Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Archive 1

Standards Discussion
This is more of a suggestion: If you are creating original supplimental templates and other "tools" for this Wikibook, you should try (when reasonable) to keep it within the namespace of this project. The above templates are probabaly going to be just fine, but the point is that you want to avoid namespace collisions with other Wikibooks, who may also have similar named items. It is perfectly fine to have five or six "modules" in Wikibooks to have the same name, and even cover the same material. Since they would be in seperate Wikibooks, the namespace allows the content to be seperated.

How you've named the articles and subsections is perfectly reasonable... I'm just trying to point out that you do need to step a little more carefully on Wikibooks if you don't stick to the common namespace of the Wikibook. --Rob Horning 08:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. I didn't really realize that could be done. So templates should be created as Template:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/TemplateName ? Since it's early in the book I might just convert things. -Matt 23:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you describe this as a childrens book? If you travel on the London underground right now HBP is likely the most common book you will see being read by adults. very much more common than any other single book. The 'adult covers' were supposedly introduced for adults too embarassed to be seen rereading the childrens cover version. I am sure more adults will have read these books than most 'adult' books in existence. Also note that for whatever reason, content has become steadily more 'adult' as the series has progressed.Sandpiper 08:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Harry Potter books are children's books. Rowling has said it herself. It's important to accompany several reader ages. Wikijunior is a secondary goal for now; we need to develop the general content first. I reworded the standards to not be so heavy on 'children' nonetheless. -Matt 13:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I begin to wonder if JKR had a plan to write a set of books intended to be read one book each year as you grow up. This would still make them childrens books, but certainly breaking into adults at the top end. Aside from that, surely the definition is not what the author intended, but what really happened. These books were originally rejected by many publishers, because they did not fit the pattern for childrens books. How many of these books are being read by adults for themselves, how many by children for themselves. An awful lot of quite expensive books just got sold. Who forked out for that, and why? Which group is most likely to become fanatical enough to want to find out more here, so what will the readership here be? But yes, I would agree it would be correct to bear in mind that some readers might be quite young.User:Sandpiper8/8/2005


 * what is appropriate usage for spoiler warnings in character descriptions? Presently it is one article per character, so where should spoilers go? A summary article about a character might contain very basic information (like their death in book 6, say) which would be a very big spoiler for book 1. So should 'character articles have a blanket spoiler warning?Sandpiper 09:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not reveal any significant information in the biography. That section is for simple character attributes. Beginners should only see the biography. All but one of the following sections are for intermediate readers. The last section, "Greater Picture," is for advanced readers only. Please see Severus Snape for the template you should use. It would be great if you could enforce this policy on all the other character pages. This book must stay away from being a Macropedia and really focus on the analysis. Your commentary so far looks great. -Matt 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * hmm, still tricky. I think it may be hard to describe a section as 'biography' if you can not include what would normally be main biographical details, because they would be spoilers. Maybe the heading needs amending somehow? Yes, I can see how it would work with a description of the characters appearance, manner, general affiliations, etc, but this is not precisely biography.
 * The piece I wrote into Snape includes some analysis, drawing in the bit from the prevous book. (memory of exact events there is rather less clear in my head, or i might have added the section in the relevant book, I will eventually). From what you say, you might conside this more appropriately included in general analysis (advanced). Or do you envisage that general will include things which are very hard to precisely pin down from the text, where maybe only a set of possible interpretations can be identified? The issue I described is still the subject of great debate, though the majority I have seen is tending the way I wrote it here (2:1?). This may prove to be a significant spoiler for book 7, though I would hope that JKR knows this and has already planned how she will maintain reader interest despite her own clues. Sandpiper 16:13 bst 8aug 2005 (appologies this keyboard has no tilde).


 * I renamed the first section to "Attributes." Here is what I planned for the sections:
 * Attributes: general descriptive statistics. A small amount of text about how the character looks, acts, etc. No analysis (i.e. looks, demeanor, main activities and occupation).
 * Role in the Books: details of the character's actions in the book. Still, no analysis. This is still the descriptive phase of the page (i.e. killed X in Book 5).
 * Strengths and Weaknesses: some analysis on where the character has faults, etc. Beginning of inserting facts to back up character statements (i.e. has trouble with confidence, crafty).
 * Relationships with Other Characters: interactions with other characters and the character's stance on others. Personal referencing (i.e. affectionate towards Y).
 * Analysis: general analysis on the character. Whereas the Role section covered how the character acted, this covers why the character acted. Some content here can tie in with relationship analysis the section above (i.e. X feels at home when at Y and feels a great sense of protectiveness over it).
 * Questions: reflection questions for the reader. Made to help the reader gain insight on the character (i.e. does this character really care about X?).
 * Greater Picture: present on many other pages, this is the true "tie-in" section. It points out what the character is likely to do / how likely to act. Point out future controversy and where the role of the character is headed, especially in reference to other characters (i.e. X is likely to go after Y in Book 7 due to his infatuation with Z. After Z's death this damaged X greatly).
 * -Matt 17:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Attributes sounds a bit clinical, or more to do with dungeons and dragons than people. 'Background', 'History', 'Overview'? something indicating that this is general information, and indeed might vary quite a bit from character to character.Sandpiper 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's just go with "Overview" then. That'll work. -Matt 22:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would think that the general spoiler template should only be used on plot pages. That keeps its use to only the Books section. Any other sections will be sufficiently flagged using the Beginner and Intermediate spoiler templates. -Matt 14:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Discussion
While I think this version of the guide has been modified sufficiently to perhaps justify why it should be a Wikibook, I dislike how this was added to avoid the link to the Wikibook Harry Potter plots that is going through a VfD discussion. The two are linked together, and frankly the discussion on the VfD page, as it is mostly positive, is going to serve as a justification to keep this Wikibook here rather than something to drag it down. The Harry Potter plots page can be removed with a speedy delete comment once you get everything to where you want it to be at. Please don't try to really muddy up the discussion by starting a new Wikibook instead, and you could have done a page move to the eariler content without really mucking things up.

Still, I like the direction this is going. My comment about deleting duplicate content from Wikipedia is still valid, and it should go. Links to Wikipedia are fine and even encouraged. I'm not trying to bite too hard, and the reason for the VfD is simply to close out the discussion for once and all. --Rob Horning 18:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I answered what you say above on the VFD page. I don't believe this book was created to avoid anything. I believe it was created to show how a proper book should be formed. The book was discussed right in the VFD discussion. I have no problem with Harry Potter plots being deleted now that the Muggles' guide provides for it. I hope this Guide really works well; I think I'll be spending a lot of time at Wikibooks now. -Matt 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Structuring
This is a request to anyone who wants to leave comments on how this book should be structured. This book is VFDed at the moment, mainly I think because it is seen as becoming a Macropedia. I see this guide as a reference textbook to the series. I think the sections that exist now should stay and be developed with specific attention towards analysis of whatever the article is talking about. Wikipedia has some descriptions but I think this book should have both descriptions and analysis. While NPOV is important on Wikipedia, I believe some analysis and angling should occur here at the book, especially with characters. So, my questions, specifically to maybe admins or other big editors here:


 * How should a reference textbook be approached when it has some connection to being a Webopedia? It is important to have lots of distinct detailing (i.e. why wasn't the Solar System book's page on the moon structured as "read the Wikipedia article for details on the Moon, here are some questions?"). I'd like to have lots of sections on specific things. Analysis is also included, but the structuring is like a Webopedia. Are critical commentary and questions about the section a good thing to include? How does a guidebook get down to details and not be encyclopaedic?
 * How should Wikipedia content be moved here? A lot of Wikipedia pages go into a lot of depth. A book seems more appropriate for such depth. Also, some details should be shared between the two projects, especially character biographies. Can that be a copy?
 * What should a book's TOC be structured as when it is mostly a reference and analysis text? I realize the importance of an index. How should the above mentioned and already created categories be organized if they stay in the book?

Thanks. -Matt 14:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out with Wikijunior (as opposed to the other Wikibooks) is that it is sort of a Wikipedia for younger kids. At some point in the future it has been suggested that Wikijunior is going to get its own server and be entirely on its own. The whole project was kinda forced upon Wikibooks by the foundation (there was some sort of grant in it for about $20,000 that went to the foundation as well... paying for the server you are currently using with some additional funding coming from a few other sources). So what I'm trying to suggest is that Wikijunior books really don't compare to the rest of Wikibooks in terms of policies. Especially since Wikijunior has its own complete set of policy guides (like a really bizzare one of no expansion or new book ideas unless agreed upon by the "community"...or even new article ideas for that matter... I've pushed it quite a bit on the Solar System.) IMHO it should have been done on meta first, but instead it has been done through Wikibooks.

I think if this Wikibook is done properly, it can become the standard to compare other literary study guides. I'm sure you could get creative if you had to make this on a more literary format, but I don't think that is strictly necessary. How far you would like to go on the deconstruction of the plots and characters of the Harry Potter series is also debatable. I'm also curious how much comparison/contrast between the books and the cinema versions has been done? I'm sure you can find it at fan sites, but Wikibooks would allow you to organize it in a much better manner. --Rob Horning 07:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Unite with the Harry Potter WikiProject
I think it would be a good idea to run this Wikibook from the Harry Potter WikiProject. It's not a closed project; anyone here has a voice there. Instead of Harry Potter fans being split into dozens of small enclaves, we'd help to create a single place for Harry Potter fans from all Mediawiki sites to meet. We could then set joint Wikipedia and Muggles' Guide consensus on what subjects deserve a Wikipedia article and how in-depth it should be, as well as provide visible links to the longer, more in-depth articles here. This would do a lot to direct fans' energies here and build this up, and it would also help soothe the Wikipedians against "fancruft". &mdash; 131.230.133.185 05:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Info on this book has been posted there for some time. I hope some people will actually come over to help. Book summaries are already linked but more more content needs to be. A big issue (and I'm sure the Harry Potter Wikipedia contributors will get annoyed by this) is Transwiking the inappropriate Wikipedia content here. Over time that should happen. Harry Potter Wikipedia pages are really pushing what an encyclopedia should address and the Guide seems a more appropriate place for in depth coverage and analysis of the storyline. -Matt 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia is not going to accept detailed descriptions and analysis, then it is hard to see how they can be transferred from here to there. It sounds more like this will become the main source of in-depth information, with 'pedia only as an entry point.Sandpiper 09:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I note there is a flag on 'pedia Potter requesting people to port information over to here. Is there policy on what to do with it when it arrives? I guess I mean, take it as a gift to start the articles, then amend it as appropriate? This is beginning to sound a little schizophrenic. People will have a choice of two articles on each topic in different wikis. Sandpiper 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some things on Wikipedia are pushing what an encyclopedia should contain and should be Transwikied. Appropriate material could be moved over if the HP Wikipedia community has a concensus that it is a good idea. I wouldn't want trash coming over here. I expect (and will definitely enforce) quality in this book. There definitely won't be two copies of things; Wikipedia would do its job with explaining the proper amount of information and Wikibooks would handle critical commentary. Copying from Wikipedia is a definite no. Only Transwikied material can come here. Even if they try to Transwiki, Wikibooks has to accept it. The community seems large enough that people will agree to the right things. Anyone doing the Transwiking will need to know both Wikipedia and Wikibooks policies. Since I've gotten into some decent discussions with Wikibooks people over in VFD, I'll probably attempt doing it when the time comes, if ever. The content might just get wiped off Wikipedia if it's garbage and we don't want it here at all. -Matt 20:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that has left me even more confused. I saw the tag on 'pedia asking people to copy articles (eg an article about a particular character) over here. As far as I can see, just copy and paste onto an edit box here and it is done. Then it would be a question of reorganising the information for here. That is not about officially transferring a page, rather about putting something on the large number of blank pages here. It is very much easier to take a piece of existing text and reorganise it. Some HP pedia articles have struck me as rather good, though others have definite factual errors (though I would not claim to be able to precisely correct them without a deal of checking).
 * What about pictures? Obviously the pictures show film actors and are just one interpretation of characters, but they do liven up a page.Sandpiper 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who starts moving things needs to follow the rules. If people start moving articles we'll get into the politics then. As for images, if those movie characters seem fitting, I think it would be fine to put them in the page. You'll have to edit the template but that's not difficult. This book isn't about the movies, but there should be some visual representation and the drawings people make are almost always horrible. Movie photos are probably the best choice. -Matt 20:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Book and Chapter Analysis
I think the creation of sub-pages for each chapter is fine, but I also think an overview is needed to orient the reader as to the main plot. This would not necessarily mention every chapter, but really should give a decent synopsis. Pedia is going the way of being very terse in its descriptions and will not fill the needs of someone who wants to spend half an hour and become a dinner party expert.

I noticed that chapter pages do not have a last/next link. One is needed! Sandpiper 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's an "Overview" section on the book pages now. Regarding last/next, that will come once organizational changes come to a stop and pages stabilize. Chapters will surely stay the same, but a lot of last/next page business can be added to make the book more booklike once things calm down. For now things are changing too much. -Matt 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter plots
Have you finished with this page? If so, please mark it for speedy deletion. Thankyou. - Aya T C 03:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Be aware that there are many many inward links to it from Wikipedia. Those will need to be tracked down and changed. Until such time it should not be deleted. GarrettTalk 08:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This book, the original before the Guide, was only created a few days earlier. Only a few links were made on Wikipedia and the pages have been redirected to the Guide. This page is acceptable for deletion and I have listed it as such. -Matt 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Be aware that if you mark a page for speedy deletion, you should not add it to WB:VFD. See WB:DP for further clarification. - Aya T C 15:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is now done. If the problems suggested by Garrett are in fact accurate, you might want to recreate Harry Potter plots as a redirect to this book. Also note that the MediaWiki devs are working on an interwiki version of "what links here", but this may take some time to implement. - Aya T C 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no inward links from the Wikipedia main article space, as far as I am aware, and haven't been for some time. When the Muggles' Guide was initially set up, I went through all of the Wikipedia articles and modified the  tags pointing to Harry Potter plots into  tags pointing at the various sub-pages of the Guide. (As an incidental benefit, this finally gave Wikipedia a means for referencing individual chapters of Wikibooks. &#9786;) Uncle G 16:02:04, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Etymology notes
Transwiki:Notes on etymology in the world of Harry Potter is now available for incorporation here. Uncle G 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are there any plans to integrate this page into the book? --hagindaz 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot about it pretty much. No. It's now on speedy delete. -Matt 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary pages?
Some of the pages on the "magic" section seem unnecessary. I think it would be better to split the magic page into 5 pages, one for each section. And after that, you put all the information on a single page.

The best layout is the kind that *reduced* the amount of clicking the user has to make IMO. --Dragontamer 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chapter details and seperation
I found this portal looking for another one to participate with, and I am more than willing to help. I have already begun, however I (unfortunatly) dont have a book right here in my face. Im in class. lol. I will though, like to help out, and will help make the Muggles Guide to Harry Potter more accurate and resource-ful. Thanks alot. PS: the books that I use are in American English, so if something is inaccurate in the books because of language translations, please let me know. 67.115.220.195 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent that you want to help out. Please create a user account and add your name to the list of authors on the main page. Definitely make sure you understand how the pages are written (see above). Look at well-developed pages such as Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Harry Potter to see how to write things. Most importantly though is to get book chapter summaries written. I saw you edited some summaries. We need to get extended versions onto each chapter page (and remember the templates!). Also, I think American English is fine. -Matt 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chapter names
It has occurred to me that it might be useful to have chapter names, rather than just numbers, on the book overview page. Right now, for instance, we have nothing but the chapter numbers on this overview page, but it would be easier to find the specific chapter needed if the chapter title was there as well. Granted, there might be some spoiler effect, but that would be only slight... and it's a lot easier to find a specific event from the chapter name, in my opinion. As a test, I've done this for Philosopher's Stone. Thoughts? Chazz 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Although new and different, I don't mind the new listing you have on Philosopher's Stone. As an addition, it might not be a bad idea to rename the pages as well. Making the list on the summary page will be easier with such a change. If no one objects, I can go through and move each page. Also, spoilers shouldn't need to be considered since they have been warned twice previously that going to book pages will give away information. That's why you don't see the warning on each chapter page as well. There should be a flow to all the pages (like a book) including the explanations of the reader levels, but perhaps only I really see it since I wrote them and we'll have to wait for the first version of the book as a PDF to show it (which maybe we can have the end of the year as a goal for that). When you structure a page think of how it would look in a book since that will be the final result. Some organizational changes may need to happen before we PDF the project. I'm thinking it will be several hundred pages. -within focus 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a little concerned about changing the name of the chapter pages in the book, if only because it would take longer to type the link target when you're linking to a particular chapter. Of course, that's a trivial complaint... but it is true that the list on the summary page will be only in the one place, and there may be a much larger number of links to any given chapter. Additionally, wasn't there something somewhere about allowing transWiki linkage to specific chapters? That said... my purpose is, given that someone is looking for the story of "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback", it is a lot easier to find it in the list that is in PS now, than a simple bald "Chapter 14". Chazz 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have finished Chamber of Secrets summaries now, I have tweaked CoS's outline page the same way. I hope I'm not being too rash... Chazz 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will make the changes later if no one else has anything to say. Given your arguments, it will probably be better for Interwiki linking if the chapter page is named after the chapter I think. -within focus 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Prefects
There is a comment on the Index talkback that Prefects should be mentioned in the book. I agree, as it isn't immediately obvious what a Prefect is to the ordinary reader; but it also isn't magic by any means -- any school that runs on the English model will have prefects, mine did for instance. I would suggest possibly a sub-head below Major Events for School Offices, which would contain Pefects, Head Boy / Head Girl, and Quidditch team captain; this fits better than anything else, because Ron's becoming a prefect (e.g.) is a fairly serious event in the overall story. Chazz 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this for a while, I actually have created that subhead and started populating the article on Prefects at least. The other articles will follow as I have time. Chazz 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month candidate
I've decided to nominate this Wikibook as a Collaboration of the Month candidate... in preparation to becoming a full Book of the Month candidate. Seriously. This content has gone a long way from when it was listed as a VfD back elsewhen, and has become one of the crown jewels for Wikibooks, and I want to thank everybody who has participated so far. My intention here is that this is a book that could have some general interest contributions by ordinary Wikimedia users, and give this some additional exposure on the front page that it certainly deserves.

This content is also so close to being one of the best of Wikibooks that I also feel that a big push to help improve the content is really all that it needs, and is in fact one of the goals for the Collaboration of the month campaign. More than just raw advertising, I think this is a book that truly deserves this sort of attention.

If you feel as I do that this book could use that sort of attention, please cast your vote on the current voting page for Collaboration of the Month and let everybody know about this book that may be new to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration?
This book still needs serious work. Before anyone even thinks of nominating it for BotM, there should definitely be another CotM. I fixed up a few articles just because I ran across them. Seriously, even the Voldemort article was grievously lacking! Jfingers88 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This book will continue to need serious work for many months since its coverage is massive. It will not be long until this is the largest book on Wikibooks in my opinion. When there are 500+ pages and about two continuous editors, it takes time to filter out the garbage people add and build up quality content. -Matt 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Inactive and Active Authors
I'm one of the active authors of this wikibook but erased from the listing because I haven't been contributing for a long time. I've contributing s far the Triwizard Tournament, Hogsmeade, St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry's academics, books of the wizarding world and the Ministry of Magic. What I want to say is, even the author hasnt been contributing for a long time, as long as he/she has contributed single article/ideas/whatever, he/she should never been erased from the lists of the author. Or if you want to emphasize who are actively and not actively contributing, just put it at the end of the uername. Hope you got my point. 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly aren't an active author here. The three names preceding you have formed a very nicely-organized and intelligent team that contributes great work and continues to do so in the present (although one of those three may soon be removed due to inactivity). Once this book is published, those three names will be the ones I list as authors of the book since those are the ones that have formed substantial contributions to the project. The line must be drawn somewhere. I have now titled the authors section "Active Authors" so that inactive and insignificant users can be removed in future situations if and when the time comes. That section is only meant to be a helpful guide for individuals who might want to contact current contributors and could possibly not even be listed in the official book at all. -within focus 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've made a mistake on my sentence there. Yeah, I know Im not active anymore now but in the future I will contribute, I just need time for thinking more information (especially in the Characters and Place). And thanks for changing it to Active Authors. 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a very very bad stub. Decided to add the "template" to it
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Magic/Portus was quite the bad stub indeed. So I just added what I knew about the subject (aka, nothing) and put it into what appears to be your template. I would suggest that someone check it over. --Dragontamer 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gone. It will be created appropriately at a later date. -within focus 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... apart from the fact that I'm now curious, would it not have been better to leave it as Dragontamer had left it? I mean, Dragontamer had provided a band-aid; granted that is not ideal, but simply wiping it off the face of creation is rather disrespectful to him; and it could stand until someone expanded on it, no? Chazz 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having it as it was didn't give much of any information whatsoever. I delete useless stubs all the time because they're almost always three-word descriptions from an anonymous user about a topic and would achieve more progress if created at a later date. There's a lot of poorly-written pages in the Guide and I see it as better to re-create them later. Nonetheless, since you wanted it back, I restored it. -within focus 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With that level of invitation, how can I resist filling it out a bit? Actually, I was more wondering what set "a very bad stub" apart from the other three-word stubs I have found... and must confess to remaining somewhat unenlightened. Was it just the usual "Makes a portkey." sort of thing? Chazz 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning about HP "fan art", etc. on commons.
The toolserver's down right now so I'm not sure if any of these are used in this book, but "fan art" (see Harry Potter) is considered a derivative work,and all images are being deleted on sight. They might be "fair use" on Wikibooks though... just don't upload these on commons because we have to delete them (sorry!). -- SB_Johnny | talk 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fanart shouldn't be used as it is a form of "original research" and is interpretation that hasn't been used in any of the published materials. John Reaves 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can see on the Commons that we use is not in the Fanart section – the Platform 9-3/4 sign is used in the article for that Place. I'm not sure I agree with John that there is no place for fan art in the book; the cover, for instance, is fan art, though AFAICS there is no way that it could be considered particularly derivative, as it has nothing in it that is directly related to any copyrighted images. Chazz 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the book needs a cover, but individual interpretations of people and things would be stretching the limits. John Reaves 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get a new cover in some time since the current one is pretty gross. -within focus 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue against "gross" as a description; it is actually pretty good. BUT it uses the image of Hogwarts from the film – contrary to what I thought earlier, once I had had a good look at it I see that it is the WB version of Hogwarts – and as such it may well be pushing the limits of copyvio. Chazz 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the green way too powerful. There's got to be something better for us to put up there. -within focus 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters (from the characters talk page)
I propose either deleting each or merging minor characters in one article which is redirected to by the individual pages. John Reaves 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd need to have some pretty fierce definition of what comprised a "minor character". Pretty much any definition would have to have exceptions: Marcus Flint? He's in three books. Adrian Pucey? Two. Minor? Good question. If forced to decide, I'd say Marcus, no, Adrian, yes. Armando Dippet? No... needs an individual write-up. Bertha Jorkins? Strictly speaking, not in any books – when we first hear of her, she's dead – but she's a relatively major part of the set-up of book 4. Personally, I would be slightly opposed because of the problem of definition. Plus, JKR does have a habit of taking a minor character and suddenly making him or her rather important: e.g. Arabella Figg. And we can't know which until it happens: e.g. Mark Evans. Chazz 08:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say base the def. on the length of the article and personal judgement. If Rowling develops a character, then the article can then be developed, it's not hard to do.  The problem is that there are articles that have only one or two sentences.  John Reaves 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that's a flaw in the article, rather than it being an actual minor character. But I see your point: if it can't be expanded beyond a single sentence, maybe it does belong on a dedicated minor characters page. Chazz 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the time it's a flaw due to the person who created an essentially useless stub. There's nothing negative about having separate pages for characters and it's much easier to organize that way. At the least each individual should have an infobox which separate pages supply easily. This book will be made into one large page anyway (for printing) and having separate pages makes the design of the full book much easier as well since it becomes very modular. I'm pretty opposed to this. Over time, pages will slowly gain more and more. -within focus 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually leaves me in rather a quandary. I just created a set of pages for the characters who are listed as being Sorted in GoF. In the process I found a three-word stub for one character, and a ten-word stub for Dennis Creevey, and nothing for any of the others. I've put in the full framework for all of them, but there's not much I can say about (e.g.) Stewart Ackerly: he's Sorted into Ravenclaw, but I don't know if we ever see him again. Did I do the right thing by creating him at all? Chazz 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Educational use?
How is it that this book could be used in an academic and educational setting? --Remi 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to exactly? These books are heavily studied at numerous universities, not to mention secondary schools where the students are much more actively reading them. This book is Cliff's Notes for the Harry Potter series and offers critical insight into what is happening in the books. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you take a look at the second VfD (link at the top of this page), you will see that someone has actually enumerated a bunch of universities that as of two years ago were offering courses in HP. I personally don't know whether this series will have the lasting power of (e.g.) Dickens, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did; and Dickens, in his day, was seen as a good writer, but not a classic. Chazz (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Names
What a great job you've done here. Shoudn't names be sorted in lists like this:


 * Malfoy, Draco
 * Potter, Harry

instead of:


 * Draco Malfoy
 * Harry Potter

? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We list the names in more readable forms yet still sort by last name. If you see a non-sorted name, please correct it. Thanks. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spell template
How about adding to the spell template? So fx Avada Kedavra would be: Type Spell (curse) instead of: Type Spell --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All the spells use the Magic template. If you'd like to add additional information into a field, please do so. The current number of fields, however, seems to be set up the most efficiently for handling our other magic types as well and so I wouldn't want to add any new ones. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about adding a new field into it, only more information into the current fields. Check this out, I've added "(curse)": Avada Kedavra. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, as long as it's consistent with all spells. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't really be consistent, because for a lot of spells the nature of the spell depends on who is casting it. If Moody casts Stupefy, it's a charm (called a spell for assonance); if Barty Crouch Jr. casts it, it's a jinx. At least, that's my understanding. To quote another author, "Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent"; a spell that doesn't necessarily have deleterious effect may be either black or white depending on circumstance. Chazz (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comment. I agree. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although Avada Kedavra can never be anything but a curse. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But Aurors are authorized to use deadly force against Death Eaters. And Molly Weasley does dispatch Bellatrix Lestrange... maybe not with Avada Kedavra, but given that she is defending her children (and later herself), is it then a curse that she uses? Chazz (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

lmskiver's Writeup in DH chapter 36
I am... impressed with this writeup. But I suspect that it is in the wrong place.

Rather than have it be in the Chapter 36 Greater Picture section, I think that a better place for it might well be in a separate section of its own, one that is linked in after the Epilogue. That should probably be done for each of the seven books in fact; I think that each book could benefit from a whole-book overview and a place in the series overview.

Any thoughts? Chazz (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the series is complete we will need to turn a lot of our attention to the Greater Picture sections once we get all the chapter summaries in. I like the idea of adding a "overall analysis" page of some sort a little bit below the chapter listing for each book page. Is there anything else we could add besides a book analysis page? Anything we should discuss for each book? Notable events perhaps? -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Chazz's idea! It's actually what brought me to the Muggle Studies site in the first place. I had finsihed 7, and was trying to look at the Greater Picture (GP) of how each of the books played into each other, the overall themes and threads that linked one to next, and how succintly Rowling wove them!... I thought I find the shortcuts I needed in the GP section and was dismayed it was incomplete... I was searching for answers to why this? and not that? and what's the overall meaning? even, how does this relate to other literary giants like Tolkein & Lewis? I wanted input from other sources to be convinced that I was really getting it!

I found few insights online, so I was left to my own brain and long conversations with friends. Ironically, they are still catching up, but because of their questions about HP's development in Yr.5, and my trying to both explain and defend him, I had the brainstorm that erupted on your pages. Move it where you deem fit... I wasn't sure it belong here, but felt that it was important to share, for the same reasons I sought it out.

I might add that my cadre' were all Christians... I could write a whole section on how JKR, accused of Wicca and occult promotion, has woven a tale that can be viewed positively from a Christian point of view... and I was confessedly nonplussed, since I was reading for sheer pleasure and wasn't looking for it, or expecting to find it! -<font color="#000000">lmskiver <font color="#7A7A7A">lmskiver 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat busy lately and might not be able to fully contribute my ideas to this currently, but I would like to add a warning that any external references to other authors, religion, etc. should be kept distinctly separate from chapter summaries and the like. This is a very different world of analysis and I want to make sure it doesn't get mixed in with the content-specific analysis too much. This is a topic for advanced readers only. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I can likely handle this. Question: We obviously will want a Detailed Book Analysis section; should that be right on the book page with the chapter headings, with the Intermediate spoiler warning on it, or should it be a separate section entirely, with a link pointer? Maybe a link under the chapter list? Either way would be reasonable, I think... Chazz (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the analysis living in the book's (sub-)namespace since it pertains to just that book. I would want to add a whole new section, probably under Book Highlights, where we could create a couple new sub-pages. The links to these new sub-pages would be under an intermediate spoiler warning. If we go with this idea, we should decide if we'd like to split the book analysis up at all and if so what those sub-pages would be called. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotcha re:references to other things... if it were ever done it would have to be separate stuff, and probably done via links to external wiki-pages (for all I know someone's already done it; although I bet no one has tackled the "science" thing)... I am and was just thinking out loud about possibilities. RE: the analyses... I'm the newbie here, so I respectfully defer to whatever you all agree upon; I also have no clue how to set up subpages (although I could figure it out in time, I prefer the shortcuts, which are the both of you). Just let me know in what ways you might like me to contribute to the effort. PS. withinfocus, still having a prob with my talk page link... grrr, but I have figured out the rest of my signature... hee, hee... this is fun. Thanks -<font color="67008C">lmskiver <font color="#e02b00"> &dagger; alk 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a new section to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Deathly Hallows for everyone to check out. The sub-pages I linked are my ideas for good pieces of this overall new analysis topic. Add, edit, and remove as you like. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I'll have to go through lmskiver's write-up to see if it needs to be sub-divided, but I don't think it needs it; it may just all fit into the Overall Analysis section. Have to create a template for it, of course, though it'll be very wide-open. Chazz (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Now done. Looked like the write-up that lmskiver did could be broken into two pieces, character development and storyline analysis, so I put it into two sections. Also tweaked it a little... you know, editors, not happy until they've played with it. I may be wrong in how I've broken it up, but it feels all right to me at the moment... if anyone disagrees, please feel free to correct me. On the bit about why Harry did not die when Voldy did: I'm still piecing that together, it is very complex. Chazz (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I renamed the page to Characters to be consistent and deleted the old redirect and such. I'll try to read the content sometime soon. Why Harry lived when Voldemort died didn't see too complex to me (I figured it's just the prophecy that "neither can live while the other survives" and once Harry's Horcrux is gone there's no real connection between the two anymore and Voldemort plain dies) but how exactly Harry survived the Avada Kedavra that destroyed his Horcrux is much more complex. Thoughts? Saying "the Killing Curse just hit the Horcrux and not Harry himself" seems incomplete. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it's complex is because of the interrelation. The Elder Wand cannot harm Harry because it accepts Harry as its master -- contrary to the apparent path through history, it is not murder that defeats the bearer of the wand, but forcible removal of the wand, so the wand became Malfoy's, and Malfoy was defeated by Harry. (It was Malfoy's wand Harry was holding when he defeated Voldy. Presumably the Elder Wand recognizes the wand that stood against it, rather than the bearer.) At the same time, Harry can not be killed by Voldy because of the blood linkage -- as he is using Harry's blood, he provides that protection. Which seems far-fetched, Voldy certainly had Riddle blood in him, but he quite handily bumped off Tom Sr. back in '44 or so. Then again, Tom Sr. didn't care about Tom Jr., likely didn't even know he existed. So: Voldy's curse knocks Harry into the waystation, but it is then his option whether to go on or return; and if he goes on, taking Voldy with him, there will still be one Horcrux in Nagini to allow Voldy to return. I don't know whether the creature is meant to be Voldy's soul -- recall he too is knocked out when that curse hits Harry -- or the fragment that was in Harry, but I suspect the former; the fragment, being just a fragment, would have frayed and vanished. In the other direction, then, once the soul fragment is gone, the only thing allowing Voldy to continue to live is Nagini and his own soul; and Nagini snuffs it. There is still the blood link, but that is unidirectional: Lily did not die to save Voldy, did she? And the Elder Wand still believes Harry to be its owner because nobody has forcibly disarmed Harry since he nabbed Malfoy's wand. And therein lies the entire tale, as far as I have figured it out so far... any thoughts? Chazz (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally missed this comment; I must not have been reading RC later that day. Anyway, I think I agree with everything you've just said. There definitely is a lot there and we should definitely explain this. Some of it might be presumption but that's what Analysis and Greater Picture are for really as long as they're sound arguments and alternatives are proposed.


 * On a separate note, I formatted the new book analysis pages to what I think is a good idea for expansion. You never really start a page here with a title; there's always a small intro and so I stuck some (useless) text there to build upon. There's an intermediate warning on the book page for the section as well as one on the first section of each new page, just like how we do it on our other templated pages. Tell me if anyone dislikes this. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up that interrelationship write-up, though I'm still not entirely happy with it; I may hammer it again in a while, once I have re-read that section of the book. Meanwhile, I have to ask: what sort of thing do you envision for the real-world connections section? Chazz (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it might contain connections to real events in the world like Grindelwald's possible connection to WWII or whatever it was. This would discuss how the author hinted at reality through the story of the magical world. This might be weak for most books so I guess it could be removed. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Links
Relative links have been replaced with full links. See here. I've managed to track the cause of this to these pages: User_talk:Chazz (specifically, the "New Page Freeze" and "Re:Bot" sections), User_talk:Whiteknight (Here, "Muggles' Guide Print Version" and "Test runs (Muggles' Guide)"), and User_talk:Withinfocus ("PDF Version" and "re:Bot"). Apparently, there was an issue of some sort when creating a "for print" mega-page. Could be a good idea to provide an outline here, to explain what was happening and why. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Shrieking Shack has relative links. What's up with that? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for the replacement of relative links with absolute ones is part of the preparation for the print version of the book. The print version is created by first converting to PDF, and the PDF conversion script is not capable of handling relative links. As for the Shrieking Shack page, that was evidently overlooked by the automatic script, which means it may not be properly on the Contents page. I will correct that this afternoon. Chazz (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a coder, i'd rather have changed one script to add the very-welcomed feature of handling relative links, rather than update hundreds of pages, and possibly on multiple book projects too. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay... the Shrieking Shack page is going to be a small problem, because we have two of them. I'll check with an administrator whether we need to merge the edit history of Shrieking Shack and The Shrieking Shack. Chazz (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Shrieking Shack was more complete by a fraction, so I have merged content and set The Shrieking Shack to be deleted. Chazz (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, having links end in a slash, to work around having to type them as "[...]/PageName|PageName", appears to have caused subsequent issues, and was removed as well. Pity... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes; the simple reason for that is that they just don't work. If an absolute link of more than one level ends with a slash, the Wikibooks display code seems to think that means we've left out the final level and redlinks, looking for a page named "[...]/PageName/" (with an empty name). If an absolute link ends without a slash, the entire absolute link displays, rather than the final link. Apparently, whoever designed that code was not prepared for the deep tree structure that the Muggles' Guide uses. Chazz (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So this is actually a side-effect of having absolute links. :-( Fwiw, the nicety of the ending slash was for relative links only, and then it worked best only on single-level links... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Review Standards
We need to decide loosely what we'll look for when marking a page as reviewed. First thoughts? -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay -- there are three categories in which we are asked to rate things, and I think we may want to have separate conversations about each. I'll suggest that we should sign our comments in each subhead so we know who's talking.

Composition

 * First is Composition. This is pretty much self-explanatory; level 1 is "correct spelling and grammar", level 2 is "good structure", and level 3 is "consistent style". All pages are at level 1 now, and most of the ones I've worked on, and pretty much all of Raven's, are at level 2. I don't know if I can claim "consistent style" because I don't know what the style should be. This is where I would like to get help from Raven, in particular. Chazz (talk)
 * All of our pages are highly structured and organized, so I don't think this one will cause much trouble. Almost all pages will receive a 3 in my opinion, and the small number of 2s will most likely due to the page being empty or unformatted. We tend to have very little spelling mistakes or grammar issues, so I think we don't need to worry about this since the existing frameworks have taken care of it already. Just make sure the page has our correct framework, the proper intro paragraph and detail infobox, and has content in the correct sections. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can certainly work with Chazz on the "style consistency". This certainly seems a bit more abstract because, as Chazz pointed out, we don't know what the style should be, and everyone has an individual approach. Grammar and spelling are certainly good, and I'll defer to Chazz regarding grammar, as he's better at that, although there are US/UK differences, but I try to stick with the British style (which I have to guess at sometimes), as that reflects not only the books, the website. I've mainly been working on chapter analysis for all the books. I framed in the main points (as has Chazz), but I am now working on tying in the broader themes of the entire series.PNW Raven (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

 * Second is Accuracy. Level 1 is Acceptable, level 2 is Good / Average, and level 3 is Verifiable. The areas I have been writing, summaries and such, generally are at level 2, some to level 3. I don't know if we can say any of the analysis is actually verifiable, without talking to JKR herself, so it's a definition of the term I'd be looking for here. Oh -- and lack of vandalism fits in this category as well; vandalism is, by its nature, inaccurate. Chazz (talk)
 * We might want to just shift the numbers around for our uses since we're working on fiction. Unless a brand new editor has added something I think we can assume 2 in most cases and 3 once another user has come across the detail. For instance, if a new user adds a supposed fact then that's really unreviewed or at a 0. We can pass by 1 and once a solid user like one of us comes in and adds a detail it will be treated as a 2. When another one of us passes through and verifies the reference then let's go with 3. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Accuracy" on the analysis sections does seem a bit trickier, as by its very nature, it is someone's interpretation of the author's work. Certainly there are facts associated with it that need to be accurate, and for the most part, we've achieved a good level of correct information combined with opinion. I agree with Withinfocus' suggestions.PNW Raven (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Coverage

 * Third is Coverage, level 1 is Acceptable, level 2 is Good/Average, and level 3 is Great. Again, the analysis is an area where there doesn't seem to be a clear idea of what the standard is. Can coverage be even Good if the analysis is lacking? I can write everything that Arthur Weasley did, but without analysis as to why, or information about how the author was building Arthur's character, can it be a good article? Chazz (talk)
 * This is where I think we will have the most work. Not too many of our pages will have a 3 from the beginning. We can go through the same iterative process as the above section maybe. Undeveloped articles start of course at unreviewed or 0, we make a first pass which sets us at 1 (most of our pages can default to this), and then to go to 2 or 3 I think Chazz, Raven, or another seasoned editor needs to make some swoops on it. The Trio most likely represent 3s. Maybe a 2 shows significant detail, not much analysis but some, and overall a complete but not full-bodied page. A 3 can be all the final touches including Raven's copyediting and a full analysis / greater picture. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will suggest that the Trio are not at a 3 level yet. Hermione may be a 3 for coverage, though I think she needs more analysis and greater picture yet. Ron is definitely only a 2, and I suspect Harry is only a 1 -- I forget whether I've had the chance to give him the full treatment yet. Chazz (talk)
 * On re-examination I find that Harry is about 1 on coverage, as is Ron, in my opinion. Hermione could be a 3, but I think she's closer to 2 as analysis is still a little scant. Mike.lifeguard reminds us that 4 is meant for Featured Books and may not be appropriate for us yet... Chazz (talk)

Is it time to start reviewing on the basis of what we have here? Raven? Chazz (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on what we have here, I think it is probably time to start reviewing, at least as we edit. We have over seven hundred pages... it would be good to start getting them reviewed. Chazz (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is a great description of how these things should be used. Can one of you put that in a project page (maybe move Help:Article validation too Article validation and add it to that page?) double-checking that stuff specific to this wikibook is generalized to we can apply it more widely? Thanks in advance. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We could... but bear in mind that it is also wrong. Looking at Help:Article validation I see that what I had thought was level 1 is actually level 0; as an editor, rather than a reviewer, I can't even see level 4 in the drop-down boxes. Which means that a lot of my reluctance to select level 4 is invalid. In any event... I'll look at this tonight, correct that here, and then see if I can generalize it. Chazz (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now revised to have the correct levels, to match what is on the help page. Next, to see if I can take out the MG-specific stuff... but it all looks MG-specific... Chazz (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)