Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 10

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Inactive Members

How does everyone feel about splitting off the members section to identify active and non-active members - last I checked it was something like 180 project members, with three more since last weekend alone, but I see relatively few of them. RHB 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. John Reaves 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the project has been inactive, not them. I'd ask a bot to deliver some sort of message to all of them alerting them to the fact that the project is active again and if they want do participate head on over! Let's draft this first though, before we send it. Try creating it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Letter or something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the members that have been inactive? Afterall, there isn't really a project without active members. John Reaves 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How about posting this on their talk pages:

You have been placed on the inactive list of WikiProject Harry Potter members. If you'd like to get involved again, please place your name back on the active list, and start contributing again.

I do appreciate the picture of Dumbledore. He's inactive, not dead. Valley2city 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume that's a joke? John Reaves 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested revision:

Hello, WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 10, you have been placed on the inactive list of WikiProject Harry Potter members. It has been a while since the project has seen any action, so we understand and would love it if you'd like to get involved again. If so, please place your name back on the active list and remove it from the inactive list, and start contributing again. You will see a number of initiatives being taken up on the project talk page.

--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you move the picture to the right so that the text is emphasised? I think this would be better as English is read left to right. I don't think the inactivity comments should be included; as the cause of project inactivity is contributer inactivity. Also, I think a slightly more formal tone would be better (i.e. remove "love"). Is there a bot that could post these for us? John Reaves 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true though… there were really no leaders on the project to tell the participants what to do. They put their names on a list and that was basically it – no assessment, no model articles, no collaboration… Also, don't you think the informal tone is slightly more approachful? Here's it anyway with the pictures on the right. For bots, see WP:BOTREQ. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 10, you have been placed on the inactive list of WikiProject Harry Potter members. It has been a while since the project has seen any action, so we understand and would love it if you'd like to get involved again. If so, please place your name back on the active list and remove it from the inactive list, and start contributing again. You will see a number of initiatives being taken up on the project talk page.

Yeah, don't worry, John Reaves, I was kidding. I like the template and I think it looks better on the left side. More uniform in terms of images on Wikipedia templates... Might I suggest you include the word "member in the very first clause"? ie: "Hello, WikiProject Harry Potter member..." Valley2city 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone is slightly too formal and rigid, needs to relax a bit. And the inactive list should redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Participants#Inactive Participants, rather than a completely new page. RHB 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fbv65edel, I like your version. Also, I fixed the link in your suggestion per RHB's comment. I like Valley2city's idea of having "WPHP member" in the opening. To RHB: feel free to create your own version with your suggested wording here. John Reaves 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a version with new wording to your sandbox. Let me know what you think. I'm going to updated and add items to the to do list in the perhaps wishful expectation of more active project members. RHB 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ive recently updated the Harry Potter portal page too, so you might want to put some of the to-dos there. I like you version, it's friendlier and more likely to bring people back. Do think a thin border would look good? Also, what do thing about bolding WikiProject Harry Potter? John Reaves 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind whats done with the border but bolding WP Harry Potter would look a bit off, especially since it already stands out by being bluelinked in comparison wiht the rest of the text. Be bold :P RHB 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point with the bolding. John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to pick a version from those on John Reaves Sandbox page linked above? I can deliver it whenever with AWB. RHB 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've numbered the version to make picking easier. I linked the page in your comment RHB, I figured you wouldn't mind. I vote for 3.. John Reaves 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Three looks good.TonyJoe 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I like 4 RHB 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the inactive/previous contributors should be placed on the same page lower down. On a different project I see they add them in small type in a serial list just running across the page, block of type like a paragraph. Minimises the area taken by a lot of names. As far as the sandbox versions go, I favour 4 as it is more friendly. But I also suggest using Present/Previous rather than active/inactive. Inactive implies they may be coming back any time, whereas I think the idea here is to clearly remove people who have permanently gone away? Sandpiper 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to cast a deciding vote? RHB 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Go with number four. I'll take any flak (if there is any). Use {{InactiveWPHPuser}} so we can easily change all templates at once.John Reaves 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Posting it now with my AWB account. I have to say, I think we'll see a definite drop in numbers, but hopefully it will reawaken some people to the project's continued existence and latch on to the popularity of the release of the final book and 5th film. RHB 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapter citations

I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Templates. I assumed it wasn't as well-watched as this page. John Reaves 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actors

Are the actors from the film versions within the scope of the project? John Reaves

And are redirects rated as class=NA? Thanks, RHB 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been adding the project template and rating them as NA just so we know we have them. John Reaves 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've finished rating everything except the actor pages. When I posted on the WikiProject Council page they suggested Actors got project banners too, so I don't see why not, but if pages got cluttered the small=yes option would be used to lump project headers together. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Project banners and actors Only about 40/450pages left to be rated though, including images. Thanks for your help, RHB 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page template

I propse adding '''{{subst:Off topic warning}}''' to most or all of the HP talk pages, as discussion seems to happen too often. It might be easier to incorporate it into the main project template or have a bot do it. John Reaves 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the template looks like:

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

It might be better to insert it into a {{Notice}} or {{Warning}} template so it's more noticed. For example:

or

--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be in good taste, or possible, to incorporate one into the project template? John Reaves 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible, and save a whole lot of work, to incorporate it into the project template. Whether it would be in good taste (singling out Harry Potter) I'm not sure – better wait for a few more people to chime in on that one. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to work on it here John Reaves 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would be appropriate to insert it into the project template. Is this the HP thought police? perhaps you can give some examples of where discussion is off topic? Sandpiper 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Things like the discussion of possible Horcuxes and whether or not Dumbledore is dead would be inapproriate. The disussion may be on the topic, but it isn't about the improvement of the article. Just generally discussing the topic is more appropriate for a fan forum or other non-Wikipedia site. See WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. John Reaves 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore IS dead, Rowling said so (I think she said 'dead, dead, dead, dead', at radio city), this is no longer an issue. The extent to which this remains an issue, and the odd circumstances of his death, remain sensible things to discuss re article content, surely. Had a look at the horcrux article, The current discussion page contains absolutely nothing. The previous archive seems to contain a long debabte about referencing. The one before that contains some debate over horcruxes, but seems to be arguing about existing content on the page at that time, so I don't see a problem. When the debate became wild, Dalf wrote Very slowly now! Please put the crack pipe down and move slowly away, no one needs to get hurt. , which seemed to deal with the matter with humour. Sandpiper 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

John wasn't saying Dumbledore wasn't dead, simply that Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for discussing that. And perhaps discussing Horcruxes has not been an issue, but I know I've put up with a lot of people at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) (I've answered their questions just to appease them, but if they continue to ask questions, I bring it to their user talk page, so far as I can recall). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandpiper, see also {{Off topic warning}}, an official template on Wikipedia. Discussion pages are not for discussing the subject of the articles, but the articles themselves. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but I don't see what it would have to do with creating an extra special warning just for HP. Sandpiper 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is being brought up because it can help harmlessly prevent discussion which does occur, usually not in large portions (which is why skimming archives wouldn't prove too fruitful). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't see the logic of that last comment. Why do we want to stop people finding discussion in the talk pages? What harm is it doing if they are interested enough to read it? The content rules refer to the front-page article which is on public display. Sandpiper 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

True, I know Dumbledore is dead. To Sandpiper, these warnings aren't "extra special", they're standard messages for talk pages. There is an example of one of these warnings after being streamlined (somewhat) into the WPHP template here. Feel free to make your own version. John Reaves 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

again, why do we need a version? I assume the tags exist only for use 'at need' anyway. They are not intended to be placed automatically on a page. They are not intended to be subject specific. Sandpiper 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article References! drive

We really need to get a featured article in the mix here. (There's a former project page about it, but it's been inactive and since LV isn't even a GA anymore, we'd need to reconsider.) Any suggestions as to what would be a good shot? There are two A-class articles now, one is a list (which can't get FA until the films are complete, due to the changing information), and the other one is just the good ol' Harry Potter. Any thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I thinks that's a great idea. We should work on getting Voldemort back to GA. Also, I recently nominated Ginny Weasley, and there was some advice left on getting the article up to GA. I think Harry Potter is a fine candidate. John Reaves 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized… we can't really have too many articles at FA status before the seventh book! Probably only the book and movie articles could get up there, but you can't feature an article if information is known to change soon. So we should actually go for a good article drive, referencing as much as possible, or try to feature one of the book or movie articles (though none of them are in particularly good shape). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the closest to GA, I'd say. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, the easiest to feature right now would be the books and movies, plus JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Is it really that bad if the information is due to change in 7months, as it will with the release of the final book? The whole character section is a complete mess with in universe stuff etc. A GA drive would be good too. Whats happening with the project activity letter? Can it be sent out? I can do it with AWB if we cant find a bot. RHB 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is, FAC won't accept it if they know that things are just going to change and need major rewriting soon. I think it's a slight violation of WP:WIAFA, 1e. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit curious why you guys are so keen on FA and GA. Personally, my aim is to write good articles. I edit articles so that they are better than when I found them. I use my own judgement as an editor how best to do this. It may very well be that my judgement, and most other people's, conflict to a greater or lesse degree with the different judgement on what makes a good article currently enshrined in the definition of GA and FA. i say currently, because I suspect that written definition has changed since Voldemort became a 'good article', which is why it is no longer considered such. In general none of the HP articles well fit the criteris for FA or GA, which is why I am a little puzzled that people have been trying to put them forward as such. Wasn't it realised they would inevitably fail under those rules? Those definitions are not the last word on what in the real-world would be considered good. They have grown out of standards for a paticular kind of article, which I do not think was ever a good fit for 'fiction' articles, and maybe particulary not for unfinished ones, where readers naturally have a heavy bias on learning what the ending will be.

Also, do people realise that a faction of editors involved in setting policy is very against including plot summaries of virtually any length over one sentence? It seems to me that there is still a drive here to expand plot summaries, indeed specifically broaden their inclusion to a book by book run down for every article. I don't favour this as a policy. I prefer that we present information in a logical way for the series as a whole, rather than simply as the author wrote it. Sandpiper 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Our aim is to write good articles too. There are certainly a number of 'good articles' (the non-Wikipedia sense of the term) out there for Harry Potter, but they don't meet all of Wikipedia's standards. While there are many people who visit these articles and read up on them, we are still part of an encyclopedia, and we need to rise to the standards set by the encyclopedia. We're not here to please ourselves, necessarily, with the quality of the articles in our own minds, but since we write for Wikipedia we must try to get the very best work possible for Wikipedia. If we want to write freely under our own restrictions, we'll visit the Harry Potter Wikia. But here, we write fiction articles for an encyclopedia which has certain guidelines which get work recognized and eventually featured, which should be everyone's ultimate goal on the site. Also, as for plot summaries: we do have a lot of information in each article about every single action in the books, and very little on literary connections, significance, character strengths/weaknesses, etc. That's what's wanted in Wikipedia, not a listing of every occurence a character has in the books. Then, with references, and a little clean-up, we get, voila, a good article. A little further (waiting till Book 7), we get featured articles. I know the GA and FA systems aren't your personal favorites, Sandpiper, but it is what Wikipedia strives for and what we must strive for too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We know if they are or are not good articles. More so than some of the people who decide which articles are good (some of whom hold these articles in blatant contempt). Where is the point in reducing them to pointless opinion of "In this, I think Rowling shows her skill by making Ginny appear secretive" and destroying any meaningful flow, merely to dance attendant on people who will merely raise the bar higher to continue to exclude the articles. Especially since, for the next decade or so, there will not be enough critical opinion on the books to allow articles of the sort which they desire. Furthermore, as you have all said, until Book 7 is published, such a drive is monumentally pointless. So why on earth are getting so worked up about this issue at the moment? Michaelsanders 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, it was just a suggestion. Right before creating this section, I thought, "Hey, we don't have any featured articles. That's too bad." So I decided to create the drive. Then I realized we are in a position where we can't really have too many FAs (except possibly the books or the movies). So I realized a GA drive would be better. What I'm really trying to say is: let's make it a "Cite your sources drive". :-) We really need to start referencing – and it's okay if it's by chapter since there are so many editions in use and it would be hard to stay uniform with all of them. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tbh its a massive conspiracy to exclude just HP articles, seeing as Star Wars WP etc all somehow manage to create GAs. At least for the books so far and films released so far, a drive would be easy - Book 7 wont change their content. RHB 12:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the completion of the series, if for no other reason than the fact that speculation will no longer be a problem. After the series is finished, most of the HP articles can probably be bumped up to a decent quality (and more than a few GAs, I'd hope). --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm much happier talking about a reference drive. The immediate question is do we have a good example anywhere of how we think this ought to be done? I'm not happy about ending up with the state of affairs where the text becomes overwhelmed by multiple references embedded in every sentence. If absolutely everything was referenced then a line like Harry had black hair (ref...), glasses (ref...), a lightning scar (ref...) and so on, could easily become ridiculous. So there is also the difficulty of the level of referencing required. I go round in circles on this, because while I absolutely do not want to see the text mashed up by inserted references, I also do not see much point of ending up with an article which has a list at the end of 500 refs from different book chapters. It looks bad, but more importantly from my point of view, doesn't help me much as a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure to what extent we reference, but hopefully just one at the end of each paragraph, possibly, should do it. Take a look at how I did Battle of Beruna Ford: there's one after each statement which is factual, and then one at the end of each paragraph about description. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also the style suggested once by someone Template:HBP and tried out in Filius Flitwick, [1] which produces these references , like this . Is it better to settle for a chapter inline, or a numbered reference? I think someone put a lot of these into one article at one time, but they have fallen from favour. I never did decide Template:CS whether I liked them. They are more disruptive then just a numbered ref (Personal attack removed), but at least the ref is immediately available for the reader and we don't get a rather long not-useful list at the end. Doesn't matter much in a short article, but Voldemort is miles long. The ref's list in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has a mere 30 entries and doesn't look too bad, but suppose we had a list of 100+? Sandpiper 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't quite like the Template:HBP etc. templates, but they're the best we have right now. Take a look at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), which I referenced. It's got 80 references, but they'll all done in uniform style so I think it doesn't look that bad. Thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think inline types of refs are a little cumbersome (as pointed out by Sandpiper below). Perhaps a footnote style referencing system would be better. As far as the GA and FA drive goes, I think it's a good idea. It will make the HP article more respectable in the eyes of those that view them as cesspools of fancruft and plot summaries. Maybe they'll even stop bitching as much when they stumble across one on a recent changes patrol. I have limited internet access, but I'll try and keep up with stuff on the project at least. John Reaves 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Referencing

The other big difficulty I have with referencing, aside from how to notate it, is how important it is. I do find it useful to have a collection of source quotes when analysing something, say all the important quotes regarding the HBP. I even made one once on a talk page. But the reason for doing so was to prove a point, that the article in question really did reflect the original text. Ok, so that is maybe what the referencing business is about, to prove we are fairly reporting what is actually written in the books, but this is not what an average reader is going to want looking at an article here. Cluttering an article with too much sourcing makes it harder to read. Sandpiper 12:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been told that that citing HP text isn't the sort of referencing that they're looking for. For an early version of themes and motiffs in Harry Potter, I only used the text as a source, and according to the Featured Article reviewers, that violated No Original Research. It seems that the only sources that are going to qualify are third party sources.

Looking back now, I think I agree with those reviewers. So many HP fans look at the same text and see something different, i.e., shipping. Strong (preferably scholarly) third party sources (especially for liteary and character analysis) are definitely preferable to delevering a direct from text interpretation, which because of the possibility of different interpretations could be considered a Point of View. TonyJoe 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Then that must be where our interpretations diverge. Assuming the rules havn't been changed again, I think the line is something like source-based research is to be encouraged. It is entirely proper to conduct a cataloguing operation on primary source material, which is exactly what we do here. I again observe that since wiki has another rule banning copyright infringement, it is impossible to write any text at all which is not 'original'. It is impossible to create an encyclopedia without doing what is understood as original research in the outside world. There is no hard and fast division between wiki-style OR and real world, encyclopedia creating OR. There cannot be. I admit, that it would sometimes be a less contentious cataloguing operation if we include more of the source material, but then that runs up against those who oppose reproducing large portions of the plot. So what we have is a compromise between precision and brevity. The trick, as I see it, is to present passages in a neutral way without drawing conclusions. I think this is how unclear issues are normally handled on wiki, by presenting both sides of an argument. I have also found that when an issue is approached like this in a careful way, it may well be the case that an issue resolves itself, because a balanced and fair representation of the actual content automatically resolves questions of interpretation.

As to the difficulty of including external commentary of HP (on the grounds of scarcity, though there are now published books discussing HP, I have one here which even cites wiki as a source), well it is something we have to live with. A deficiency in one area of an article does not justify scrapping the rest of it. Sandpiper 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in taking "cataloguing operation on primary source material" to mean merely plot summaries, description of characters' backgrounds, etc? If so, it seems that we do much more than that. It seems that throughout the HP articles we regularly take primary sources (the six published books) and draw conclusions (I'm thinking mostly of themes and characters' personality) with only the primary source as a reference. According to WP:NOR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." So if there's a difference between "cataloguing operation" "and literary interpretation," I think we're on the same page.

And concerning "a deficiency in one area of an article does not justify scrapping the rest of it," Is this something that regularly happens in the HP articles? TonyJoe 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements at Talk:Harry Potter fandom

If you could all head over to Talk:Harry_Potter_fandom#Discussing_whether_we_should_add_this:_--Please_do_not_add_a_site_here_without_first_discussing_it_on_Talk:Harry_Potter_fandom_first._Thank_you.--, read the section thoroughly, and vote in the second straw poll, that would be appreciated. The user involved in the dispute asked me on my talk page what we should do (as it's been a week since any activity there, and the votes are "tied" 1-1), and so I figured the people who know the page best should participate in this poll.

While we're talking about Harry Potter fandom, I think we need to come up with a method of referencing the notability of the fan sites, because it gets to a point where you really don't know if they're notable or not (see the section below the aforementioned one -- the user makes it sound notable but I haven't a clue what those things (Sulake) are). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic. There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. I don't have enough access to reliable internet to check, but I assume the problem at the page stems from the recent influx of newbies to the HP articles because of the whole title thing. I suggest just letting it die down and keep on reverting in the meantime. John Reaves 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't very helpful, though. Try to persuade them to what you think. Try to be calm and constructive, rather than simply aggravating everyone by reverting. Also, fandom should be addressed in an encyclopaedic manner - I don't think fandom is really very encyclopedic. There isn't really anything that makes it more notable than other fandoms. isn't helpful. Michaelsanders 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, John, in this case though, it wasn't the question of whether fan sites were notable or not, it was whether to include a comment (using <!-- and -->). However, Harry Potter fandom is notable because of JKR's connections with, primarily, TLC and MuggleNet, and then you can expand on all the notable things done (like the Lexicon, wizard rock, Muggle Quidditch, etc.). But that article is in such a state now that it doesn't exemplify that notability too well. Hopefully in the future we can collaborate on that. Speaking of which, anybody up for a collaboration of the month? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for assuming. I'm working with an unreliable and infrequent access to internet, so I figured I'd wager. I don't see any thing wrong with a comment. I'll check out the talk page when I have a chance. I'd be up for a collaboration (though discussion should go under a new section ) John Reaves 06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 or 5 websites which JKR endorses on her own website (though I think at least one is in a different language). I don't know if she has endorsed others in the past. I don't regard this as as a necessary condition for inclusion, but a helpfull one. Inspection is usefull, if it has poor content then strike it from the list. If it is blatantly advertising, then strike it from the list. Sandpiper 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Rowling-endorsement would, I think, be THE condition for getting in - if she endorses a fansite, there is no sane way you can justify NOT including it in such an article. Inspection would merely be common sense - the problem coming when people disagree over what should be included based on 'common sense' (some people really believe that Hermione is secretly Harry's sister, for example - the rest of us, on the other hand, read such theories for comedy value). I would think that Red Hen should be included - I consider her the 'higher end' of Harry Potter theorising and analysis (Bradley she isn't, but could get there) - but what happens if someone disagrees, thinking her site blatant rubbish, and that some site they like should be promoted instead? Is it better to ignore such cases, or try to legislate some means of dealing with them? Michaelsanders 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the former. Delete, Ignore, and if they really feel the need to have it in there, leave it up to them to prove notability. On the Fandom talk page I also support destroying the entire fansite section. Cheers, TonyJoe 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia could be written by computer, then it would be (or, at least, someone would have done it on a different website). The point is that it can only be done by human judgement, what to include and what to leave out. There is a whole raft of people writing content rules like mad, but I find the whole thing ultimately self-defeating, because there are too many rules to waste time staying up to date with what they say. So, ultimately, everything comes down to personal judgement. This is exactly such a case. Sandpiper 11:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Going off of TonyJoe's comments -- how about this? If a fan site is mentioned in the prose of the article (in which case its notability would be established with a cite and by the surrounding text), it should be linked in an External links section, as per WP:EL. However, if the fan site is not mentioned in the prose, it should not by any means be in an external links section. I'll bring this to the fandom talk page too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Revival of the WikiProject Harry Potter

With the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows imminent, it is a pleasant surprise to see WikiProject Harry Potter recalled to life, albeit haphazardly. I would however hope that within the next week we can make its return more formal so as to allow the project to move foward more cohesively in the New Year.

To do this, I'd like to make/refocus on some proposals.

1. We should strengthen our membership by following through on the proposal of RHB, Fbv65edel and John Reaves, of informing inactive members of the revival via the Dumbledore Member Box, as well as actively recruit new members via the Community Bulletin board and the talk pages of other promienent HP articles.

2. Make the project more purposeful by firmly establishing our priorities via a "scope" and "Articles of Importance" section, as well as making our To-Do list more current and definitively choosing an "Article to Improve."

3. Patroling HP articles for vandalism as Deathly Hallows' release approaches.

4. Promoting "Project Togetherness" via a Project Award and a new Userbox. TonyJoe 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It all sounds good to me. However, what's the Dumbledore Member Box and Project Togetherness? As for the notice to old members, we were still deciding on a format we liked until… erm, we forgot about it. I'm still away for a week, but I've left my thoughts at User:John Reaves/Sandbox. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Dumbledore message box is the inactive warning we've concocted. As far as "Project Togetherness" goes: all I'm going to say is I'm not opposed. John Reaves 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "project togetherness," that was the best way I knew to phrase it, and considering recent developments, it probably now sounds a bit insincere. Nevertheless, other projects are really effective because they work well together. And I thought that bringing some of that here would be a good thing... TonyJoe 23:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All right then, I'd say go out and send the "Dumbledore Member Box" as there have been no objections to it, probably using AWB. I'll have more time to think about all this when I return on the 1st. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Character template

Should we do a template for characters, like many video game (Template:Resident Evil series characters) or television (Template:Star Trek regulars) ones? igordebraga ≠ 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already a character template at Template:HP character. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not singular characters, ALL or most characters (i.e., LOTR has a template for the Fellowship of the Ring and Ainur) igordebraga ≠ 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NA into Non-Article

Is anyone proficient enough in templates to change NA to Non-Article in the talk page template? John Reaves 08:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your difficulty is that the HP template itself uses templates named Template:Na-Class, etc., which are substituted into the output. I'm not absolutely sure why they did it this way, which seems to imply some added work for the system. You will need to create Template:Non-Article-Class for it to be displayed, with different versions for each different wording. Alternatively, the template could be edited to print out Non-article for the several cases NA na, etc. But we are again getting into the difficulty that this system is designed to assist creating a published a version of wiki, not for ourselves. Sandpiper 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While on this subject, as currently written the template basically says the same thing twice on successive lines. I don't exactly see the point of this. Sandpiper

Oh, I thought we made up the template. I only wanted to change it because there was no explanation to what NA meant. John Reaves 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't like it either, but I'm not sure what we ought to use as wording, exactly. I suspect the template was basically copied from a master version somewhere. Sandpiper 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLC

List of Harry Potter films cast members is currently a featured list candidate. I'd advise you to assess the article neutrally and head over to the FLC nomination page, if you so wish, and discuss. This article is especially important to me as I've worked it from a cluttered table, out of AfD, to what it looks like now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins

I've requested on the participants page that Admins add '''(Admin)''' next to their name so we know who can help with deletions, vandals, et cetera. John Reaves 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)