What can be done to divorce this article from the Wikipedia article and related links?--Louis E./email@example.com/22.214.171.124 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
For a full more accurate acount see the Wizard Behind Harry Potter: A Bio of JKR! --Bellatrix+Hermione 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna copy and paste from wikipedia
I thought that was against the rules though. *smacks head* I was also quite surprised no article was made of the author.
Harry J. Potter 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- There was. I redirected your page here. -- 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
'Steve Kloves took time off to work on his own movie in 2007'
Why is there a space between the . and the K? -- GrouchMan 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's just the proper spelling. --Parodist 01:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Would Rowling's Twitter account be worth mentioning, perhaps in the personal life section? --Parodist 01:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we move the article to Joanne Kathleen Rowling ? --Thorning 19:41, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. "Kathleen" has never been part of her legal name; Bloomsbury thought that young boys wouldn't want to buy books written by a woman, so she borrowed "Kathleen" from her paternal grandmother, and shortened it to "J.K." to neutralise her gender. But I wouldn't say no to perhaps moving it to either Joanne Rowling (her maiden name) or Joanne Murray (her legal married name). -- 05:05, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
- According to the policy the article titles must have the first name and the surname. So I think we should move this to Joanne Rowling or Joanne Murray (I prefer the first). --El Profeta Vespertino 22:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
- But nearly everybody calls her J. K. Rowling: see wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. AnthonyAppleyard 03:57, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
- J K Rowling is the name she uses as the author, and is the common name. This should be the name we use. Also, moving the article in the middle of a discussion about the naming convention is not a wise idea; I have reverted accordingly. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 10:00, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Undated, uncited and confusing bit
The "After Harry" section contains the following, which is undated, uncited and somewhat confusing:
A message was given out by J.K.Rowling she has said that the Harry Potter series is not completed. In her mind, she is now planning to write the last of the series, it is unknown what year it is put in and J.K.Rowling is wanting to finish the books with a bang.Is this something which was said before or after the publication of Deathly Hallows? Does anyone know what the source is for this? Whatever its provenance, it contradicts the earlier sentence in the article, "The series is complete." Should it be removed? —Josiah Rowe 07:55, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Removed. - Nick O'Demus 08:58, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Josiah Rowe 09:03, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if I could just lend a hand here, there is a problem with "On 23 January 2005, Rowling's third child by Doctor Murray was born, fulfilling Rowling's lifelong wish to have three children."
This is blatantly wrong. Rowling's first child, Jessica Isabel Rowling Arantes, was not by Doctor Murray. This child's father is Jorge Arantes.
The sentence strongly suggests, and rightly so, by reasonable interpretation, that the child born on 23 January 2005 was Rowling's third child by Dr. Murray. This is not true. Rowling's first child was not born to Rowling by Doctor Murray.
Therefore, the simple addition of two commas is necessary, thus: "On 23 January 2005, Rowling's third child, by Dr. Murray, was born, fulfilling Rowling's lifelong wish to have three children."
The addition of these two commas recognizes that yes, Rowling's third child was born on 23 January 2005; however, this third child was born to Rowling by Dr. Murray, while Rowling's first child was not born to Rowling by Doctor Murray.
That is, only Rowling's second and third children were born to her by Doctor Murray. I'm surprised no one caught this inaccuracy before now. It also demonstrates and illustrates how the simple addition of a punctuation mark can change the contextual meaning of a sentence, in such a way as to render it an accurate statement--while previously, without the punctuation mark, it was not. --ProfessorTrek 14:03, March 4, 2012 (UTC)