 Wotcher!
Before editing, be sure to read the wiki's policies. Please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. Be sure to verify your e-mail address in your preferences. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Cavalier One (Talk) 20:57, 27 February 2012 |
Contents |
Redirect pages 
Edit
Thank you for your concern regarding our redirects. However, the pages in question have been around for years, so I see no pressing reason to delete them at this time. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:38, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- You have a point about the fake sword. As such, I have turned the page for Sword into a disambiguation page with a brief description of both. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:04, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Capitalisation Edit
We don't normally capitalise a term unless it's normally capitalised when you read it in the book. So good call on removing it from "witch" and if you see it on any others where it normally isn't in the book, other than at the start of sentence, then feel free to fix it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:55, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
Category structure Edit
The category structure is such that if a category is a subcategory of a particular category, then the article should be categorised into only the subcategory. For example, that Banshee thing you were talking about, if "Banshees" is a category, and it's within the "Creatures" category, then a page should not display both the Banshees and Creatures categories, it should only have the Banshees category. If you see any like this, then feel free to remove the offending category. You may want to leave an edit note, and if anyone calls you on it, please let me know, so I can set things straight. We get people who add rogue categories all the time, and unfortunately it doesn't always get caught right away. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:17, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but as far as I know, there isn't really any big category problem. Maybe a few here or there that have categories that they shouldn't, but I don't think there's any major overhaul needed. A while back, somebody listed a bunch of pages as both "Wizards" and "Humans" when "Wizards" is a subcategory and therefore "Humans" shouldn't have been on the pages, but as far as I know, I zapped all those. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:22, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I should add though, that there are some categories that is common practice to cross-list even though that might be seen as redundant (i.e., we cross-list a character in both Category:Hogwarts students and a House sub-category, for better reference -- read Starstuff's comment here). Such categories are usually restricted to things like Category:Wizards, Category:Hogwarts students and Category:Hogwarts locations, as they are quite large categories in which people are very likely to search for an article given their prominence in the series (and the lack of that cross-listing would make searching a bit more difficult). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:13, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Most redundant categories are supposed to be unsdesirable and duly removed (for instance, if I spotted an article with both the "English individuals" and the "British individuals" categories, I'd get rid of the latter without a second thought, because it's an implication that everyone can understand -- that all English individuals are British). But when we are talking about the casual visitor, who is looking for a specific character without knowing much about them, it is likely they will search on "hub" categories such as "Wizards", or "Hogwarts students" for a familiar name. To have no "list of wizards" would make searching harder, I think, for those who cannot distinguish between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin, or between a Squib and a Pure-blood. Those few categories would be the only exceptions to the "no redundant categories" rule (or, at least, that's been the unspoken convention in effect ever since I joined the wiki). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:55, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Vampires Edit
I'm Belac Reteet. Please stop removing Vampire from the Undead category page. Vampires are almost always classified as undead and certanley fit the discription in the Harry Potter franchise. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 23:19, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- No, just ignore the above, per our previous discussions. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:22, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Undead Edit
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the subtractions you made from the Undead category page. Unless you can explain to me how ghosts, dementors, inferi, charmed skeletons, and whatever else you took from that category doesn't fit the description; "Beings and/or entities that are not proper life forms but are not truly dead", I see no reason why I shouldn't put all the pages formentioned back on the category formentioned.
Sorry if I sounded snippy. It's just that I've had this argument so many times before. I'll wait until we've settled this before I go slapping Undead on all those pages. Catch ya later!
PS I'm Belac Reteet.
PPS I have no official status, so I'm not threaten you. We can work this out between the 2 of us.belacreteet (talk) 02:52, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
Living Dead Edit
I have already read the living dead page, and yes, I know what it says about the only confirmed members of this family being Vampires and Zombies, but you don't have to be a genius to see that ghosts and inferi are undead beings. Besides, zombies, inferi, and charmed skeletons are supposedly related to eachother any. Remember; "Creatures and/or entities that are not proper life forms (such as the Living Dead) can be listed here. I still don't see how that description dosn't encompase ghosts, dementors, Death (The Tale of the Three Brothers), or any of the other things you removed don't fit that discription. I'm Belac Reteet, by the way. Catch ya later.
I have already read the living dead page, and yes, I know what it says about the only confirmed members of this family being Vampires and Zombies, but you don't have to be a genius to see that ghosts and inferi are undead beings. Besides, zombies, inferi, and charmed skeletons are supposedly related to eachother any. Remember; "Creatures and/or entities that are not proper life forms (such as the Living Dead) can be listed here. I still don't see how that description dosn't encompase ghosts, dementors, Death (The Tale of the Three Brothers), or any of the other things you removed don't fit that discription. I'm Belac Reteet, by the way. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 18:33, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
RE: Non-beings as creatures Edit
Sorry about not replying sooner. The term "non-being" comes from Pottermore, under the entry for Boggarts:
- Like a poltergeist, a Boggart is not and never has been truly alive. It is one of the strange non-beings that populate the magical world, for which there is no equivalent in the Muggle realm.
However, that same entry refers to a Boggart as "a shape-shifting creature". The "Creatures" category encompasses Beasts, Beings, Spirits, as well as other uncertain classifications, so it pretty much covers everything related.
Hope this explains it. If you still have questions, feel free to ask. - Nick O'Demus 06:49, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
Mortals Edit
Hey MinorStoop, remember me? I'm Belac Reteet. Just wanted to let you know that I'm getting some trouble for an administrator named Professor Tofty. I made a category page for Mortals, but he deleted it on the ground of it being "too broad for practical use". Personaly I think he doesn't like me (do to a falling out we had over category additions). If you'd back me up I'd really appreciate it. Catch ya later!belacreteet (talk) 18:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
RE: Redirects to talk pages Edit
Yes. It's really only necessary to keep the article redirects. Talk page redirects aren't needed. - Nick O'Demus 21:54, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
- However, before marking them for deletion, please check the "What links here" first. If there are still other user talk pages linking to it, then I'd prefer to just leave it alone. Otherwise, it's fine. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:23, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
Marriage Edit
Hi. Sorry to interrupt, but I saw your message on ProfessorTofty's talk page and figured I'd provide my opinion as well. Yes, they were only married for a few pages throughout the book series, but since JKR makes various comments about their marriages throughout interviews and such, wouldn't it still count? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:06, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
RE:Two questions.Edit
- I hadn't noticed that particular message before, although I can answer you now: the beginning of an article (what we call, the "lead paragraph" or, in case it's larger than a single paragraph, just the "lead") is supposed not to have a header; its header is the title of the article itself, because the lead provides a general, simplified overview of the subject. It'd be alright to have both the lead and a "Description" section -- mind, the former shouldn't be redundant, and it should provide additional, more detailed, info.
As for the "practicioner" thing, you are correct, it is a misspelling. I am correcting some of the articles in which the misspelling appears at the moment. - We have a general rule around here that conjectural titles (i.e. provisory names we give articles, when there is no name attributed to that subject in canon) are always lower-case. Only titles using terms appearing in canon should be capitalised (and, of course, the term is capitalised in canon) -- that's why Avifors Spell is capitalised (it is capitalised so, I think, in the video games) and Cornflake skin spell is not (it's only mentioned in passing in Order of the Phoenix, and its proper canonical name is never introduced).
- Sorry if I sounded too harsh when I starting reverting your edits. I should've left you a message here, explaining why I was doing it. Cheers. ~~
Hey, sorry to interrupt, but I saw you asking how to bring notice to your questions should they go unanswered or something similar, on Seth's talk page. You can use the {{Talk}} template at the top of a new post on a talk page to produce an Active Talk Page header, with a category for questions to be answered that your question will be sorted into. Just a tip :) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:33, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea to do that; you couldn't go wrong with calling some people to the discussion, although most of the times it doesn't get to that. You can use the template Hunnie Bunn referred to, or you can use good old-fashioned bumping, so the discussion is thrown to the "Recent Activity" page again. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:47, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Seth had reverted it because nobody had answered yet, presumably because not a lot of people had seen by the time you'd made the edits. Therefore, it's recommended every few days (or every day) to put the "bumping" tag on a question even with the "talk" template. As for user-talk pages using the "talk" template, that generally isn't necessary as that user will receive a notification letting them know they have a message (as you'll probably know by now) :) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh... it isn't really a tag, you just write "Bumping" and then sign it, it lets users know that there's a question to be answered by floating it into the recent activity feed again. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:10, April 27, 2013 (UTC)