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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Should we delete the disambig page and modify the disambig notice on this page - I don't think we need the book titles on any disambig notice/link? Brian Jason Drake 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be at least some mention of the characters in the character list; only a cursory once over is necessary.
* Harry Potter: the protagonist * Ron Weasley: his friend * Hermione Granger: his other friend * Lord Voldemort: the main villain * Albus Dumbledore: Headmaster of Hogwarts * Severus Snape: Potions master. Despises Harry * Rubeus Hagrid: Gamekeeper of Hogwarts. Adores Harry * Draco Malfoy: School bully and rival of Harry
That's all a cursory viewer needs. Why force people to read the characters' own articles? Serendipodous 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Um. Hi. I'm new. !
I've noticed that the lead (the beginning section of the article) seems a bit...improvable. I'm tinkering around on my word processor to see if I can conjure up a better one, but if you don't want me to, that's okay (I'm not doing a total overhaul, just a few tiny changes, such as the "Lord Voldemort, who uses the dark arts to kill Harry's parents and attempts to take over the world" bit). Sorry if I sound like a blithering idiot. Hm. Dread Pirate Felix 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And...I did it. And I now feel incredibly stupid. Argh. Revert if you wish; thanks for bearing with me. My only defense of my edits: "Highly" seemed more appropriate than "very", and I didn't see the point of mentioning Albus when Ron and Hermione aren't either. Oh, and I'm sorry about the Hogwarts thing. I think that looked better with the full name. *Changes back* And...now it looks redundant. ARGH! Dread Pirate Felix 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We have now reached the point where the entire first page of this article's edit history consists of fifty reverted edits. It's quite clear that this page, for whatever reason, is a vandal magnet. In my opinion it should be semi-protected for good. Serendipodous 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree. Semi-protection protects against newbies and non-registered...s...right? So, considering that this series will be in the spotlight for months to come...and the inevitable "haters" who will vandalize for whatever reason...I'd have to agree. Dread Pirate Felix 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree - all these acts of vandalism are sickening and their histories/reversions are gumming up my watchlist! I'd vote for permanent semi-protection. AulaTPN 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing - the page has been again vandalized immediately following reference 60, talking about a star wars - harry potter crossover. Please protect this page again.
I uploaded a fair use image, Image:Harry potter stamps.jpg, intending to replace the title cover of the first book in this article with the stamps, which have the book covers on them. Nonetheless, after reading the template:Non-free stamp, I noticed one condition was "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". Does this mean using the stamps in the article would qualify as fair use or be a copyright violation? If so, then the image should be deleted. Your advice is appreciated. Brisvegas 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC) This is what I mean:
File:Harry potter stamps.jpg | |
Author | J. K. Rowling (Joanne Rowling) |
---|---|
Country | United Kingdom |
Language | English |
Genre | Fantasy novel |
Publisher | Bloomsbury Publishing, et al. |
Publication date | 26 June 1997 |
Media type | Print (Hardback & Paperback) |
Pages | 190 pp (first edition, hardback) |
ISBN | 978-0747532743 (first edition, hardback) |
The criticism section is overwhelmingly "anti" at the moment; we need to find a few of those early positive reviews to balance it out. Serendipodous 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
FEMINIST AND LEFT-WING CRITICISM
According to an interview with Emma Watson, the French newspaper Liberation has stated that Harry potter is "right wing, sexist, neo-conservatist and gives a degrading idea of women". I think that this should be added in the criticisms section. Here's the source: http://www.gryffindorgazette.com/2007/04/30/interview-with-emma-watson
The release date for Order of the Phoenix in the states has been changed to July 11, 2007, ast stated on Mugglenet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.226.74 (talk • contribs)
Wait until it is officially confirmed. Serendipodous 06:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
A theater operator in Chicago told me that the release date is Wednesday, July 11, 2007.
Hi, I'm also new, but seeing as there are probably many fans that just typed in Harry Potter to see if there is a wiki site for it (like me) then we should also have a place for everyone to just talk, (since this is a talk page) and voice their opinion about Harry Potter. It can start right now:
histrylover: I really thought that the first books were good, but they kind of went down from the middle of the fourth book on... Histrylover 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the page number in book 6 where Harry is notified that he is the Gryffindor Quidditch captain? Badgerstripe 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But where? I can't find it! Badgerstripe 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
((editprotected)) This is a minor issue, but I am trying to clean up after a series of misguided contributions from Zackg323 (talk · contribs) and the last one remaining is a misplaced link to a Variety review [s]he added to the Harry Potter#References section. Could someone remove it? Thanks. — 68.167.253.224 (talk · contribs) 05:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please delete that extremely annoying sentence at the end of the Feminist Criticism section about Ginny being a redeeming "bold heroine", as it completely contradicts the point of the section, which is not the purpose of this article. Ginny is not a "bold heroine" that allays feminist concerns about the patriarchy of Harry Potter, quite simply because she's not given enough importance in the story. If you can find a critical essay that states otherwise then please cite it and we'll say no more; if not, it is a POV sentence and should be removed. 212.139.101.152 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The editing for this article has been restricted. That's why I've asked if someone else will kindly make the edit for me. 212.139.101.152
Or at least radically shortened it. It contains a LOT of original research and will need to be either extensively verified or ditched before this article can even hope to gain a GA nod, let alone an FA nod. Serendipodous 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think splitting the story off would allow focus on stuff like themes and motifs for those interested, and bring the article size down. Thoughts? Walker9010 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why was the "Structure and Genre" subsection deleted, when the OR-fest that is themes and motifs survives? Serendipodous 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Found it. It was deleted a month ago by an anonymous user without explanation. Got lost in the waves of vandalism. Just one more reason to keep this page semi-protected. Serendipodous 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK; trimmed down Themes section. It's probably also time to get the Themes and Motifs article deleted. Serendipodous 12:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a serious error in the Themes section, in that the supporting link states the opposite view to that of the Wiki contributor's. The current text reads, "Along the same lines is the ever-present theme of adolescence, in whose depiction Rowling has been purposeful in her refusal to acknowledge her characters' sexualities and leave Harry, as she put it, "stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence".[20]" But at the linked interview at [20], Rowling states the opposite intent, "She hints at unexpected twists ahead as Harry, the young wizard, grows up: "And he does grow up - in book four the hormones are going to kick in - I don't want him stuck in a state of permanent pre-pubescence like poor Julian in the Famous Five!"" - Sophie-David http://www.innerbeloved.com/ 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
hey could we get some like user boxes or template thingys for harry potter like "this User is a gryffindor" or whatever like have a death eater one too and stuff
I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books, and was reading this article. I noticed a few mistakes and some things that could perhaps be worded better. There might also be some overlookings, I haven't delved too far into that yet. When I tried to fix these small problems, though, I found that the article was protected. I thought making an account would let me edit, but evidently not. So, my question is this: how can I edit this page if it's protected? Any response would help. --
05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Solar Sunstorm
16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Things were getting a bit personal and I didn't like the way it was going. I thought this the best way to diffuse the situation before it exploded. And it's not like it was contributing anything useful to the article anyway. Serendipodous 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The "over" there seems extremely POV
Some hacker announced that [edited for possible spoilers]. Shouldn't this be noted?
Here are some news of the probable hack, should they be added? http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2149245,00.asp Harry Potter and the Plot-Spoiling, Phishing Scam By Lisa Vaas
Solar Sunstorm
18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Harry Potter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I believe the description 'bildungsroman' should be removed from this article because this term is used to describe a novel which charts the full progress of a character's life from birth to death. we do not yet know whether harry will die in the final book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.27.17 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 11:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The article contains the following:
At first, wizard mutts (for lack of a better term) are defined as "half-bloods," while "those with no magical ancestors" are defined as "muggle-borns." Does this refer to wizards who have no magical ancestry, or to non-wizards who have no magical ancestry? Can a wizard be born to two non-wizards who never had any magical ancestry? If not, then why does this article state that the bigots claim that "Muggle-borns should not be considered real wizards," as muggle-borns, by the definition above, are not wizards, let alone should they not be considered wizards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Solar Sunstorm
03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Solar Sunstorm
17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes and motifs in Harry Potter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
These and more links can be found here. --80.129.99.152 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"The wizarding world in which Harry finds himself is both utterly separate from and yet intimately connected to our own world."... that has got to be one of the most ill written lines in any well edited page on wikipedia. It reads like the crap someone in marketing spills out to fanbois, not like a well written addition to a page on a major literary work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.183.31 (talk • contribs)
This article is outrageously pro-Harry Potter! In every section you can find some example of this. We need to do something about this, as this site shouldn't be an advertisement for the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk • contribs)
A common refrain on many news and other web sites (see Google hits) is that the Harry Potter books have been translated into more languages than any book except the Bible. This seems odd. Are there any sources out there that back this claim up with statistics?
EDIT: OK, I've found this source which places her third behind L Ron Hubbard and Anne Frank. There is a problem here though. The cite doesn't mention religous texts, such as the Bible and the Tao te Ching, both of which claim to be the most translated book in the world. It is also further complicated by the fact that one of Hubbard's works, Dianetics, is itself technically a religious text, since it is the foundation text for the Church of Scientology. I'm also not inclined to believe Scientology's own official figures on this.
Here's an even more puzzling source that puts the Bible at #22 and Harry Potter off the list!
Serendipodous 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
i dont subscribe to this hilarius point of veiw i think it probly should be mentioned i hear enough about it that its a honest suprising it isnt here infact finding it is why i looked to begin with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.118.43 (talk • contribs)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |