This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Discussion Information

I think this article would be greatly improved if we went through and preened out all the stuff about the films release date etc. as they already have their own article, I'd do it myself but I'm not that familiar with wikipedia and I don't think I'd really be able to do it. I think this article should just be about the books, and maybe should include links to the films only where applicable.

I thought I knew a lot about Harry Potter, but I learned something new today, courtesy of the revised lead paragraph of this article. To quote, "Harry Potter is a teenage boy who likes to smoke crack with his buds. They also run an illegal smuggling business to their headmaster dumbledore. He is dumb!" Somebody, please remove this information unless it comes from an adults only version of the Harry Potter series. Tullymox 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you see obvious vandalism then why not just remove it yourself? AulaTPN 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should head this article towards WP:FA's way, but there's still a little work to be done. There are a few unsourced statemenets in the article, which seem to be general knowledge, so Googling to find a source shouldn't be too hard. Second, the length of the article is longer than appropriate, so I think splitting off sections (as I just did to the "films" sections, and as could also be done to the "controversy" section) is the way to solve that. "Themes and motifs" is currently split off, but the main article is in need of a lot of clean-up and the version in this article is much better. Then there's the general copyediting (like spaces between periods and references, spelling, passive voice, etc.). But this is really close and we should work hard to get this to top status! -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, did some referencing a few days ago. How about cutting off the bottom five characters, from Severus Snape to the bottom (or Ron and Hermione too?), because its included in the main characters article. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regards adding Snape back in, is he really that major a character, on the same level of Harry/Dumbledore/Voldemort? This is only intended to provide an overview, from the main characters article. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the man who murdered Dumbledore, whose loyalty has been a constant question throughout the series, who betrayed Harry's parents, who has always gone beyond the stereotypical 'evil schoolmaster' role, a major character? What do you think? Remove Ron and Hermione - they are important to Harry, but irrelevant to the story arc. Snape is one of THE major characters, along with Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry. Michaelsanders 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet, remove the section entirely except for the link to List of characters in the Harry Potter books. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section – I think it's too subjective to list the "major" characters, even though I agree with the current list. We may consider having just the bio of Harry with the link to the main article. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How much of a section is needed for FA? More than just an article link surely? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not, I believe, if the section is not crucial and the article would, with it included, be over the suggested length. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing well then, 47kb. Much of Story section looks like OR, and is barely referenced - anyone want to help trim this down? RHB ^{Talk - Edits}@

The characters section was erased and replaced with a link to another article, yet none of the characters mentioned in the section are actually mentioned in that article. Serendipodous 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about List of characters in the Harry Potter books. As I see it, the main characters are properly listed there, as well as the minor ones. There seems to be no problem. Pea ceNT 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That article makes no distinction between major and minor characters. Indeed it is purely for Harry Potter readers, as no one unfamiliar with the series would have a clue how to read it. This is supposed to be an introduction to the series for those unfamiliar with it. That article does not help. Serendipodous 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I take your point now. Pea ceNT 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's more of an issue for the List, not for this article. This Harry Potter article is already far over the suggested article length, and that list is in need of major clean-up anyway. I'd suggest reformatting the list, not this character section. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed this sentence from the Themes and Motifs section:

All the books are stuffed with these names and they provide some of the series' greatest pleasures for adult readers.

I can't find anything in the article that means the same thing as that sentence. It seems to be worth including if anyone can find a reliable source for it. Brian Jason Drake 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I read a kids magazine I think that was what it was called actually and they predicted a number of things based on the names of characters some of them were right to so obviousley it's worthy of being in the article. Jamhaw 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

...what? Are you saying that the sentence is worthy of being included because you 'read it in a magazine that made *some* accurate predictions'? And Brian, if you're looking for discussions of the names in Harry Potter (sorry if I'm barking up the wrong tree...) try searching for interviews with JKR conducted by Stephen Fry - I heard one on the radio last year...although finding a transcript to reference might be trickier...! Libatius 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Google "Stephen Fry Rowling" - first two results are two interviews. Finding an interview that justifies that sentence is another thing. Brian Jason Drake 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a bit like David Colbert: "One of the pleasures of reading JK Rowling is discovering the playful references to history, legend and literature that she hides in her books...alert readers also know Rowling hides fun clues in the names she chooses for characters...you may even be sharing a laugh with Rowling herself. As TIME magazine said when noting that Hogwarts caretaker Argus Filch gets his name from the Argus of Greek mythology, 'it's the sort of touch that can prompt an author's inner smile'..."

http://www.veritaserum.com/interviews/jkrowling/transcripts/bbcradio4-rowlingfry.shtml - I just found this link to the transcript of the interview I heard on the radio. I don't have time to go through it immediately and try and find a proper reference (and on first glance, all I can see is Stephen Fry's personal fondness for many of the names) but I thought I'd post the link in case anyone else fancies a read... Libatius 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add a section on the racism in the Harry Potter world. We see it all the time. House-Elfs, Garden-Elfs (?), Griffons, Giants, Centaurs, Werewolfs, all treated quite badly. I definantly see it as a recurring theme, and isn't that the very definition of motif?

A well-meaning user deleted this comment from the Talk page so I have reinstated it and politely warned the user about Talk Page etiquette. For the record I don't agree with the comment as posted. While there is a certain amount of institutionalised racism in the books the only theme which receives significant attention as a core plot-thread is the pureblood/mudblood schism. Even then, this form of prejudice is only expressed by an exclusive subset of the wizarding community. You could perhaps spin something out of Elf opression or anti-Goblin sentiment but they've always been more of a sideplot. AulaTPN 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Shades of grey. The Weasley are a stark contrast in black and white. They love Harry, but Fluer is a foreign witch, though apparently pureblood. The Weasleys marry for love... Bill for Fluer, and Ginny is a love interest for Harry, and Ron for Hermonaie.

How can a book series have a nationality? Disinclination 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because that's where it was written. Wiki-newbie 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't. Changed "English" to British and "England" to Scotland. + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to United Kingdom to avoid the entire argument, unless people really want this to end up on WP:LAME. Oh, and before anyone claims that the UK isn't a country, see [1] Koweja 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit changed "pet" to "familiar". At any point during the series are they actually referred to as familiars? I don't recall the term being used in the Harry Potter books, only in classic literature and D&D manuals. FeralDruid 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pets" is the term used to descrbe the idea(s) in question. Reference any discussion or paragraph in the books about Scabbers or Snuffles, even Fluffy. BONG! 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the term "familiar" being used to describe the owls in the Harry Potter books. The term "familiar" comes from medieval religious tracts and refers to an animal that is possessed by, or is doing the bidding of a human spirit that has been demonically projected into it. The term also has been used to describe the animal forms of those witches who are capable of transfiguration. Though owls are, in folklore, common familiars, neither above mentioned use is applicable to the owls of "Harry Potter", which are more akin to carrier pigions than the bats and black cats of legend. Tmebr 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Swapped out and an explanation added in invisotext. Serendipodous 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a rumor that Harry Potter will die in the seventh book because JK Rowling does not want anyone to Continue her Series. Is this True? or is this just another Myth? Danipreteen11 preteen11|Dani preteen11]] 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Danipreteen11 —The preceding Wikipedia:Sign your postsk • contribs) 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

This page is to discuss changes to the Wikipedia article about Harry Potter - we cannot speculate about what will or will not happen in books which have not been published yet. -- Arwel ( talk) 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A very popular rumour, or a rumour that happens to have been confirmed by a reliable source, is relevant to the article. Rowling has stated that she can understand why authors would kill their main characters to prevent others from continuing their series, but there's been no word on whether she will do so herself (obviously). Brian Jason Drake 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i heard the same thing. however, i do not think harry will die before voldemort. if he dies in book 7 it will be long after age 17 Voldpotter 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)voldpotter

This page is to discuss changes to the Wikipedia article about Harry Potter - we cannot speculate about what will or will not happen in books which have not been published yet. Skittle 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

( Eulric 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Eulric I have heard he will die to

Rowling said she would just let us see, is that cruel or what! Anna F C

I think the Moaning Myrtle article ought to be merged with the Hogwarts Ghosts article. She is, after all, a ghost as well as a resident of Hogwarts. -- WoodElf 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

what is peeves? Rowling says he is not REALLY a ghost Voldpotter 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)voldpotter

Peeves is a poltergeist. Skittle 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree here also. Myrtle can be merged, but not Peeves. BONG! 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Poltergeist (help·info) (German for noisy ghost) is a term used to describe a supposed spirit or ghost that manifests itself by moving and influencing inanimate objects. still maybe peeves is important enough to get an article Jamhaw 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

The fundamental difference between Peeves, who is a Poltergeist, and the rests of the ghosts is that, unlike them, he was never a living, air-breathing human being. And beyond that, Myrtle is not considered a "Hogwarts ghost," because, while the actual Hogwarts ghosts represent and associate themselves with a a particular house (Nearly Headless Nick or Sir Nicholas being that of Gryffindor) and have been present for a very long time, she is not. She is simply the ghost of a former student. -- 131.212.140.97 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowling was on the train when she came up with this idea; this happened before she started writing the first book, which happened before her mother died in December 30th, 1990. Therefore, it was definitely not in 1991. Why do people keep changing it? Brian Jason Drake 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the apparent influence of David Bowie on Rowling's HP creation? The evidence? 1) Harry's scar likeness to David Bowie's "Alladin Sane" persona's lightening bolt facial marking. 2) David Bowie dated a woman named Hermione in the 70's. 3) Three references in the movie "Labyrinth" to a character (correctly named Hoggle) as "Hogwart" (once by Jennifer Connolly's "Sarah" and twice by David Bowie's "Jareth"). There is a lot more, but such may be called circumstantial... intriguing, though.

????? Brian Jason Drake 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, accidentally reverted someone else's reversion of some vandalism. FeralDruid 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not your responsibility - it's the responsibility of whoever programmed the somewhat dodgy "undo" function (I've seen this happen elsewhere as well). Brian Jason Drake 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the page counts to the individual book pages? I believe I have seen that done for other written works on wiki. I can do it myself but I have only US paperback copies of the books and I don't know if they would count as the "official" page count (vs hard cover, UK editions, etc). 71.125.143.167 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the U.S. editions as well, but in my opinion, there should be an annotation for both. Both versions have their popularity, and their fanbases, etc. 24.9.22.127 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If we include book lengths, we run into the problem of translated works, which would then lead us to having to stick with the UK version (most likely), and then lead to the questionability of whether we should have book lengths or not, considering the vast amount of versions out there. Disinclination 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's stick to footnotes and references, instead of pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the chapters are numbered the same, correct? WEe could always go by that?

togood2die BONG! 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't some fansites like Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron be mentioned by name in the Cultural Impact section? These sites have millions of visitors per month, enjoy unparalleled access to Jo Rowling, Warner Brothers and other sources, and Mugglenet has even produced a best-selling book speculating on the contents of Book 7. Mugglenet has its own wikipedia entry, but surely it deserves a mention in this article. Ninquerinquar 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made Harry Potter fandom a more prominent link in that section. Thanks. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Ninquerinquar 01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the harry potter films are linked from this page, I feel the games should also, at least links to the individual games. Any ideas? J S Firefox 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The games are already linked in the box at the bottom of the page, which seems to be the only place where the films are linked. Brian Jason Drake 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the films also have a heading mid-way through the article. I know it's not that important, but I think we should get rid of the film heading, or add a game one, to conform to wiki standards J S Firefox 08:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Have added games links, so problem solved. J S Firefox 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion your missing the game Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup. [2] and it should be added. ( 65.23.241.150 11:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Ok, I'll add it J S Firefox 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no prior discussion, that I can see at this moment after skimming through the talk page, whats with the current ban against new/unreigstered users from editing until the 6th? A release of something? Disinclination 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I'd guess it's based upon the fact that this page gets vandalized 2-3 times a day. FeralDruid 07:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But why the 6th? 86.154.109.210 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a standard one-week semi-protection, started late on March 29, due to heavy vandalism by anonymous Internet trolls. If you wish to contribute to the article, either register yourself a "screen name" so we can then know "who you are" and determine that you can be trusted; or add your anonymous requests for editing below, until the semi-protection is lifted. Please understand that as July 21 approaches and arrives, we anticipate massive vandalism by trolls and such on HP articles, so semi-protection and full protection of HP-related articles may become the norm rather than the exception. So if you wish to contribute to HP articles over the next few months without interference, then it is your interest to get registered. -- T-dot ( Talk | contribs) 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that The Harry Potter Lexicon would be added under "Other resources", since it, as the name hints, is a lexicon of almost every thing in the Harry Potter-world, if not everything. KMA "HF" N 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put List of Harry Potter films cast members up for a Request to Move. Simply south 09:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dresden files does not feature a one-time character who is a clever wizard - a wizard named Harry is the central character, but this is not a Harry Potter reference. The character's full name is Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden (named by his father after Harry Houdini, Harry Blackstone, Sr., and David Copperfield). I am removing this reference. Sapph42 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The first Harry Potter book was published in the United Kingdom by Bloomsbury in July 1997 and in the United States by Scholastic in September of 1998, but not before Rowling had received a six-figure sum for the American rights – an unprecedented amount for a children's book.

When Rowling was offered a six-figure sum for the American rights, was this before or after the book was published in the UK? I pretty much assumed it was the latter (after all, why would they pay a six-figure amount for a previously unpublished book by a first-time author?) but it isn't really clear from the text. 217.155.20.163 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Harry's scar resemble the Sig Rune (check that up on you know what encyclopedia)? Should that be part of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperGerbil ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I think the fact that the scar resembles a nazi symbol is pure coincidence, as J K Rowling said the scar is based on and resembles a lightning strike, therefore I don't think the resemblence needs to be added J S Firefox 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I wasn't implying that there was ANYTHING Nazi-related. I was just saying it looked like a Germanic rune. SuperGerbil 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the most recent edit has changed a lot of information in the article itself (see the comparison for details) and also changed the first words of the article from Harry Potter to Sexy Potter.

I just happened to notice this after looking up the article for reference. -- 69.253.203.103 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a further revert to the correct version, which I barely noticed the vandalism. -- esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As this article has received a high profile of vandalism in the last three days (100 edits or so), I put it up for semi protection at WP:RFPP. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

great topic

JK Rowling was born in Edinbourgh, Scotland. She is a Scottish author, not English. Please can someone correct this as editing has been disabled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 ( talk • contribs)

Well, Chipping Sodbury, England, claimes to be her birthtown. Sure you're not mixing her up with someone else? Greswik 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling is English. How can anyone mistake that? 212.139.98.156 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So call her British. Brisv e gas 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It very clearly says she was born in Scotland. -- Jnelson09 19:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

She was originally born in 1965 in Chipping Sodbury and moved from portugal to Edinburgh to be with her sister in 1993 after the birth of her daughter and when she divorced her Portuguese husband —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatguy69 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Born in Scotland? Is someone handing around stupid pills? She's English, born in England, raised in England - everybody knows that! And if Scottish writers get to be called "Scottish" then she gets to be called "English", not "British". 212.139.117.160 21:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. But if Jo Rowling is English, does that make Tony Blair Scottish? Serendipodous 07:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

JKR was born and raised in the outskirts of Bristol, England. The biography section on her own official website states that her parents were Londoners who left the navy and moved to the outskirts of Bristol shortly before she was born. Why is this even open for debate? AulaTPN 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the whole argument somewhat offensive, personally. I was born and raised in the US, but I live in the UK and am a UK citizen. Are you saying I can't call myself British? Serendipodous 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the argument pointless to be honest but it seems to be a bone of contention. Nationalism seems to take on an added dimension when people are talking about the constituent countries of the United Kingdom with members of each country keen to 'claim' various notable people as being 'their own'. Having said that, I think you raise a fair point. It's my experience that when someone's nationality is referred to, the reference is usually to their nationality of birth and not to any naturalised status (unless qualified e.g. Irish-American). As a Brit who lived in the US and nearly married an American, becoming naturalised was a real possibility and I have to say that, had it happened, I wouldn't have referred to myself as American and I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing so as I suspect the vast majority of born-Americans wouldn't have considered me to be. JM2C. AulaTPN 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Serendipodous, despite the technicality of citizenship, if you still speak with an American accent then you would be hard-pressed to find a Brit who would take you seriously if you tried to insist that you were "British". You have the right to call yourself whatever you like, but whether the shoe fits or not is another question. Anthony Hopkins has American citizenship, but he is still considered a great British actor, not American. Personally I feel it's better to call JK "English" not so much out of "nationalism", but for the sake of accuracy and specificity. If "English" is more accurate and specific than the blanket term "British", then why not use it? I would have no problem labelling JM Barrie "Scottish", even though he lived most of his adult life in London. 212.139.84.61 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mabye its because Im half Scottish and half English, but I don't see why people from Britain refuse to call themselves British!! I do, and I personally believe anybody from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales should be refered to as such, especially if their constituant country of origin is in dispute. Monkeymox 10:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't realise that all I had to do to be British was affect an English accent. Surely there is more involved than that? After all, Mohammad Sidique Khan had a Yorkshire accent so thick he could have stepped off The Full Monty. It's funny; my father's a Brit but he's probably spent less time in this country than I have. Nonetheless, he's called British because he gets by on an RP accent so phoney that if he actually lived in Britain no one would think it was real. I suppose by that logic all Rowling has to do is adopt a guid Scots brogue, start saying "Aye, g'on yesel', laddie" alot and then everyone would call her Scottish. No? Serendipodous 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All you had to do, Serendipodous? No no, there is more involved than just developing a British accent, but if you don't have a British accent then that is where your Britishness ends, your Achilles heel, particularly socially, even if you've done everything else right to try and Anglicise yourself and "make" yourself British. It's all a case of whether that shoe fits or not.

Monkeymox, JK Rowling's constituent country of origin is not in dispute, it is England. 80.47.135.200 16:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I checked for myself this time, she was born in England and had English parents; I would say the term English or British is appropriate for her nationality Monkeymox 16:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New Harry Potter breaks preorder record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamieA119 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

you know i put in an article about Kwikspell onto a new page. !!!my first ever page that i made!!! well im posting links to it on other Harry Potter pages on wikipedia so guys come on over and have a look. please dont modify though it's my first and only page that is 100% me and i want to keep it that way... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFlamesShadow ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Well congratulations on creating the Kwikspell article, and welcome aboard. I gather you do not want other editors to fix all the gross spelling and wikilink errors you left behind? Since you are apparently new to this, you do need to understand right away that you cannot ask other editors not to modify a page you created. Please see the policy on Ownership of articles: you cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. -- T-dot ( Talk | contribs) 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I created this section purely to provide links to the games, to make the large article more consise, so I don't think anything else should be added unless in reference to the links. This will also help in making the article better in class, which is why I have removed the recent edit, which provides informaation about the game formats, not Harry Potter, which is the article's subject. J S Firefox 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is additional information about the games supposed to go then? Harry Potter (games) is just a redirect to this section. Perhaps it would be better to change the section to contain just {{ main}} like the films section? Brian Jason Drake 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that Harry Potter (games) rediected to this site. I originally made the section to just provide links to the games, and the game information would then be displayed on the individual game pages. Maybe a seperate article for Harry Potter (games) should be made, I'm not sure. Let me know. At the moment however, I'm happy with the games section how it is, but let me know if you can make it better (or just go ahead and do it, whatever) J S Firefox 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about the first book; it's about the entire series. The first book's page already has a perfectly good summary, which someone appears to have copied and pasted. Serendipodous 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the entrants in this list are already in Harry Potter parodies. The cow could be put there as well. I think I'll delete most of it and sub it with a link to that article, unless anyone objects. Serendipodous 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok folks, what is the deal with all the blatant vandalism going on with this article? I have to admit that I am truly shocked - Harry Potter is hardly a controversial topic, neither should it warrant any specific attention from vandals so what gives? I've also noticed a couple of self-reverted efforts at editing the page over the last few days ( see here and here) - let's not call it vandalism just yet. What do people think about having this page locked against edits by unregistered/newly registered users? AulaTPN 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This page gets locked about once a week. People don't like Harry Potter because they think it's done too well for its own good. Also it's fairly well known. I edit the solar system article; you'd think that would be a fairly uncontroversial topic but it gets vandalised at least twice a day. Serendipodous 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Man...! Next you'll be telling me that some joker keeps saying Pluto isn't a planet! ;-) I just find it really sad that so many people have nothing better to do than rag on a series of books that not only seem to have undone a large amount of the damage to reading wrought by the mindless drivel on tv but also happen to be cracking good stories. AulaTPN 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people who feel cheesed off at Harry Potter are grumpy that they've been reading superb fantasy authors like Neil Gaiman and and Ursula le Guin for decades and yet it wasn't until JK Rowling came along that anyone took any serious notice of fantasy literature. Fantasy and children's authors do not make a lot of money, and there's no denying that Harry Potter is very similar to a lot of other authors' works (of course, there being a limited number of fantasy archetypes to draw from, all Western fantasy is fairly similar), so there's a certain amount of sour grapes involved. Serendipodous 08:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's mostly just people being pissy because JKR get's rich while better writers get very little. JeffBurdges 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't troll here. AulaTPN 08:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If that guy's guilty of trolling, then so am I. Serendipodous 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As if we hadn't noticed. 212.139.177.178 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though in my defence I was merely stating the gripes of the vandals as I saw them; I never said I agreed with them. Serendipodous 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the 6 books spread in a fan instead of lonesome PS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.205.209 ( talk) 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Wait until Book seven comes out. Serendipodous 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The seventh book cover is already out, why wait until the book itself is released? I think that's a good idea, but now we need someone to make it look good, since it would be a seven book spread. ( Csture 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia's image policy doesn't allow galleries of fair-use images. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, going to have to really brush up on every policy they got around here. Regardless, I think there should be a different cover, especially to (somewhat) commererate the fact that the final book is going to be released in a few months. I'm too tired to be BOLD and change it right now though, especially since someone else probably won't agree. ( Csture 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Harry Potter is an abomination against the Lord. It is time we end this.

Um, no. Phoenix1304 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not include or exclude articles contingent on how much of an abomination they are. ( messedrocker • talk) 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right...sounds like we got us a Laura Mallory supporter.--

Solar Sunstorm

02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, this is my daughter. I'm really sorry - won't happen again. Phoenix1304 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

haha. your daughter? then explain what she meant by "it is time we end this". it sounds like a death threat to me!!--

Solar Sunstorm

04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

She meant the article, genius. Phoenix1304 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on Phoenix - let's keep it WP:CIVIL please. And Solar, enthusiasm is great but you might want to keep your edits/responses a little more low-key. Incidentally, I'm assuming that you meant the 'Um, no' was posted by your daugher and not the original troll-comment as, you being 20 (as per your profile) and that being the sentence construction of at least an 8 year old, that would stretch timelines a little... AulaTPN 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Good point! Didn't catch that at all. So, Phoenix, there's a huge story there! 20 with a daughter old enough to use the internet and type relatively coherent sentences? Wow. Ccrashh 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.