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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
where should I put that Diagon alley is a pun on diagonally? MidKnightHunter (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
can any body tell that if there exists any relation between real life mechanical engineer james harry potter and fictitous character harry potter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.18.209 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a statement, with an external reference, in the Adaptation section of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Adaptations) that states all five films are on the top 20 grossing films of all time. A reference is provided. According to the reference, Prisoner of Azkaban is now #21 due to The Dark Knight's recent release. I can not correct this due to the article being locked. 70.105.7.112 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Under translations section: "The series has been translated into 65 languages,[2][58] placing Rowling among the most translated authors in history."
It has in fact been translated into 67 languages, which is stated in the introduction and in the citations. I can not correct because of the semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triscut (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The name of the first book is listed as "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" But was published in the US and Canada as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" some note should be made under the links to the books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.123.207 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this page is semi-protected. I would like to do so with a page that keeps getting hit by vandals. Can someone get back to me--How do I semi-protect a page or submit a request for a mod to do so?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
The only list of the books is to the right column. Can it be included elsewhere in the article? 24.192.75.54 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'd just like to bring your attention to the short paragraph at the end of the "Adaptations" section. It states the musical will begin in 2008. Well, did it happen? Or was it delayed, or altogether canceled? The two given sources don't have any follow-up information on the topic, and a quick Google search turned up nothing useful. Either way, the paragraph needs to be updated. I haven't heard anything about the musical, but I live in the US. Perhaps someone in England, especially London, knows something more? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 07:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The summary ends with the statement that Harry kills Voldamort. Actually, Voldamort is killed by his own backfiring spell, ironically repeating the incident that began the series. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The summary lists Delores Umbridge as the Director of Hogwarts, but her position title is actually "High Inquisitor of Hogwarts." Myerstudent2 (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In the lead, it says that the brand is worth £7 billion or $15 billion. I don't believe that £7 billion equals $15 billion. Isn't it more like $10 billion? Professor Davies (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a sentence at the beginning which states that the whole idea of the school of witchcraft and sorcery is not original of Rowling and making authors like Jill Murphy and Jane Yolen to critisize the series. Look for that here at Wiki, you don't have to search for other sources (copy/paste the ref on the other articles) the reason I am saying this is because many people think that Hogwarts is the first and only magic school and that is pretty much like thinking Bram Stoker invented the vampires, in the article of Dracula it states that of not being invented by Stoker, why not to state the school idea wasn't invented by rowling??? PS: Sorry for grammar, me-not-american lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.147.73 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
A user recently removed the image of the HP stamps in the infobox, claiming, "use of non-free stamp image to illustrate the subject fails WP:NFC#Images and does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic". I disagree. What better way to illustrate a book series than by showing the covers of said books? In such cases (i.e. when the images are not free), it is better to use a single image showing multiple items than using multiple (in this case seven) different images to illustrate the same thing. Furthermore, the stamps help the reader understand the cultural importance/impact of the Harry Potter series - after all, not many book series receive such an honor. For these reasons, I believe that the image meets the non-free image criteria, as well as deepening the reader's understanding of the topic. faithless (speak) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are we using the british name for the book,instead of the American name???i feel it should be changed to sorcerers stone--Aldamira (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that Harry Potter is British and not American, so the proper British name should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.186.116 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
i was just recently reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when i came to realize that Harry Potter was born in 1980...i had never known this despite my reading the series many times...would that be something of interest to include somehwere in the article? if so, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.76.146 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for a section on inconsistencies, I was rereading some of the books and noticed one (see below), and thought there should be a section that lists them out (I know there's more). I know there's a section about it in the chronology article, but no general.
In book one when Harry is talking to Voldemort, in the room with the mirror hiding the philosophers stone, Voldemort says that Harry's father put up a good fight (and then that he's mother needn't have even died). Yet in book seven when Harry and Hermione escape from Nagini in Godric's Hollow, Harry falls into Voldemort's mind and the scene is replayed, Voldemort laughs before killing James over the fact that he "hadn't even picked up his wand" (Symo85 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
When and Why was this article protected? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is now released and in the top 20 highest grossing films, the statement should be changed from "four out of five" to "five out of six" Kappalex (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) [1]
Done. Jusdafax (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I made a list of Harry Potter books. If Hermione were about, I should like to hand it round to her. Some real-life readers might also like seeing the list. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
People should see the American brand-new covers. They are so much better and easier to see, also Wiki should criticize the movies, they are an insult to the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix the vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_potter (the redirect page with a lowercase P on "Potter"). I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.238.114 (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the "offense" lay in labeling Ursula Le Guin as female or in suggesting that her subject matter concerns females or may be of particular interest to female readers.
Considering how few women there are in the science fiction writing business, I personally (as a reader) would like to be aware of any writing which comes from a perspective other than that of men and/or their stereotypical interests. I daresay most sci-fi has targetted the adoloscent boy, but the Harry Potter series seems to be equally interesting to boys and girls, so the mention of Le Guin could be relevant here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, are you TRYING to ruin the beauty of Harry Potter book's magic, because I just love the fact it's so unpredictable and strange, making a THEORY completely ruins it, I mean is there a theory for LIFE? Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
About the fifth book, in the section 1 (Plot):
"An important prophecy concerning Harry and Voldemort is revealed,[17] and Harry discovers that he and Voldemort have a painful connection, allowing Harry to view some of Voldemort's actions telepathically."
Although the prophecy implies a connection between He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Harry, such connection is not responsible for allowing Harry to view the Lord's thoughts. The horcrux is. And even if you consider the horcrux is mentioned in the prophecy, Harry did not discover it (by hearing the prophecy).
If you agree... Can somebody change it, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliz.rhf (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing in the box that depended on who opened it to be what it was --usually scary. What was it called. I'm trying to refer to it in another article. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This image shows someone's collection of the seven British books, but this has already been shown in the infobox. Also, the books are somewhat tattered looking and makes the article look just a touch less professional than it could be (no offense to original uploader of course). I couldn't find any suitable replacement in a quick Commons search (plenty of images of volume size comparisons though!). The image does break up the article though, so it'd be nice to replace it with something. –Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
YES YES YES I am so glad someone caught that, the American covers are so much neater, you can even use Google Images and get great photos, I would change it but I don't know how!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the first title in the Harry Potter series listed as 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.' I thought it was the Sorcerer's Stone...216.214.105.222 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC) LA Cain
Why would they change a perfectly fine title like that. Wait a second, the actual story wasn't changed was it?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.146.159 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
can we get some more specific information? that reads as if it was just copy/pasted from Universal's website. does anyone know WHEN it actually opens? will it be part of the Universal Studios, or will it be a seperate park like Islands of Adventure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.188 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I see that many Harry Potter related articles get edited to "correct" the spelling when it was already good... but in British english. I would like to add a page notice to these articles. I know I can be bold and do it right away(I have the rights), but I can opinion on this. I would add the following banner to those articles :
This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. For example, the words customise and criticise are spelled with an s rather than a z. Before correcting any apparent spelling errors, please ensure that the word is not spelled correctly in British English. Please see American and British English differences for more information or comment on this article's talk page if you have any questions. Thank you. |
Does anybody have any comment on this banner, or would like me to add anything else that would be needed? (maybe a "canon-law" for the Spell in Harry Potter article?) Please reply. --Stroppolotalk 23:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where this idea has arisen that -ise is UK spelling and -ize is US, but as far as I can see, it's just incorrect. Otherwise, a great idea. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)"Fowler, in Modern English Usage has an admirable article on the subject. The following summary rule is based on the OED's article (at -ize): You will be safe if you make every verb, every derivation noun or participial adjective, conform to the -z type, for this suffix comes, whether direct or via Latin or French, from the Greek -izein : to employ -ise is to flout etymology and logic
This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. For example, the words colour and honour are spelled with our rather then or. Before correcting any apparent spelling errors, please ensure that the word is not spelled correctly in British English. Please see American and British English spelling differences for more information or comment on this article's talk page if you have any questions. Thank you. |
This article refers to the first novel of the Harry Potter series as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not the original title and is therefore only used when absolutely necessary. Please do not change Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone. Thank you. |
Quick note! Your "therefor" needs an 'e'. Therefore :) --AycliffeAngel (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the philosophers/sorcerers warning as it clears up any confusion yes. --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please add that Neville Longbottom was also one of Harry's best friends? Thanks.
ILOVEWillT (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
On the introduction it reads "There is also many other themes in the series, such as love and prejudice." It should read "There are also many other themes in the series, such as love and prejudice".
Under "Awards and honours" Honors should be capitalized and spelled H-O-N-O-R-S--Drstand09 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Harry Potter has been extremely well received but there is an odd emphasis on negative criticism rather than positive criticism in the reception section. The three sub-sections all have a negative focus. In fact, if the series wasn't well known then it would be assumed from reading this page that the books were poorly received and little appreciated and that's not the case.
Why are the sources so selective? Even generally positive reviews have only had negative comments quoted from them, leading to the impression that the series was critically panned. This section doesn't indicate almost any positive reviews about the books and places too much focus on negativity. Vision Insider (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
JK Rowling mulls 'director's cut' of Harry Potter books. Jmj713 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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".
Graham87 12:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace285364 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
In the Plot part, Harry potter also learned and grew his emotion of love and fell in love with the witch Qiu Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermione89603 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be great to see a section about the "Fandom." This section could go something like this: An obsessive Harry Potter fan is referred to a "Potterhead" and these fans are often known for starting large discussions. This could go on and on and on and refer to the whole Harry Potter fandom. If needed, you can source Tumblr, because many potterhads are on that site. Thank you! Harmione (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if not important it needs a pic to capture us and gives an idea about harry potter to encourage people to take interst in it cuz sometimes judging the book by its cover can be right Huklpop15 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Jordankestler has been adding information that JKR is writing 2 new books, and was reverted by me (2), Elizium23, and Onorem. The claim was referenced to a USA Today video, from a celebrity gossip site called Hollyscoop. I can't find any other sources, reliable or not, except for sites calling it a hoax. Do you think this is a reliable source, or a hoax? Jordan, one more revert and you will be edit-warring, so I brought this up here. ~HueSatLum 23:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
HueSatLum I was not trying to imply that there were 2 new books being written, which is why a created another sub-page with the title "new book RUMOUR" implying that it was indeed a rumor. I used 2 sources. Whether the rumour is true or not, I dont see the harm in putting it at the bottom of the page like other pages do. For example, on the article about friends (TV show) there is a sub-page about the recent film rumours. Please stop deleting the work. If you have suggestions on what could be added so that we have a mutual understanding, please let me know. Jordankestler (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I still dont see the harm in including something that MAY or MAY NOT come true, as previously stated "will not rule out writing more in the future". Im not trying to force a fake rumor down everyones throats, im just stating things in a wikipedia article as everyone else did to form the entirety of the article. While I get your point of reliable sources, i bring the attention back to friends. Before the rumor was debunked by the actors and creators, it was just a minor edit in the article with one reference, which turned out to be a fake website. If this turns out to be something like that, then why not post those debunking statements AS WELL as the rumor, as in the Friends article? Jordankestler (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Voldemort Lat. valde -very + mors, mortis -death
Lupin Lat. lupus -wolf + in -of, related to
Dementor Lat. de -down, off + mens, mentis -mind + tor -person
oculus reparo Lat. oculus -eye + to repair
mobiliarbus -mobile (Lat. movere, motus -to move + habilis -able) + arbor -tree
fianto duri Lat. esse, fui -to be + durus -hard
repello inimicum Lat. re -back, again + pellere, pulsus -to push + inimicum -enemy in -not + amicus -friend from amare -to love + ator -person
Lycacomia curse Gr. lycos -wolf + aemia -blood
morsmordre Lat. mors, mortis -death + mordere, morsum -to bite
anapneo Gr. an, a -not + pnoe -breathing
everte statum Lat. e, ex -from, out of + vertere, versus -to turn + stare, status -to stand
The Avada Kedavra killing curse did NOT rebound from the Expelliarmus disarming jinx, as Rowling stated many times throughout the books that the curse is unblockable. The reason the spell rebounded was that the wand in question, according to the book, "refused to kill its master". The article should be changed to reflect this correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.207.177 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you may wish to note that the name Voldemort is derived from French, not Latin (I believe Rowling confirmed this although bugger me if I can't remember where). The French translation is considerably more apt and accurate, as the latin one here assumes Volde to be derived from Valde, whereas in fact if taken literally from French, it roughly translates to Escape. "Escape Death" makes all the more sense as this is the characters primary goal throughout the series. 80.47.85.219 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
first entry was not the philosophers stone it is the sorcerers stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.84.160 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
'the highest-grossing film series of all time.' How can anyone know? Time has not ended yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.216.86 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
instead of "Extremely Poor" when describing the Weaslys under Plot why cant the term "Fairly" Poor be used. 205.143.204.110 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I hope someone who can edit this page sees how stupid "The series, named after the titular character..." is. Equivalent to saying the series is named after the character after whom the series is titled. 72.130.132.230 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the first introduction section it says that, and links to the page with the list of the best-selling series, and HP is clearly second behind maigret.
Should the title of this article be italicized? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, franchises such as book series should be italicized, but I hesitant about this as this article has existed for years but has not had its title italicized. Transphasic (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC) No; it doesn't necessarily refer to the books. It could also refer to the person. Disoriented Person (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Under Reception next to Literary criticism the photo of the Harry Potter books are in the wrong order. Does this bug anyone else?
Kind of an OCD question. Do you think we should find another picture of the books in order? Gunners4Life (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Harry Potter will be expanding its location at Universal Studios to include Diagon Alley, Weasley Wizard Wheezuz, Florean Flourtescue's Ice Cream Parlor, and the Hogwarts Express which will transport guests to and from both locations. In order to access both parks a two day pass must be purchased. The expansion is set to open Summer 2014.
There is also a park that is opening at Universal Studios Hollywood in California, with an expected opening date in 2016. One of the rides known is a Gringotts roller coaster ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoFo Oedipus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is my understanding that this article is written in British English, as it should, because this article concerns the novel's of a British writer. However, I've noticed the following mistake: "... and Hermione starts recognizing her loving feelings for Ron.". I think recognizing should be changed to recognising, because recognizing is American English and recognising British English. You can find this part in chapter (in the absence of a better word ;-) ) Plot, when described what happens in the sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (1. Plot → 1.2 Voldemort Returns).
195.240.40.153 (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
THERE IS A SECTION FOR THE HARRY POTTER AREA INSIDE ISLANDS OF ADVENTURE AT UNIVERSAL ORLANDO RESORT BUT NOT A SECTION OF OR ADDED CONTENT, TO THE PREVIOUS MENTIONED SECTION, OF DIAGON ALLEY IN UNIVERSAL STUDIOS ORLANDO RESORTS. IT IS TO BE OPENING SOMETIME DURING THE SUMMER OF 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.104.102 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - consensus is clear that until we have a real article to put here about the entire franchise, we aren't going to even be able to discuss this move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 08:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
– "Harry Potter" covers an entire franchise now, much more than just the books. If we move this to "(book series)" then the basic title can cover everything: i.e. books, games, films, attractions etc. Unreal7 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page on the Harry Potter series states that the first book is called The Philosopher's Stone. The first book is The Soccer's Stone. Please correct this error. Jacquibaby (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done because it is not an error.
The first book was The Philosopher's Stone published in the UK on 26 June 1997, the same book was published as The Sorcerer's Stone in the US on 1 September 1998 - well over a year later, because the US publishers "thought that a child would not want to read a book with the word "philosopher" in the title". For a full explanation, please see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Arjayay (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to see what a Soccer's Stone would look like. Red Slash 08:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
JK Rowling had released a short story that took place after the events of the last book (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/08/jk-rowling-releases-new-harry-potter-short-story). It should be added to the article just as the prequel short story was. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mean as custard - the Pottermore section is already mentioned (and anchored - leading to weird results) under the "Supplementary works". I don't think it warrants any deeper discussion or inclusion - and if it did, then it would be better done than just copy & pasting the lede (including the ref [x] links!) from Pottermore into the article. I've removed it again. If it's to stay, then it needs rewriting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There should be an 's' at the end of 'bestow' in "bestow everlasting life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.186.80 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first book in the series is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone not the Philosopher's Stone. 199.46.199.230 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussing the ending of the series, the plot summary suggested two things that were not supported by the books: first, that Potter somehow "managed to return from the dead," and second that Voldemort's rebounding killing curse, having killed Voldemort, "disintegrat[es] his physical presence."
On the first point, the book claims that Voldemort's wand would not kill its master. That refusal would apply just as much to the killing curse cast in the Forbidden Forest as to the killing curse cast in the Great Hall in the climactic scene. So Potter did not die to "return from the dead." Moreover, the books have insisted throughout that no return from the dead is possible (though, apparently, the dead can keep up with things and chat through paintings, the Resurrection Stone, and the strange shared-wand-core Priori Incantatem effect). So that phrase was changed to, "managed to survive Voldemort's killing curse again."
On the second point, the book clearly describes moving the body to a separate chamber away from the bodies of the fallen defenders of the castle. Thus, his physical body or "presence" did not disintegrate (as it did in the movie). So that phrase was removed.Arkunets (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Arkunets
This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest that "Harry is given an old potions textbook" be changed to "Harry finds an old potions textbook" Treethinker (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 199.46.199.230 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The article on the franchise was a stub until recently when it was redirected here without explanation. I would like to know if people really want to have a franchise article as mentioned at the above RM discussion, or not. Especially @Macks2008: I would like to know if there has been other discussion on this subject. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit Cedric Diggory's murder to be attributed to Lord Voldermort and not Peter Pedigrew as currently stated. This can be verified by reading the Goblet of Fire book or at least watching the film.
141.92.19.35 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)This edit request to Harry Potter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Either italicize the article title and all instances of the name referring to the series, or leave it unitalicized and de-italicize all such instances. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
10:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)I noticed one of the listed genres is magical realism. This is incorrect; it simply has magic in it. The genre of magical realism treats magic as a part of the natural order of the universe, accepted by all characters--for instance nearly anything written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Magical realism would expect the magic to be there. In Harry Potter the magic is hidden and a complex governmental infrastructure as well as physical explanations (muggles use electricity in place of magic) must be written into the universe of the books to account for the real word lack of magic. In other words, the genre of magical realism is not concerned with the fact that there is not magic in the real world. Harry Potter does not treat the lack of magic IRL in this way, and therefore does not qualify. Additionally, magical realism is closely connected to the Latin American Boom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernGully (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Each book mostly chronicles one year in Harry's life. Except for a significant number of chapters devoted to events when Harry was a baby, such as multiple retellings of Voldemort's attack on his parents, and the very first chapter of the first book about Harry being left on the Dursleys' doorstep. And the epilogue of Harry's later life, of course. And then numerous chapters of events in the near and distant past about Voldemort's early life, Snape's early life, Dumbledore's. And James and Lily Potter, and so on. Plus ancient history and legends. Some of it is in flashbacks, some is in dialog, some in replays of memories. Most of the books cover one year, and mostly only Harry. But there material about Harry outside the year is more than a word or two, and there's quite bit that's not about Harry, and not within the one year. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
If we have to go in such detail, we better change Wikipedia completely, because it won't be 100 procent correct otherwise. They chronicle the life of Harry Potter, all seven, because they are ABOUT Harry, told from HIS point of view. It doesn't matter that it tells the history of Dumbledore, Voldemort and so on, it is told from Harry's perspective, and what his part in all those stories is. By the way, there are no "multiple retellings" of Voldemort's attack on his parents, only one (in HP7), and no "a significant number of chapters" devoted to events when Harry was a baby (which ones? Only chapter one of HP1 and a few flashbacks that consist of only a few sentences). Does Patrick Rothfuss have to rename his series (The Kingkiller Chronicle) because it gives information on characters that are not Kvothe? Of course not. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It's weird to see you guys cling to this little detail so stubbornly. What's the big deal here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"Topic closed"? Who do you think you are? I'm getting ready to carpet bomb this thread with citations of academic criticism that makes the exact points about consistency and convention that I've been making here. With all due respect to fansites. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Except for a significant number of chapters......is a bit exaggerated. Off the top of my head, the prologue, epilogue, Voldemort kills Frank Bryce, Spinner's End & the Unbreakable Vow, Voldemort kills the muggle teacher are the only actual Harry-isn't-the-observer and/or falling-outside-the-7-year chapters out of 250-ish total. That's not a significant enough deviation to affect a "every book chronicles a year in Harry's life" description. Sorry, but I think you're being way too literal-minded about the text in question. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You assert that the chapters that go outside the year "don't matter" and when I say I have expert sources which say they do matter, you reply, no, ha ha, sources don't count here. Only the books count in the plot summary section! Yet the books themselves are the source for the fact that whole chapters are devoted to time outside Harry's life. And the sentence you're trying to keep from getting changed has THIS citation: Foster, Julie (October 2001). "Potter books: Wicked witchcraft?". Koinonia House. What?! There's SIX footnotes in the Plot section, none of them from the books.
I really think you should be willing to change your mind when presented with citations. I'm not going to waste my time looking up every example and citing it for you if you're said from the ouset that sources don't matter to you. But then, why are there so many citations in the Plot section? Or you could just let the word "mostly" into the sentence and move on. Why is this such a big deal to you? One word: mostly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Since nobody has provided any rational reason for this deletion, I'm going to boldy add the word "mostly" since using five whole words to be more specific might piss somebody off. Please do not revert unless you're prepared to cite facts, guidelines, or policy. I don't like it is not a reason.
Also, have you ever read Wikipedia:Ownership of content? Because behaving as if you are the curator of a particular article is not allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There are aberrations from the pattern chronicling one year in the book. This is not 24 (TV series). If you want to pretend that the structure of these seven books is clean and clear, then you're using this article to sell books instead of describe them. The reason it is hard to describe and hard to phrase in simple terms is that the book are muddled. They are not neat and tidy. You can't bend reality because you want your article to look a certain way. Since when did avoiding a little awkwardness become more important than accuracy? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just so we can be clear about what this is over, the only reason for saying without qualification that each book covers one year in Harry's life is that it sounds "awkward" to mention that the books deviate from this pattern? Is that right? Is that also the problem with the original edit that started this, the parenthetical "apart from prologues and epilogues"? Can we say "generally"? "For the most part"? "Most but not all of the chapters are about one year in Harry's life"? Are you saying you would support a change that was phrased better? You just want succinct, snappy wording? There must be some way of phrasing it. Or is there some other reason? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
he problem is that you are distorting the structure of these books, making them seem better planned, more carefully written, than they in fact areand similar passages. I've never seen this as having anything to to with literary criticism, or that retaining the passage makes the article a puff piece. It's absurd. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. As I said at the recently pointlessly opened ANI thread, this storm in a teacup really is as pointless as the addition of "mostly". The additional word makes the prose lumpy, is unnecessary and is, yes, pointless. Dennis Bratland, the consensus here is firmly against you on this point, and you are displaying big signs of WP:IDONTHEARYOU over one minor and unnecessary word. It's time for you to try and be a little more flexible in your approach, especially when your arguments are not being supported by anyone else. Pick your battles over things that matter in life: this really doesn't, and it's time to stop being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"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)
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)
"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)
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. [5] 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
enrol should be spelled enroll— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.72.217 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2011
.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)
Why there is no link? (in Article milestones) Bulwersator (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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:
Please, review and comment.
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)
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
| |
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) |
There is nothing on Harry Potter: The Exhibition on this page. Where should it be added? --DisneyFriends (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
Ignore the Yankee troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.53.133 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yankee troll??? As an American I find that offensive...Anyway since the Harry Potter series is rightfully British then we should use British spellings.
Reception and controversy, 6.1:
She actually called it a "secondary secondary world":
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)
There should be a link under the Games section at least mentioning Lego Harry Potter.
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
— Mr White 16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
There was also a misprint in the first print of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, where the Prior Incantatem had James appearing before Lily in some versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoFo Oedipus (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
And in the Translations sections, it say 67 still, but 73 in the summary. 206.174.0.181 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
Some people say it's 'Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests' but I mean, would they actually name it that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.40.109 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests. Vision Insider (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
Actually Sirius Black was not Harry's only living relative. Aunt Petunia,Uncle Vernon,and Dudley are his BLOOD relatives. Sirius Black isn't even Harry's blood relative, let alone his ONLY living relative. But he was very,very close and important to Harry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.40.109 (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)