Harry Potter Wiki talk:Community Portal


 * Archive 1: July—August 2005
 * Archive 2: August 2005—May 2006
 * Archive 3: May 2006-February 2007
 * '''Archive 4: Current

Rollback
See Harry Potter Wiki:Rollback and Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for permissions. I think we should give out the rollback permission fairly liberally. So basically, anyone with good edits here and that seems trustworthy should get it. Also, anyone that can prove they are in good standing at another wiki should be eligible. Anyone have any comments or idea on criteria? John Reaves (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvement Drives
I also think we should start Improvement Drives, or something like that. Looking around, I have really noticed that many articles, such as Narcissa Malfoy, have not been updated since Deathly Hallows came out! Updating is needed on many things. Padme829 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Padme829

Sourcing
Hi. I think we need a policy concerning sourcing articles on this wiki. Every article should state where it comes from (be it book, movie, game, info from JKR, etc), with articles that come from more than one source listing all sources. This would, in my opinion, help stop vandalism and fanon entering this wiki. To illustrate my point, this article, Wizards & Witchs in the United States‎, appears to me to be fanon. However, I don't own a copy of Quidditch Through the Ages or Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and therefore can't confirm it as not coming from those books. Anyone else agree? - Cavalier One 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. This wikia still needs a lot of work to be done until it is up to scratch with others (like Wookiepedia) in policies, content, ect. —Animagi/Prongs 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia is an excellent example. I edit over there as well, and there are guidelines for everything - article layout, tenses, templates, etc.  Unsourced articles are immediately tagged for verification or deletion.  We need some of that here. - Cavalier One 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Married names
I've noticed that both Hermione's and Ginny's summary boxes have their "married" names. I don't think they should be that way. It misrepresents the characters as they appear throughout the books: the profiles should focus on the characters as they were during the seven years covered in the main story arc of the books. The characters' marriages to Ron and Harry is a footnote to the story, so causing it to have such a strong representation in the character summaries seems wrong. Does anyone agree? EDIT: I just discovered Luna has a married name as well... what the?

Similarly I have a problem with Tonks' profile suggesting her name is Nymphadora Lupin (nee Tonks). Although my case is a lot weaker for this one, we don't actually know that she takes Lupin's name and of course all the other characters call her Tonks after the marriage. Again I think it is an inaccurate representation of the character.

Anyone agree? - Vostok 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Their married names are the last known names for them, regardless of the name they were known by for the majority of the books, so they should be used. The page name has not been changed or moved, so anyone typing in Ginny Weasley or Hermione Granger will instantly get to the article.  If this was the Wookieepedia, for instance, the page would have been immediately moved to the full new name, with the previous name redirecting.  I see no need to do that, though, but this is an encyclopedia, so the current, full name should be used.


 * Luna's marriage was revealed by J.K. Rowling herself in a web chat on July 30th. I believe Mugglenet.com carries a transcript of it. - Cavalier One 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's never actually stated that they've taken their husband's names for one, and like Vostok said, it's really more of a minor footnote. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While that may be true in the case of Hermione, Luna and Tonks, the epilogue to Deathly Hallows clearly states that Ginny is a Potter, as it references the family as the "five Potters". Again, though, the page name does not carry their married name in the title, only in the text.  Even on the main Wikipedia, articles are changed to reflect new marital status.  As an encyclopedia, we should include all pertinent information in the correct places, whether we like it or not. Failing that, we could always ask JK to confirm or deny the married names herself :) - Cavalier One 07:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but the main wikipedia page does not have Ginny's name as changed in the article. I agree that the name of the article should not change so that anyone putting in their original names can get to the page but, I think the article itself should change to represent the end of books. It is clear that Ginny has changed her name so, it should not be changed back to "Weasley." as for the other women, until we know exactly what there names are we should leave them with their non-married names but, I do think we should state that it could possibly be the married name. 68.38.21.24 11:38 27 August 2007
 * We don't know that Rolf's last name is Scamander, just that he's Newt Scamander's grandson. 68.166.238.60 18:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we should include all pertinent information, we should also be careful not to include unsupported information that could prove to be incorrect. Hermione meekly giving up her own name seems unlikely, Luna's page has been changed to a surname we're not even sure her husband has himself, and Tonks was still called by her usual nickname even after her marriage so it still being her last name seems possible. We should focus on accuracy, otherwise the entries start to look like fan fiction. 67.100.203.249 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that Ginny's final last name is Potter, but we don't know what the other girls' names were after their marriages. The main Wikipedia has them by their original names. I'm going to fix their pages here to match. PinkRibbons 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Given the recent moving of the Ginny and Hermione articles, and the subsequent reversions, I think that some thought should be given to protecting the pages by the admins.  While I personally advocate for the use of full names in the article itself, I do not feel that moving the page to a different name is warranted. - Cavalier One 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The main Wikipedia uses "move protection" so only admins can move the pages but everyone can edit them. If that's done, I hope the pages for Hermione, Ginny, Fleur, Tonks, Luna, etc. are protected under the original names. After all, the names they were born with are their real names, the ones they're listed under for genealogy purposes, such as family trees. Those are also the names by which most people would recognize them.  Also, I moved Rolf's page because we don't know his full name yet, JKR didn't mention it in the interview. PinkRibbons 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)