Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Error in Overview

There is a point in the overview which says that the enchantment which protects Harry was produced by his mother to last until his 17th birthday. In fact, the enchantment was produced and sealed by Dumbledore. This is mentioned in both HBP and DH.

Reference no.27 has expired. Please add another one--117.196.160.20 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry's mum made the shield for Harry as she sacrificed her life. However, it was his mother's. Dumbledore added extra protection; as long as he stays with relatives he can't be touched. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Secret Keeper

I'm only into the 3rd book at this point, but I'm pretty sure that James and Lily's Secret Keeper is Sirius Black rather than Peter Pettigrew. This is stated under Overview, Plot Summary, 2nd line. Thanks! Qingram (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep on reading! :) Sorry you stumbled upon this plot spoiler, but the article is correct. Malinaccier (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're a troll! — chandler — 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel dumb now, I got there last night. I'll keep my comments to myself until I'm done with all of the books. Probably should remove the unnecessary spoiler from the main Harry Potter page though.Qingram (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not "spoilers" as the last book has been out for over 1 year. They are important plot points which are description in the plot section — chandler — 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its Peter. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

X-Men

Does anybody beside me see parallels between Harry Potter and X-Men. Think about it. Both concern supernatural creatures (wizards/mutants) who hide from society. The main setting is a school for these supernatural creatures (Hogwarts/Charles Xavier's School For The Gifted) run by benevolent mentor-like figures (Professor Xavier/Professor Dumbledore). And both feature an evil person (Voldemort/Magneto) with an army of followers who hates normal people (Muggles/Humans). --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Harry Potter covers such a broad spectrum of cliches, you can draw parallels with just about anything. 91.109.185.42 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence contains the word heptalogy. Its usage is perfectly correct but I doubt if more than 5% of readers will know the word. IMHO this will disrupt readers just as they start the article because they will be tempted to follow the link in case they miss something vital. I have changed it to "series of seven" to solve this problem. Abtract (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This has been discussed before, but it always seems that someone comes along and thinks they'll show everyone how clever they are by using a "big word." That isn't to say we should dumb down the writing of the encyclopedia, but in this instance there is absolutely no good reason. Like Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." faithless (speak) 07:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see this turning into a revert war pretty quickly, so I put heptalogy in brackets in the lead, but without linking it. That way you keep it user friendly, but also educate people too! However I'm not so sure it reads that well... Do you think this would be a fair compromise if we can get it to read better? Options would be:
  • Harry Potter is a series of seven (heptalogy) fantasy novels
  • Harry Potter is a heptalogy (series of seven) of fantasy novels... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am all for compromise, if one is needed (either of your suggestions would do), but why is one needed? I have seen no rationale for the use of the word heptalogy; what does it add that "series of seven" doesn't do just as accurately and in a more readily understood way? Abtract (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main reason for a compromise is not necessarily because it is needed for the article, but more to prevent disruptive edit wars. There are obviously some people who think heptology should be used and some that think series of seven should be used. Rather than just going for one over the other, it is possible to include both. In this way, it also defines what a heptology is, which is surely only a good thing? Nouse4aname (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think heptalogy is the appropriate way to go here. Aside from that, however, I strongly oppose the two compromises listed above. Having such a qualification in parenthesis is silly and does not befit an encyclopedia. It really seems to be a dumb-down. Just like whichever of the forms is decided upon(series of seven or heptalogy) and be done with it. That's why we have links. It's what makes Wikipedia so much fun. seresin ( ¡? ) 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What I haven't grasped so far is the rationale for the use of a little known word ... could someone enlighten me as to what it adds that "series of seven" doesn't? Abtract (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess because it is technically the correct word to use. But, as you point out few people likely understand what it means... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
MMMM there is a difference between being a word that technically means "series of seven" and being the right word to use ... and it is the latter that we need a convincing argument for, imho. Abtract (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: we write 'series of seven' and pipelink it to heptalogy; in other words, Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels.... Both sides make a good argument, but while 'heptalogy' may be technically correct, there is just no good reason to use such an obscure word. We're here to inform, not to boost our readers' vocabularies. :-) faithless (speak) 20:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a seriously good idea. Abtract (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I just put that idea into practise. Anyone have a problem with it, just respond here. Garet Jax 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. Don't you love it when discussions actually work! Nouse4aname (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a back-to-front way of doing it, to me. Surely it would make more sense to have 'heptalogy' as the text of the link, and people can click on the link if they don't know what a heptalogy is. Having 'series of seven' as a link serves no purpose, except possibly to say 'this is the word we would have used if we didn't think you were so stupid'. 91.109.185.42 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is most likely that people will know. But do put it in brackets. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

As the plot summary is mostly about the plot at the start of the book, why does the summary (at the end) explain some of the stuff during the first book. Tbh-icba (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Change Release Date

We need to change the release date of the next HP movie to July 17, 2009 as per the wiki page for the movie --Shipsonfire (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)slayer13

It was already done by myself earlier (unless there is another spot that has the date besides the movie section). --132 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Troll (film)

I think it should at least be mentioned that a very similar character, with the same name, in a fantasy-type work, predates this Harry Potter by several years. See Troll (film). 98.221.133.96 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the name of the character (Harry Potter) and the genre (fantasy) there really isn't all that much that is similar. And no, it should not be mentioned as there is not a strong enough connection and any addition trying to make a claim of connection would be original research. --132 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply noting the fact, without directly saying there is or isn't a connection, isn't noteworthy in your opinion? I think it may be. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if a reliable source can be found discussing it. faithless (speak) 09:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Auto PR

Hi there,

I'm going to work to get this article to FA status - so here's an auto PR to tick things off when they have been done.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Seems OK length wise? --The Helpful One (Review) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

If the setting of Hogwarts is in the UK, why are magic wands measured in inches and the hedges (that were planted for the Maze of the Triwizard Tournament) measured in feet? If this another example of an American modification -- are the measurements in metric units in European texts? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about in the articles or in the books? Jammy (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not an answer to the question, but I did have a comment. When I was in the UK a month ago, I saw quite a few instances where measurements were not in the metric system, as they are in the rest of Europe, but used the US system, as backwards as it is. I don't live there, unfortunately, but what little I did see over the course of a few weeks seemed to be a mixture of the two systems, so that might help explain it. Grey Maiden talk 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It just seemed very odd to me that, a British national like Rowling herself would write a book about Britons who were using US measurements, that's all. thanx for your suggestion. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bearing in mind, when Rowling was at school, she would have used inches and feet —— RyanLupin • (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Bearing in mind, it's not "US measurements" but "Imperial measurements" which come from the UK. — chandler — 12:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In the UK we 'officially' use metric, but the reality is that metrication is not fully complete, and both imperial and metric are used side by side, often for different things. People still think about milk as coming in pints, for example, because milkmen always used to deliver it in pint bottles. Schools taught metric weights by the time Rowling was in school (they started teaching that in the sixties), and certainly by the time I was in school (I'm 26), imperial measurements barely got a mention. That said, even people of my generation are inclined to use either system more or less on a whim, and certain measurements, such as a person's height and weight, are always done in imperial. Road signs in the UK are in miles only. So, I wouldn't say it is at all notable that any measurements in Harry Potter are in imperial units, although I think Ollivander would get in trouble with the French for not providing measurements in centimetres. 91.109.185.42 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Second look

I peer reviewed this and was asked by The Helpful One to take a second look. Her are some more comments looking at things that would be problems in FAC:

  • Images have issues
    • the British first book cover is repeated twice (stamp and book cover), which seems to be against WP:NFCC.  Done - Switched the second image with the book cover of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - the American Version of the book cover. The Helpful One (Review) 09:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:12 Grimmauld Place.jpg is missing a fair use rationale.  Done - Added a second one. --The Helpful One (Review) 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MOS#Images, images outside of infoboxes should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower. - Unsure about this one? --The Helpful One (Review) 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As long as you are using fair use images, why not one from the books (and the English illustrations are different from the American ones)? -  Done. Used the First American Book Cover in the article. --The Helpful One (Review) 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • OK< I meant one of the illustrations inside the books - the American editions have balck and white illustrations at the start of each chapter. Sorry to be unclear. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I note there is a free image of JK Rowling on her article -  Done Added. --The Helpful One (Review) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Article is lacking lots of references and also lacking outside views - for example, the Structure and genre section has no refs for the last two paragraphs (and the last chunk of the one before these) and quotes only one critic by name (Stephen King). Similarly Themes quotes only J.K. Rowling, not any critics.
  • An FAC criterion is comprehensiveness - to me the plot still seems to be wholly inadequate - the background to the first book is given in too much detail, while the seven books that comprise the series are not described at all. -  Done - completed re-done the plot. The Helpful One (Review) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly the Origins and publishing history section seems to lack details - for most of the books it is just the title and the year, not the date, not sales in the first year. -  Done This has been shortened, and now the information is in the plot section, together with the plot of the books. The Helpful One (Review) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I would think any article published right after each book was published would have that information - major newspaper or newsmagazine Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Initial sales would be useful (first day or two) - I would think articles on for example the third book might mention the sales of the previous books, so perhaps one of the articles on the seventh book would have sales figures for the rest to that date. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) -  Done Added sales figures where found. The Helpful One (Review) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - Lord of the Rings is a FA and may be a useful model

Hope this helps. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re - done PR

I re-did the auto PR review - I already fixed some of the things that came up including weasel words and length of toc.

The final one is a copy edit - then maybe we should properly PR it...

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there references fpr the mention of "super-fans" in the "cultural impact" section? I had a look at Harry Potter fandom and it doesn't seem to be sourced there, either. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that Rowling denied being richer than the queen is also unsourced. Can someone have a look? --PeaceNT (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - [1] —— RyanLupin • (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

10 th aniversary of 1st book

Scholastic is celebrating the 10th anniversary of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. on Sept. 23th. Lots of teacher's and librarian's will be celebrating with many different activities. (Aklibrarian (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

That isn't actually the 10th anniversary of the book; it's the 10th anniversary of its American publication. The book was actually published 11 years ago. Serendipodous 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com references

I've recently removed several references to Amazon.com that were used to cite the publication dates, but they were replaced. If this article is going up for FA, I don't think Amazon references are going to be okay (other than the references pertaining to Beedle the Bard). At any rate, I don't think the publication dates need referencing—they're not in contention—but if they are needed then different source(s) need to be found. Here's one for the first book, for example, that I found by just searching for "30 June 1997 Harry Potter" with Google News; sources for the rest should be relatively easy to get. Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Ok, I'll look at them now. The Helpful One Review 15:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Completed and changed. The Helpful One Review 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

65 translations for harry potter now incorrect, it's 67...

Hi,

I've noticed that it refers to 65 translation rights, however, the number is now 67, as referred to here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/18/harrypotter.artsandentertainment and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7649962.stm

would someone be kind enough to change this? I don't think I have the authority to do this.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1arturobandini (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for telling us. :) The Helpful One Review 16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what those 67 translations are, so I can add them to Harry Potter in translation. Serendipodous 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation (commas)

I realize that I'm probably one of the few people who care about this, but not putting a comma before the word and in a series of three things is a pet peeve of mine (thanks to a very adamant English teacher in high school!) As examples, in the introduction, there are the sentences "Several successful derivative films, video games and other themed merchandise have been based upon the series" and "Since the 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide". On the other hand, there is also this sentence under Plot: "As he struggles through adolescence, Harry learns to overcome many magical, social, and emotional hurdles" that uses the extra comma.

Here is a site that argues that a comma before and is always needed, although I realize that not using the comma may be how it is done in the UK.

Anyway, my point is, whatever "rule" is being used, make it the same throughout so as not to drive anal people like me crazy!Kendall Crosby (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See Serial Comma - neither is incorrect.
By all means make it consistent, though. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Like others have said, this is called the serial comma and it is neither correct nor incorrect, simply a matter of taste/opinion/house style. Also, the article should be consistent, but not at the expense of clarity—sometimes it's required so that a sentence is not ambiguous (see WP:COMMA). (For the record, I strongly prefer it, believing it to be more clear, consistent, and conducive to flow.) Mr. Absurd (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter/Archive_13&oldid=1142355758"