Talk:Harry Potter

Plot: In the Plot part, Harry potter also learned and grew his emotion of love and fell in love with the witch Qiu Zhang.

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Archives
Talk:Harry Potter/Archives 1-10 9 December 2007 - 1 January 2008 1 January 2008 - 27 April 2008 27 April 2008 - 16 November 2008 16 November 2008- 10 May 2010

Translated languages

The article says it has been translated into 67 languages (which is not really incorrect) but the J.K. Rowling website says 73 - http://www.jkrowling.com/en_GB/#/harry-potter/the-books if anyone feels it could be worthwhile to update it. 203.219.14.53 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Games

Should it be mentioned that, while there are 11 named Harry Potter games, there are numerous versions of each one? Each movie tie-in game was built for and released on several systems, and save for the scenario, very little is the same between them. 216.164.39.166 (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OWL-levels

Surely they shouldn't be referred to as OWL-levels, because OWL stands for Ordinary Wizarding Levels, so OWL-levels is Ordinary Wizarding Levels levels. They are just OWLs. George.millman (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The same happens with the N.E.W.Ts (Nastily exhausting wizarding tests) They are refered to as newt tests. Although this is wrong this, and Owl levels sounds better 27/7/21011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.153.110 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But does anyone here know what N.E.W.T. stands for? i mean, i AM a huge Harry Potter fan, but i just don't know what it stands for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenly stranger (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

N.E.W.T. Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

LEGO Harry Potter

There should be a link under the Games section at least mentioning Lego Harry Potter.

Done--Birkenburg (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a 3D Harry Potter video game coming out, i believe that everyone should try it. there should be a link under the games section about it too. ~the cupcake that fell from heaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenly stranger (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TYPO IN CONTROVERSIES SECTION

"The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's sections...." Should read "The newspaper created a new children's section covering children's books...." 76.90.10.191 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! --Philcha (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit updates

Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity,'. I have updated the entry to read 'Since the June 30, 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, (retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States) the books have gained immense popularity,'. Putting brackets around 'retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States' as it should be.Twobells (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, I am really confused after reding the guidelines. Can I just say I completely agree with this person without offending anyone? I hope so. Sorry otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.196.20 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Best Practice

I don't understand why criticism has been worked into the second paragraph of the main article AND has it's own section? Seems a little npov.Twobells (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and came to this discussion with the intention of making a similar point. I suspect the two odd-looking references to criticism in the introduction probably come from persons with some sort of misplaced agenda (any ideas what?). From my incidental observation of the mainstream views of the series, the broad consensus view is a more healthy one that the (junior or otherwise) audience for fantasy fiction can make up their own minds as to how well it fits its purpose of entertainment, and it is simply misguided to judge it as something else. In my opinion, minority critism of the series does not justify any mention in a short introductory section, but it is reasonable to include it in a small sub-section. My impression is that the negative criticism (reported in the article as appearing after the fifth novel) must to some extent be a response to the series' status as the most successful ever (a reflection of the views of its readership). I consider my own views on these points as being fairly neutral as I have not completed any of the novels, and consider myself a few decades too old to accurately judge their quality.  :-) Elroch (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sirius Black

There should be two changes for the Harry Potter page about Sirius Black. First, in the section of the page telling the plot of the third book, it should be said that Black is Harry's only living relative, as he is his god-father, and is very important to Harry. The second change should be in the section of the page telling the fifth book's plot, about Black dieing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.29.245 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Misprint

Hey just so you know, on the right side near the top when the series is listed, Harry Potter 1: is the SORCERER'S stone, not "PHILOSOPHER" haha not sure how that came up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.80.37 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdoms, where the Harry Potter books were first written and published, the name of the first book IS Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone when published in the United States. Yiosie2356 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well technically since this is the American article it should be the American version.-unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.101.65 (talk)

Technically, this is the English language article...not the American article. --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Then to be completely correct, and so as not to throw off either British or American readers, it should be written Harry Potter and the Philosopher's [ Sorcerer's ] Stone or visa versa. any opinions? / does anybody know how to change a semi-protected article? 71.33.135.11 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)anonymous

Move to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone. If only one title is used, choose Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I think it's more commonly known as the British titling, although American Wikipedians may not prefer this. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Hillcrest98

American Book Covers

Why are the covers of the American versions not displayed anywhere? In the articles for the movies, the British and American posters are both displayed together on the right. But the books only display the British version. Mightygiant (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because the UK is the country of origin, and the films are British-American, unlike the books. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Techincally you people are all stupid. Its both the philsophers stone and the sorcerors. So suck it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itbreaksmymind (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's both The Philosopher's Stone and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not to mention L'École des Sorciers, De Steen der Wijzen, 賢者の石 and sixty other translated titles. But we'd better stick to one title: the original. Geert Rinkel (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling IS British, and the book is set in England, but 'The Philosopher's Stone' title has been in far more countries than just England. I think that it should remain 'The Philosopher's Stone' but explain that in America it was printed as 'The Sorcerer's Stone'. I honestly don't see what the big deal is about, because really it is either or, depending on where you come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzy Lullaby (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Obsessively bookish???

"Hermione Granger, an obsessively bookish witch of non-magical parentage."

I would have changed this myself if the page were not locked. Replace the negative and judgemental "obsessively bookish" with "gifted and hard working".81.156.19.208 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit performed as requested. Note that you can create an account on Wikipedia and make many of these edits yourself (on some pagen like this one, you'll have to wait to be autoconfirmed as not a vandal). -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Audiobooks

The audiobook section needs refs and expansion. I know Jim Dale has won quite a few awards, including the world record for (I think) 149 different character voices in Deathly Hallows. Does anybody have a Guiness Book of World Records (2008 and up) handy? --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got one of the books handy, but I have found on their website that although Jim Dale may have had the title, he has been beaten since January 13 2004. [1] Jsphabll (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As an update, both GWR 2010 and 2011 have no record of it, and my local library doesn't stock any more versions, so i cannot check any more. Sorry I cannot be of any more help. Jsphabll (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's in 2008, there's a whole Harry Potter section...I'll have to see if I can find mine to find the exact page. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the horrcruxes

As a ten year old boy who has read and seen all the books and movies,i know there is seven horrcruxes including Ravenclaws diagram ( a tiara), nagini( Lord voldomorts snake),Tom marvolo Riddle's diary,Lord voldomorts locket, slitherins ring,huffelpuff mug, and unexpectedly Harry potter himself.Trent Evans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.198.26 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That’s slightly incorrect. The Horcruxes are Voldemort’s Diary (when he was a student), the Hufflepuff Cup, the Ravenclaw diadem, Nagini (Voldemort’s large pet snake), the ring which contained the Resurrection Stone previously belonged to Marvolo Gaunt, Slytherin’s locket, and Harry Potter.71.244.111.250 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a typo and I don't know how to correct it, I believe the page is locked.

Under the section plot, the last sentence reads: The only specific dates given in the series are in the last book, on the grave of James and Lily Potter which identifies them to have died in 1981, and in on Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake in Chamber of Secrets, which points out the date as 1992.

This is the typo: ...and in on Nearly Headless Nick's...

Hermione would never stand for such nonsense.

 Fixed. Hermione would be proud of you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"... Philosopher's Stone" and UK English

You may want to get an admin to put an Edit Note in this article, like the one on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - you'll see it if you open an edit box anywhere in the article. The Edit Note also says UK English must be used (except for quoting US sources). After the Edit Note was installed, I put an vandalism warning in perps' Talk pages, explaining the Edit Note. It worked - before the Edit Note, there were 2-4 "... Sorceror's Stone", but in the last 2 months I can't remember any. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

to the sirius black person

he shouldn't be listed as harry's only relative because he isn't. Petunia Potter (now Dursley)is infact his only living relative, which is why harry moved in with her. Sirius Black is Harry's godfather and under the circumstances, Harry could not live with him. He was in azkaban for accusigly passing information onto voldemort. but i agree the information about him dyeing should be added if not alreafdy existing in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.224.107 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is Petunia Evans not Potter. Lily's maiden name is Evans!

71.244.111.250 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sirrius Black was falsly imprisoned for the murder of Peter Pettigrew and 13 muggles...not for passing information to Voldemorte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.250.218 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ecological Impacts

Can someone tell me how many hectares of forest was used to make the paper for the estimated 450 million books in print? Not to mention the chemicals and ink etc.

Karryconway (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss such things. The Talk page should be used to discuss the article (see WP:TALK), not to discuss other subjects. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

TV

BBC will plan a television programme called "The Adventures of Harry Potter" based on Harry Potter Series and going to aired on BBC on 2014. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.180.221 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great. What's your source? Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt this information. Cannot find anything on the web and news like this would be all over it in a matter of minutes. Geert Rinkel (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A New section should be added

There's a lot of books out that actually try and connect Harry Potter to Christianity.

Here's a list of books that may help support what I am saying. http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Harry-Potter-John-Granger/dp/1414306342/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-4 http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Harry-Potter-Spiritual/dp/0664231233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Potter-Harry-Christ-Fascinating/dp/0615430937/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306340718&sr=1-6

We all know that J.K. Rowling's is Christian herself and that she had always loved the Chronicles of Narnia, which are Christian based. Actually if you look at the 2 alone there's a lot of similarities there (not trying to say this was purposely done or anything or accusing of plagiarism just pointing out): 7 books each, both Harry and the Lion sacrifice themselves to save others from the sins of evil, the main characters grow in each book, etc. But I do have reason to believe that these books are based off Christianity just another way to tell the story. So I think a section should be added that talks about Harry Potter's possible connection to Christianity. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, i am surprised to know of the christianity part, because it happens to be a fact that the pope has termed Harry potter as satanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashwatpkumar (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear God, no. Original research. I see it more as a re-enactment of Star Wars myself. Dumbledore as Obi Wan, Harry as Luke, Voldemort as The Emperor, and so forth. a_man_alone (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see it as a slight re-enactment of Lord of the Rings - enemy who has tied himself to life, and (unwittingly) given the hero the means to destroy him, plus a slew of mythical creatures, and grey/white-bearded wizards... Anyways, it's all still Original Research. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is less similar to the Tolkien work than 80% of fantasy (and it is my OR) Bulwersator (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know that existed lol! My bad! lol! JamesAlan1986 (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Change article to be about brand?

Shouldn't this article be reworked to discuss the Harry Potter brand and not the novels, since that's what it has evolved into?

Also, it's interesting that this article makes very little mention of the fact that Harry Potter as a brand is owned by Warner Brothers. The only thing Rowling retains in the right to publish the novels (now over) and the right to publish whatever material comes out of "Pottermore." IndigoAK200 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

misspelling

enrol should be spelled enroll— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.72.217 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2011

Nope, it's spelled correctly. This article uses British English. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct name of U.S. Publisher

.is Arthur A. Levine Books. Arthur A. Levine Books (not sister Imprint Scholastic Press) is the U.S. Publisher of Harry Potter and has been for all seven books. Arthur A. Levine Books is an Imprint of Scholastic Inc.

I can't figure out how to make this change myself. Any help gratefully accepted.

Lanternpublisher (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• See Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone#U.S._publication_and_reception and citatioins there. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Why there is no link? (in Article milestones) Bulwersator (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One uncovered topic...

If I may point out one thing which would be worthy including in the article, don't you think a list of books the series consists of would be nice? There's one in the infobox but wouldn't it be good to include a more detailed one, with release dates and so on, like in articles about other book series? Ustt (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's included in Harry Potter#Origins and publishing history. NW (Talk) 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thefunkrabbit, 23 July 2011

"The environment J. K. Rowling created is completely separate from reality yet intimately connected to it. While the fantasy land of Narnia is an alternative universe and the Lord of the Rings’ Middle-earth a mythic past, the wizarding world of Harry Potter contains magical elements similar to things in everyday life.

The above statement is part of the second paragraph of the wizarding world section of the Harry Potter page. I believe that the above statement should be altered to something along these lines:

"The environment J. K. Rowling created is completely separate from reality yet intimately connected to it. While the fantasy land of Narnia is an alternative universe and the Lord of the Rings’ Middle-earth a mythic past, the wizarding world of Harry Potter exists in parallel with the real world and this is how Potter's world Italic textcontains magical elements similar to things in everyday life. "

The reason I think this is because it begins to draw a comparison between the Narnia and Middle-Earth world's but does not complete it. Let me know what you think as I cannot alter a semi-protected page and it feels incomplete somehow.

Thanks.

Thefunkrabbit (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jakovche, 27 July 2011

Could you replace the image and the thumbnail representing Hogwarts' coat of arms with a version I find more accurate and closer in description to the one that can be found as an illustration in various versions of the books.
Here are previews:

File:Hogwarts coat of arms color.svg

Alternative version

File:Hogwarts coat of arms colored with shading.svg

Alternative version with shading

Please, review and comment.

Yes please, the current picture bugs me so much!! Why did it change from the set of books anyway? The books at least showed what the article was on about. The Hogwarts Crest does not.... 202.154.137.135 (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing this edit request for the same as Talk:Hogwarts. Again suggest going ahead and making the change. As a side note I have no preference on which is better as I have not read the books or even seen the movies. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

eBooks on Pottermore

Should there be a section about how the eBooks are being sold, purchased and distributed? Apparently it is different from how other eBooks are sold, as they will be exclusively available on Pottermore. --DisneyFriends (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Yates radcliffe.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Yates radcliffe.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter: The Exhibition

There is nothing on Harry Potter: The Exhibition on this page. Where should it be added? --DisneyFriends (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Returned from the dead"?

I think the line "Having managed to return from the dead".. under the heading "Voldemort Returns" should be edited to better reflect what actually happened. This line makes someone who hasn't read the book/series think that an explanation was not given for how he "managed" to return from the dead and it's a big mystery.

Perhaps "After Voldemort's killing curse killed the Horcrux inside Harry, Harry awoke..." etc. etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob512 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Animated Television Series

Millimages and Southern Star Group plan to Produce a TV Show "Harry Potter" aired on TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.131.58 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back this up? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling

You spelled enroll and defense wrong (enrol and defence) respectively. When I type them as "enrol and defence", a red bar is under it, notifying misspelling. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Vegeta Saiyan

They are correct. Have a look at American and British English differences. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in America, not England. If you want to use the British spellings, then that should be under the British Wikipedia. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)VegetaSaiyan

We are? In case you haven't noticed, English Wikipedia is international, and covers all countries and regions which speak English. There is no such thing as "American Wikipedia". Please see WP:ENGVAR. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the page linked, quotations should not be changed. Therefore, the [sic] after "center" in the Reception section is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.180.183 (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Ignore the Yankee troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.53.133 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Incomplete Quote

Reception and controversy, 6.1:

A. S. Byatt authored a New York Times op-ed article calling Rowling's universe a "secondary world, made up of patchworked derivative motifs from all sorts of children's literature ... written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip".[101]

She actually called it a "secondary secondary world":

"Auden and Tolkien wrote about the skills of inventing secondary worlds. Ms. Rowling's world is a secondary secondary world" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/opinion/harry-potter-and-the-childish-adult.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

I think the wiki link of secondary world to fictional universe is unnecessary as well, but that's just my opinion of course. 126.59.94.250 (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job, and thanks for pointing this out. I went in and made sure the quote matched the source word-for-word. However, after reading the article, I'm not sure this quote belongs in the "began to receive strong criticism" paragraph; it certainly seems to cherrypick the most negative-sounding parts of the article, and it had just plain left out the word "intelligently".

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether this quote belongs in that paragraph? Princess Lirin (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was quite critical and the overall tone was very negative, to my mind. I think it could stay. 126.59.94.250 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

I'd like to add in addition to introduction of the Pottermore website. The beta period of the site has extended beyond September until the end of October, which is when the website will begin to allow all users who register themselves to access the site.

source: http://insider.pottermore.com/ 24.185.7.22 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate for the Pottermore article, which is not protected at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree and its already there. I take it the site can also be seen (linked) at both Harry Potter, an external wiki and Harry Potter fanon, an external wiki that are linked here. As per WP:ELOFFICIAL Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website- More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked' from other official websites."Moxy (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

sir,I think you should add in snape's page that his loyalty lay with harry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepatronus (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

HP Redirects

Should the HP 1-7 redirect to the respective HP book, or a disambig page with the postal code area? The HP7 was made into a disambig page. I dont think that is neccesary. A This article is about the book for ..." notice should suffice. Thoughts? i said 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the validity of having HP1 - HP7 directing to the relevant HP book, this is an encyclopedia and lazy redirects like this should be avoided. Also they create needless hatnotes on numerous HP articles when it is extremely unlikely the reader has been directed from an HPx link. Zarcadia (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar photographs

Both the photographs of HP complete book sets are British editions. US edition is missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_Potter_Books.png is better than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hp_british_books!.jpg. I feel latter can be removed and replaced with American edition. I don't have American edition photo. Whoever has, please upload and replace the latter with new photograph. ~Divij (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Both images are currently in the article? The US books are under the "Plot" heading, and the UK books under the "Literary Criticism" section. a_man_alone (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked again. Both the images (in Plot and Literary Criticism) are of British edition. Both the images that I mentioned above have "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". US edition name was "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". Further British edition was published by Bloomsbury and Scholastic in US. My point is that US edition picture is missing and since the image present in Literary Criticism is not as good as in Plot, it can be replaced by US edition photograph. I do not have US edition books nor their photograph. ~Divij (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have all 7 U.S. editions, with Goblet of Fire and Deathly Hallows in hardcover and the rest in paperback. Would that be okay? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good article

Do you think this article should become a good article as I think it should be. Anyone agree? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the box at the top of this talk page. The article already is a good article. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Attractions - Warner Bros. Studio Tour London: The Making of Harry Potter

Warner Bros. Studio Tour London - The Making of Harry Potter, attraction is now opened to the public, which opened on 31 March 2012, which also had a grand opening event, attended by the Harry Potter film series cast and crew members Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Bonnie Wright, Evanna Lynch, Warwick Davis, David Thewlis, Helen McCrory, George Harris, Nick Moran, Natalia Tena, David Bradley, Alfie Enoch,Harry Melling, David Heyman, David Barron, David Yates, Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell. Here are websites links about information about the opening of Warner Bros. Studio Tour London: The Making of Harry Potter. http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/cast-list-revealed-for-harry-potter-leavesden-tour-grand-opening-88860/ and http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/cast-and-crew-attend-warner-bros-studio-tour-the-making-of-harry-potter-grand-opening-88915/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.199.116 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal Studios: Harry Potter Attraction

There is also Boarshead, which is one of the major dining facilities at Universal. They serve platters of food in a tavern-like atmosphere, and they also have Butterbeer, Pumpkin Juice, and Boarshead beer. They also have what is called "The Feast," which has roasted corn, racks of pork ribs, etc.--it has a medieval feel.

Additionally, there is Olivander's, a wand store. Right outside of Olivanders is a place with wizarding clothes, wands, and quidditch balls.192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are these your own observations, or can you refer us to reliable secondary sources describing them? Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll note also that these locations are already included in the main article, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Islands of Adventure) Elizium23 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

New covers

try getting images of the new covers of HP
The white wons

"Harry Potter" logo vs. Hogwarts coats of arms

How is Hogwarts a good free alternative? Why is it an infobox? Why not "Harry Potter" logo? --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What Harry Potter logo? You mean from the films? That would be awful, these HP articles are far to focused on them as it is. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GimliDotNet is right. The only logos I can think of are film logos. This image looks like the closest free use image that could have a chance to replace it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a set of the books as the main image...and also the logo was on the American books before the movies. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I remember now of the set of books. It was fair use though right? Also when it comes to the logo I am sure this is what the editor that started the discussion had in mind. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think it was. And that is the same logo that appears on the US books. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The film logo was also the (American) Scholastic logo BEFORE the film, proven by first publications of the first book in 1998. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, someone else here mentioned it already. Anyway, is the logo replaceable or something? How does it fail NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you use {{Non free logo}} license and provide a proper rationale along with using the image in low resolution. I don't think you should have a problem. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what logo we're talking about, anyone got a link? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out my second comment on this section. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 

— Mr White 16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As confirmed, this logo is of American work because it was first used in American editions. Therefore, I'll use the logo to replace that Coat of Arms. --George Ho (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing thumbnail

The thumbnail picture is missing...Thanks

The thumbnail picture is missing...Picture on facebook is empty...I miss it! Thanks:)

"Director's Cut"

JK Rowling mulls 'director's cut' of Harry Potter books. Jmj713 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Error for the amount of books sold? Why isn't anyone addressing this?

In the 2009 Guinness World Records Harry Potter has sold 519 Million Books, Philosophers Stone: 120 Million, Chamber of Secrets: 77 Million, Prisoner of Azkaban: 61 Million, Goblet of Fire: 66 Million, Order of the Phoenix: 55 Million, Half-Blood Prince: 65 Million and Deathly Hallows 75 Million, and that was recorded in 2009, so now it should be 600 Million or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanneAttinwoord (talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that says they have sold over 600 million copies then yes we should update. What we do not do is assume that it has breached that based on sales up to 2009. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Source found?

Would Guinness World Records 2009 be a sufficient source for Harry Potter having sold 519 Million copies? As it has all reliable information for all the books sold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.109.198 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be a perfect source GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Themes: Christianity

I would suggest adding to the 'themes' section in light of this interview and article in the leading UK broadsheet newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

"J.K. Rowling has also stated that Christian allegory is a key theme running throughout the series but that she declined to answer queries about this previously to prevent providing clues as to future plot direction. Specifically, themes of resurrection come to the fore in the final book whilst Rowling has also stated that biblical quotations in the final novel sum up the entire series".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/fictionreviews/3668658/J-K-Rowling-Christianity-inspired-Harry-Potter.html

Graham87 12:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace285364 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Please change the photo on the page so that when you like the page on Facebook the photo isn't cut off in the icon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.smith091 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This request is a duplicate of the below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Please change the image in the thumbnail to something else. This logo drives me crazy because when you 'like' Harry Potter on Facebook, it links to this page and the icon is cut off. That may seem silly; however, I just can't see why it would have been changed in the first place. It was, at one point, a picture of the books, and that was fine. I think that it should be changed to something like the Hogwarts coat of arms

Hogwarts coat of arms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.smith091 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not edit articles solely to accommodate Facebook. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

simple, chronological listing of books and movies lacking

I'm flabbergasted that there is not one simple table (or two) of the books and/or films. To have to dig through 47 rambling paragraphs of obsessive narrative without an overarching framework is unreasonable. Except for the fanatics who maintain this page and who could no doubt cite the books and movies from memory. Surely, wikipedia entries are meant to be informative for the non-experts/non-obsessives, not just a mosh pit for insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpresearch (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you after? The Info-box on the right has the books listed in order - a chronology would only be written if their where reliable sources that provided it that we could cite, anything else would be original research (and possibly too in-universe given this is fiction we are talking about) and that is not what we do here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

unneeded counter punch request for edit

"Charles Taylor of Salon.com, who is primarily a movie critic,[107] took issue with Byatt's criticisms in particular. While he conceded that she may have "a valid cultural point—a teeny one—about the impulses that drive us to reassuring pop trash and away from the troubling complexities of art",[108] he rejected her claims that the series is lacking in serious literary merit ..." Is this counter-punch against Byatt's criticism of Rowling's writing ability really encyclopedic for this article? 173.167.1.129 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)