given that Pottermore/Wizarding World has many articles on what spells/creatures/etc were from first-year/etc, then there appears to be widespread interest in reading such summations. There are many ways to summarize the source content, beyond just chapter reviews, and many possible uses for such summaries beyond what any one user can conceive.
No article is set in stone and there is no formal definition of what can and cannot be included (outside of Harry Potter Wiki:Policy issues of course). Just because an article hasn't been edited in several weeks, months, or years, does not mean it is "done" and cannot be changed, expanded, or improved upon by any editor at any point. No one needs to ask permission to edit a page and no one gets to act as gatekeeper against users contributing. As such, deleting content makes it very unlikely for the other editors on the site to find and review such information and improve upon it as needed. Again, the goal, especially for Wiki Staff, is to support and encourage users and their wiki work, not unilaterally decide their contributions are not allowed. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I realise my initial messages of us not keeping track of the information are more radical than necessary, thank you for reminding me. But while I agree that articles aren't set in stone, adding a section that is not spam but also isn't usually added at least warrants a discussion first. If a user, without seeking others' opinions, adds a section of incomplete spells that definitely needs rewriting, doesn't appear elsewhere and significantly lowers the overall quality of the page, I would think it's my responsibility to make sure the page doesn't come off as ugly and not properly maintained to many many more users who are just stopping by and looking up what they usually expect to find in these articles. MalchonC (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, no one needs to discuss any article edit before they make it. Not for corrections, not for new sections, nothing. Obviously, if their changes go against Harry Potter Wiki:Policy, then it could be removed entirely with a notice to them about how it violates the clearly stated policy, or better yet their additions can be properly integrated into the current content. However, if it just needs to be re-written or formatted to improve it, then that work should be done, or if one is unable or unwilling to make the needed changes, then tagged with {{Cleanup}} so others can help out. All articles are in a state of becoming so it's always better to make improvements rather than remove users' contributions under the guise of "protecting" the page from appearing to be what it always is and always will be - a continual work in progress. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favour with reducing or removing the section on learned spells. In each book, so many different spells, potions, creatures, characters, locations and objects are introduced and this is reflected in each article's appearances section. Although a table could exist, it would need to be smaller and more concise. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That same argument could be used against listing Creatures on their country page (why list Nogtails on Russia when users can read that fact on the Nogtail article?). Similarly pivoting the data between Appearances and Sources has the value of aggregating under both articles so users can approach it from either context. If editors are willing to do the work, there are no rules against it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the section will be very helpful. Like Ironyak pointed out, even WW has articles for things like that. I think it would good to separate spells, potions etc. introduced in the books, so people can find out what Rowling herself put in, when she did and how. - Kates39 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on potentially adding 'Chapter' columns to the list of deaths and spells tables, and a 'Caster' column to the list of spells table? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement