Family members

Saw the recent edits here so wanted to clarify. Is the notion that for historical figures, we still only go by what has been mentioned In Universe, and that the historical characters do not inherit any of their Out on Universe details like family members?

Does this apply to Real World topics in general - ie the Capital of Canada may not be Ottawa unless JKR has confirmed that it is for the HP universe? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:26, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

Excepting the pages on actors (which shouldn't be an exception imo), everything should be focused on in-universe. OOU is harder to control, because then people can just add whatever they feel like to OOU pages, such as things from their actual real-world counterpart onto the page.
This is a Harry Potter Wiki that focuses on in-universe content and 95% of the content should focus exclusively on stuff that happened in the universe (games, films and all that don't count, because while the games or films don't exist "in the universe", they are media that follow "in-verse" events).
My opinion is that any information on the wiki should focus on the subject matter's existence "inside the HP Universe" and as such, anything that didn't happen in said universe should be removed. IE Actor pages should just focus on their contribution to the series, not all the bs I read on half of them that has absolutely nothing to do with their contribution to HP. --Sajuuk 16:30, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. There is another point to consider
We know of several examples were real-world difers from HP canon. JKR has revealed that in her uniserve, Angus Buchanan was a Squib and his sibblings in-universe had diferent names than the real-world Buchanans.
Also, Assyria still seems to exist in the HP universe. We shouldn´t assume that every historical detail is the same in-universe.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:43, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
For Real World topics, I see this as two separate, but related issues:
  1. Focus: As SuperSajuuk noted the focus of information should be primarily HP related, although other real-world details are present to a small degree.
  2. Presumed Real World Similarity: Do we assume that real-world topics are largely the same, but that any info provided by JKR sources trump and take precedence? Or do we only go by what JRK sources provide i.e. we do not know the Capital of Canada as JKR sources have never mentioned it (AFAIK). I agree we cannot assume everything is the same, but it seems we believe that Real World topics generally align with their In Universe counterparts?
ETA - I'm not arguing against the revisions you made, just using it as an opportunity to clarify the notion of Real World. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:55, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
No, we should not make assumptions on pages. For all we know, the capital of Canada could be Vancouver or Edmonton in Rowling's universe. Articles should be written from the POV of the Harry Potter universe, it should not include things from our universe, because it is completely speculative to suggest that something that is true in our world must automatically be true in Rowling's world. Anything that cannot be referenced to something officially stated to exist in Rowling's world is speculative and should be removed. --Sajuuk 17:06, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Supersajuuk. I think we mostly went with the first option in the past and mostly assumed it to be the same, though I have always used the "personal rule". only what is mentioned in canon should be mentioned in articles. For me personally, this also includes brth dates and family background, but many articles on real individuals in-unverse use birth dates and death dates of the real person.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:12, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Interesting... The trouble I see with a strict canon approach (other than the astronomical number of edits needed to implement it here) is that the HP Universe doesn't seem like a Alternate or Separate Universe, but rather an extension of the Real World Universe albeit with some modifications. When JKR says that Mahoutokoro is in Japan she doesn't need to explain that Japan is an island nation in the Pacific Ocean as she is referring to the Real World Japan, but with her additions and alterations. Under a strict cannon approach Japan could refer to all of mainland Asia (as an Alternate outcome to WWII) or be located on another planet made of string cheese (Separate Universe). She doesn't explicitly give any of these establishing details so under strict cannon rules there is very little you could state with certainty.
My take on this, and what appears to largely align with practice here, is that the HP Universe is largely the same as the real world Universe, with a nearly identical history, geography, and physical laws; but it also has lots of additional, and some minor alternate, details which take precedence for our purposes.
As such, and given the details provided by JKR, I would say that this Henry VIII is the same as the Real World Henry VIII, and that he had the same wives. However, as they do not play any role on the HP Universe, there is no need to add them as they do not serve the Focus.
Hope all that made sense! --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:46, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, made sense.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:53, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's made perfectly clear that the planet that the HP Universe takes place in is our Earth, so everything is the same in terms of geographical layout. All I am saying is that it is wrong for us to state that a countries capital in the HP Universe is exactly the same as ours, just like it's wrong for us to include real-world family relations on pages like this, since there is no canonical evidence to suggest that it is true in any way.
This is a problem that has plagued the wiki for a long time, for which nobody has actually taken any time to sort out the mess of utter rubbish that has been slowly entering its way onto articles, because nobody checks edits enough to catch the nonsense. The actors pages are a good example of the kind of irrelevant mess that has been popping up on pages. --Sajuuk 18:56, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

The long-standing but unwritten policy is that basic real-world facts that aren't explicitly mentioned in canon can be presumed to carry over to the Harry Potter universe and mentioned where appropriate.

This primarily means the kind of basic details necessary to define a subject in the introductory paragraph. So it's fine to presume the Mediterranean Sea is a "sea that runs between Europe and Africa" in the Potterverse, as it is in the real world, even though it is never explicitly defined as such within Potter canon. Because an article on the Mediterranean based strictly on information provided in canon would be pretty useless: "The Mediterranean Sea was a body of water of unknown size and location, where sea serpents and hippocampuses were known to live."

The same goes for articles on real-world individuals mentioned in canon. The kind of basic details found in the introductory sentences of biographical Wikipedia articles (full name, birth date, death date, nationality, profession) can be presumed to carry over to the Potterverse for the purpose of defining the subject. Unless, of course, known information from canon contradicts the real-world facts, in which case we defer to the former. For example, based on canon, we know that the British prime minister who was in office in 1996 in the Potterverse had a male predecessor, which means Margaret Thatcher's Potterverse counterpart (if she exists) was never prime minister or had a shorter term in office. Real-world individuals are generally also presumed to be Muggles unless there is canon evidence to the contrary (as there is with Paracelsus and Angus Buchanan).

As for the relatives of real people mentioned in canon, this is not the sort of information necessary to define who they are, and thus it generally constitutes unnecessary trivia, and isn't suitable for inclusion in articles. The exception, of course, is cases where real close relatives are mentioned in canon, but their relationship isn't. In that case, it's okay to "connect the dots" based on real-world facts, as has been done here with Henry VIII and those of his wives and children who have been mentioned in canon.

This isn't a problem and it doesn't need to be "fixed" by taking a wrecking ball to articles. Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:28, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks StarStuff for taking the time to explain this fully and how the line of what real-world information to carry over is based on what is necessary to define the subject. Married folks might quibble that their spouse / status is probably part of the necessary information to define them, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If (full name, birth date, death date, nationality, profession) are the defined attributes that can carry over regardless of mention in canon, I might suggest that they be grouped together on the "Muggle individual infobox" and a <nowiki?</nowiki> tag added that other fields should only be filled out if the details are given from a canon source. This might help make this best practice a little more up front while editing. Something similar with a "DO NOT EDIT BELOW" field might be possible for Visual Editors, but not 100% sure. Thanks again --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:51, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Wands and potions

JKR has said that wands are needed for all potions.

--Rodolphus (talk) 11:32, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Interesting -- does that mean they need magic or do they just have to do the movements with a wand if they're a Squib?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:45, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Magic is needed to brew potions. That's the reason why Muggles can't brew potions. As Squibs can't perform magic as well, they are not able to brew potions too, as far as I understand. --Rodolphus (talk) 12:02, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Do we know that though? A squib can have a wizard child, so they have the "magic gene". --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:33, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

A potion-making spell is required, and Squibs are not able able to cast spells, though Filch has tried.

--Rodolphus (talk) 13:20, October 24, 2017 (UTC)