User talk:Starstuff

Error
Should be Katrina MacDougal not Katherine (Vaudree (talk) 07:44, December 7, 2015 (UTC))

Request
Hey,

So I was just wondering, seeing as you're an admin, if you had any jobs that needed doing because I am very keen to do something for the Wiki but I find myself with nothing much to do most of the time. I am only two and a half months old on the HPW but as I said, I am very keen to help out.

Thanks a lot for the help,

ArrestoMomentum &#124;  talk  02:59, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Katherine redirection
Hi, do you know how to edit the redirection in Isobel MacDougal. Someone made an error and put Katherine MacDougal see Katherine (disambiguation) and redirected it to Isobel MacDougal, but the name was Katrina MacDougal see Katrina (disambiguation). How do you change the redirection from Katherine MacDougal to Katerina MacDougal so that I can delete Katherine MacDougal from the disambiguation.

I did not edit the Isobel page but left a message in the box saying what you edited.(Vaudree (talk) 04:34, December 21, 2015 (UTC))


 * Rowling showed her original hand-written list of students in Harry's year in the 2001 TV special Harry Potter and Me. Steve Vander Ark of the Harry Potter Lexicon managed to reconstruct half the list from screenshots of the special. This was all that HP fandom had to go on for years. People did their best to work out the names, but the reconstructed image was low resolution and incomplete, and in addition the list itself was stained and crumpled, and Rowling's penmanship somewhat scrawly.


 * Katrina/Isobel MacDougal is listed at the bottom of the left page in the image. Rowling's finger is partially obscuring the name "Katrina," so that only the "Katr-" part is clearly visible, and her "r" looks like it could be an "h." So "Katherine MacDougal" was a best guess at transcribing the name from the low-quality image. Rowling released an official transcription of the list on Pottermore in 2011. This clarified that the name on the list was actually "Katrina MacDougal."


 * There's no reason to delete the "Katherine MacDougal" redirect when we can simply create an additional redirect for "Katrina MacDougal." &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f (Owl me!) 09:11, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Does Fred Weasley have a middle name?
Someone has it down as Gideon. (Vaudree (talk) 07:21, February 5, 2016 (UTC))
 * Fred's middle name hasn't been revealed anywhere to my knowledge. Thus it's fanon/speculation. &#x2605; S t a r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 08:25, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Permissions request
Hi there! I recently posted a request for Content Moderator rights, but only Seth Cooper has posted yet. Just wondering if you may be able to wade into the discussion as well? Thanks! --Sajuuk 19:45, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Chat?
Hey there. Just wondering, if you aren't too busy atm, could you nip onto chat? Just wanna ask a quick'ish question :P --Sajuuk 15:31, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't do chat, sorry. Feel free to ask here on my talk page. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 15:32, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, that's understandable. The question I wanted to ask was whether my edits to clean up various special list pages (eg WantedPages/WantedFiles/Wantedtemplates etc) are fine with people here? I know I'm spamming a lot of edits, but I get only short bursts of time to contribute and need to do a lot at once. I'm not using a bot or anything like that on myself just in case you wondered. --Sajuuk 15:34, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the time is probably long overdue to go through WantedPages to create articles for redlinks. Just be careful to make sure that the redlinks are things we actually need articles on, and not fanon characters listed on somebody's userpage, links to deleted articles, etc. It's probably a good idea to clean out the clutter on WantedFiles, i.e. links to images that have been deleted. Don't worry too much about spamming the RecentChanges list. It's bound to happen whenever there's a flurry of activity on a relatively quiet wiki like this one. You could always mark your edits as minor edits so they can be filtered. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f  <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 15:42, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. Yeah, most of the redlinks I'm removing are for obvious titles that will likely not get created (where I wasn't sure if a page would be made, I left an edit summary where if I've removed a redlink by mistake, it can be reverted back.
 * I already have my edits marked as minor by default in my preferences (across all wiki's on Wikia), but wanted to make sure that there wasn't any rules or policies against "edit spamming" (some wiki's have this, but I disagree with such policies as it's pointless) on the wiki. :D
 * I'll continue to clear up the clutter as best as possible, within the limited time I do have. Obviously if I do get content moderator rights (the way the request is going, it's possible it won't happen as apparently 3 votes of support are needed to get the majority), this will be made even easier lol.
 * On a related note: I notice that article deletions seem to be quite rare. Is there some policy where a deletion tag needs to remain for a certain length of time before the deletion is done? Or are deletions done in bulk at certain times by sysops on the wiki? --Sajuuk 15:50, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Block
Hi. Can you block User:HarryPotterRules1 for a while? They were writing abuse and intimidating messages here and it seems they have a history of ignoring requests by others and writing similar levels of abuse and intimidating posts. --Sajuuk 08:25, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that escalated from a run-of-the-mill content dispute rather quickly. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 09:09, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

Sig Fix
Hey! I just thought you should know that I fixed your signature, as several of your font tags were ended with, which is not correct syntax. I should also point out that the font tag itself is actually deprecated and should not be used and you should consider replacing these font tags with span tags instead (an example usage would be ). You aren't required to do this, but it would help with making sure things are kept nice and orderly. Thanks! :) --Sajuuk 17:39, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for cleaning up my sig! I guess it's showing my age that I'm still using the font tag. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 08:24, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! :) --Sajuuk 08:55, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

HarryPotterRules1
Thanks for taking care of that. I leave for two days and that happens (what's more, that was about an issue that had already been resolved). -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 19:39, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. I didn't notice it myself until it was pointed out to me, as I was absorbed in creating articles on minor actors and spamming RecentChanges at the time. <font color="Green">&#x2605; <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 07:37, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Tina Demoted
Concede that the Americans may have a different term for it, like they have for muggle, but, until then, Patrol is the only term we know for an occupation which would be a demotion from auror - or for people not quite skilled enough to become aurors in the first place. Copied from elsewhere:

Finally remembered the name of the position which is sort of a less skilled version of an Auror - it is called Magical Law Enforcement Patrol.

It is possible that Tina was demoted from Auror to a desk job rather than demoted from Auror to a Patrol - but since her outfit, from the link you used to denote her as a former Auror, is a cheaper version of an Auror outfit, a Patrol would be more likely? Patrol is not in that category of occupations Auror is in but don't know how to do categories.

Don't know if this is American or Canadian/British page numbers

'Will it be Aurors who catch them?'

'Oh no, this is too trivial for Aurors, it'll be the ordinary Magical Law Enforcement Patrol - ah, Harry, this is Perkins.'

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - p.123 - Bloomsbury - Chapter 7, The Ministry of Magic
 * We don't have enough information yet to speculate on what job Tina got demoted to from Auror. We don't know if there is even an American equivalent of the Magical Law Enforcement Patrol, which is a part of the British MoM. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 07:35, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

The Department of Magical Law Enforcement is the department which is in charge of enforcing wizarding laws. The Muggle Protection Act is one of those set of laws so Arthur probably worked for a subdivision of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement - Muggle Protection, which had a very low priority in the Ministry and only consisted of two employees. The Auror and the Magical Law Enforcement Patrol both work for the Department of Magical Law Enforcement.

Americans wizards have laws and a need to have said laws enforced. Americans have aurors and they have a position in which they can either demote an auror to or give to someone not skilled enough to be an auror. Canon said that the job was below Tina's abilities, NOT that it required a completely different skillset. Canon said that the job was a demotion, NOT a position in an entirely new field. Less ability, same skillset, rank below auror - that is a Patrol (or the American term for patrol).

Ok, and the Americans can use a different term instead of Department or call the department by a different name - but they need some portion of their government devoted to law and order or there would not be any American aurors to keep said law and order. (Vaudree (talk) 08:27, February 22, 2016 (UTC))


 * Can you please not spam my talk page with speculation? Thank you. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 08:35, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Request for rights outdated
Hey man,

I was just wondering if you knew that I had voted for someone in the requests for permissions, as well as leaving a request myself. It has been a fair few days now and it doesn't seem that anything has happened (I believe that I was the third vote for one of the requests, which grants permission).

Thanks a lot as always bro,

ArrestoMomentum &#124;  talk  06:57, February 23, 2016 (UTC)


 * The only user rights which admins are able to grant are chat moderator rights. All other user rights -- including rollback rights and content moderator rights -- can only be granted by bureaucrats. User:Seth Cooper is currently this wiki's only active bureaucrat, so if there's a backlog at HPW:RFP, he's the one to talk to, as he's the only one with the ability to close any backlogged requests (i.e. give someone rights).
 * Also, for what it's worth, I'm a dudette. :)
 * &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 09:02, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Tumblr pics
Hi! Using the ListFiles script in my global.js, I was able to perform a query on the wiki to find out how many pics are on the wiki that start with "Tumblr". As I'm not flagged with the "bot" flag, neither is my separate bot account (which isn't going to be used here, unless I get consensus of the community to use it), I'm only able to pull up 500 results, but that is a lot of tumblr pics and most of them seem to be gif's. Few questions: Thanks for any answers you can give! :) --Sajuuk 15:47, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I delete all those which are unused on the wiki?
 * For those that are in use, should I rename them to a better name?
 * Where a gif is not necessary, should they be replaced with a static image, if one is available?
 * Bump just in case the above wasn't seen. I've not taken any action against the Tumblr files yet, as I've wanted to hear the position about what to do with them. --Sajuuk 07:17, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should delete .gifs or replace them with static images simply because they are currently not used in articles. They could always be added to articles in the future, and given that animated .gifs require more expertise to create than plain old .JPGs or .PNGs, it's useful having a repository of pre-made ones laying around. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to thin out duplicate .gifs (I imagine there's a lot of these) or .gifs depicting things too uninteresting or trivial to ever be used in articles (Ron Weasley blinking etc.).
 * As for renaming files, go ahead, this is probably long overdue. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 07:34, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to rename gifs to better names if possible.
 * As for gif's, I have a general dislike of them due to them being low quality, not to mention that on mobile devices, the browser just crashes (I've tried viewing the Harry Potter article on my iPad a few times and every time the app crashed, because of all the text and movement). :P
 * Gallery slideshows using static pics can give the same appearance as a gif, without the movement issue, though I understand why the wiki wishes to use a gif pic. I'll rename and clean up articles to remove "excessive" gif use though, and where a gif is similar to another (or just a plain duplicate), I'll tag them (so that they can be found easily, I'll make an "Unused" template tag to mark files that aren't being used anywhere). --Sajuuk 09:16, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a minor update: so that unused files and videos may be found more easily, I've created Category:Unused uploads, which is added through . I'll go through all the uploads (pics first, then videos) and add the template where files aren't in use on a wiki page (doesn't count userpages). --Sajuuk 09:43, February 26, 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the appearance of being unused can be deceptive. For instance, the images in Category:Reference images are used in articles as references (generally being linked to in the "Notes and references" section), but the images themselves aren't included in any articles through the standard [[File:Example.jpg]] code, so they won't show up in "Appears on these pages...".
 * Also should be Category:Unused uploads to comply with capitalization convention of other categories. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 09:56, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Interface files like that can be added to User:SuperSajuuk/Interface, where I collect all pictures that are used in wiki templates, but won't appear in WhatLinksHere, to prevent their deletion. If I've caught a reference (or other interface) image by mistake, and tagged it as unused, feel free to revert the change and add to the interface page I linked. :)
 * Unused, in my definition at least, are files that are neither linked on any page or are only linked in user pages, rather than wiki articles. So if an image appears to be used in a mainspace article, I won't tag it: this is only for the sake of collecting files that aren't being used anywhere so they can be found more easily (an unused file is harder to find, other than through Special:UnusedFiles.
 * As for the category name: I'm fine with that being renamed to confirm to local wiki conventions. I quickly made it so I could start tagging unused files and didn't consider capitalisation. :) --Sajuuk 10:02, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories can't be renamed, so you'll have to delete the old category and create it under the new one. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 10:04, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated the template and null edited the images where it was used, so they now appear under the new category. :) --Sajuuk 10:09, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related to the issue of unused files, I have found numerous userpages which violate multiple rules, usually by users who have contributed nothing towards this wiki. I've brought up the issue here, so just wondering if you could wade in? I'll message a few other admins as well. --Sajuuk 12:33, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

re: Wizarding World category
Hello,

I am very sorry for adding the category, I was merely trying to help the Wiki out and I will remove it immeadiately. Thanks very much for notifying me :).

PS - thanks for your comment on my request for rollback rights, I really appreciate it :)

Sincerely,  ArrestoMomentum  &#124;  talk  19:03, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Portable infoboxes
Heya! Wikia has hand-coded new versions of your existing infoboxes so that they work on a wide range of portable devices. We'd like to go ahead and implement these changes, but of course we'd want your input before proceeding much further. Please stop by this forum thread and give your views. And if you know of any of your fellow Harry Potter community members who'd be interested in this changeover, please invite them along, too! Thanks! — CzechOut 08:41, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Relationships page
Thanks for moving the title. I'm just used to using capitals for certain words, and am not very used to the wiki's capitalisation standards yet :P

I do hope the page helps reduce the editing issues with Harry Potter. I still have to clean up the main page, but hopefully splitting off the relationship content will help somewhat. (also, is the new layout of the Relationships page better or worse?) --Sajuuk 12:51, March 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's explicitly written down anywhere in our policies, but it's certainly a standard convention on wikis to have only the first letter of an article title capitalized, unless the title in question is a proper noun. Or the subject of the article is referred to in caps in canon -- Bouncing Bulb and Blast-Ended Skrewt, for instance. The names of plants, animals, etc., generally aren't capitalized in English, but Arbitrary Capitalization is a thing in fiction, especially fantasy and sci-fi.
 * Also please remember to maintain an "in-universe" POV when writing about fictional subjects on this wiki. The phrase "throughout the Harry Potter series" shouldn't be used anywhere except the "Behind the scenes" section in the Harry Potter article, since this, and all other articles on fictional subjects, should be written about the perspective that they actually existed/happened.
 * Paring down the Harry Potter article is definitely a good idea. Although I do feel that the current two-sentence relationship section is stubby and unhelpful. We should probably include brief summarizations of Harry Potter's key relationships (Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, etc.), and leave more in-depth coverage and coverage of less prominent relationships (Dudley, Fred and George, etc.) to the new spin-off article. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 13:07, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too sure about the POV stuff (I had read the policy though), so I just wrote something that flowed (at least for me :P) and was fully expecting it to be changed if it didn't fit :P
 * If the policy on capitalisation isn't listed anywhere, it might be a good idea to mention it in at least the style guidelines.
 * The current heading on the HP article is short, true. I based that off the idea done here, the point being that users should direct themselves to the article linked in the heading to find out more. It can be expanded if needed though, but I'd recommend avoiding trying to include too much about the relationship Harry had with a specific character, or the usefulness of the spin-off may decrease. :(
 * Hope everything is keeping well! --Sajuuk 13:28, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Common.js update
Hi there! I noticed that the wiki's Community JS is very outdated, but as I'm not a sysop, it is not within my power to edit the file directly. However, I did some edits of the JS on Notepad++, which removes many redundant pieces of code that serve little purpose (and will eventually not work anyway).

Could you please copy/paste the following code and replace the current contents of Common.js (linked above) with the code in the box area below? When you have published the edit, you will need to hit the "Submit for review" button when the page reloads after submission, so that the changes will be visible. Thanks! --Sajuuk 20:29, March 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * Done! If the reviewer raises any concerns, I'm sending them your way, though. ;) &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 22:04, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't envisage any issues, as it's just removing most of the codes that don't serve a purpose (as well as bad imports). --Sajuuk 08:18, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Pesky muggles
Thanks for the heads up! Tiny typo screwed up the CSS there. As soon as the change filters through cache, all will be appropriately grey again. :) — CzechOut 01:35, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

I think someone else must have helped with removing the last few, as I had not quite finished (thanks to whoever that was!), but it's not a problem at all, I should have consulted an admin like yourself before performing such a task.

Thanks as always,

ArrestoMomentum &#124;  talk  02:45, March 9, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Starstuff,

Thanks for telling me about the past-tense policy, I'm really new to editing, and knowing that helps a lot.

- Felix Scamander (talk) 13:37, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Danniesen redux
I think I know who you mean. Have you tried talking to the editor in question? -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 15:28, March 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess all we can do is notify the user about counterproductive behaviour because, honestly, even though it bugs me (us), I don't think much else can be done. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 19:08, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Books
Hi. I saw that you worked on categories recently. Would it be a good idea to get thethe books category better organised? My idea was to add categories "Book by authr", "books by genre". "Books" by subject" Maybe you could help me. I am not very skilled at working with categoriwes.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:52, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * While this is a good idea, I don't know if it's really feasible to clear out the root-level Category:Books, given that there are a lot of books within canon we don't know anything about besides the title. But I don't think it would hurt to add some subcategories along the lines that you've suggested. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 17:59, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

re: Deletion Discussions
Actually, I did. Forum:Discussion of an article deletion. But as you can see, despite bumping it over and over again over the course of a long period of time, nobody cared to grace the discussion with a response. As a result, I just decided that either nobody cared or people didn't feel like saying they were fine with it, so made the needed changes.

Centralising deletion discussions is not common practice on any wiki's. In fact, many wiki's ask users to use the talkpage of the article that has been called for deletion: this has to be the only wiki which doesn't follow the common format. I can only assume that this is down to the founders of the wiki not actually changing the templates or knowing much about wiki's in general (no offence meant obviously, I wasn't here when the wiki was created). --Sajuuk 18:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake a lack of response for consensus. Especially when it concerns overhauling a major wiki procedure. "Bumping" isn't a reliable way of bringing discussions that are falling under the radar to wider attention, because each "bump" is as likely to be lost in the Recent Changes list as the initial post. Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion is to ask people to weigh in.
 * I imagine deletion discussions were centralized on a single page to make it easier for people to keep track of ongoing discussions. This is a small wiki. We might have a maximum of ten or so ongoing discussions at a time, which removes the need for specialized discussion pages like they have on Wikipedia (Articles for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, etc.). &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 18:36, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I don't like to "ask" people. I mean I asked "one user" who didn't even seem to care about the message and didn't even respond in the discussion. That was enough of a reason for me not to bother spamming talkpages for a response that seemed unlikely. And on many wiki's on Wikia, a lack of response is usually taken to mean consent for the change.
 * And I'm not even trying to copy Wikipedia. Even some wiki's on Wikia, which aren't that active these days, still use the article talkpage for discussing article deletions, it's literally the common practice on 99% of wiki's on the internet. That way, the discussion can be found simply by looking at the deleted article, not hunting out a deletion category.
 * This is why the newer Wikia Forum module would be better, but Wikia plans on replacing it at some point anyway. It has the ability to highlight a thread so people cannot complain about missing discussions. Wiki-style forums are, to put it bluntly, crap for wiki-wide discussions because there is absolutely no way to get anyone's attention with them.
 * I am disappointed that this wiki has so few editors. It's a popular series and is still on-going (through Pottermore) and yet few seem to care to edit. Maybe more should be done to encourage contributions: there's a wiki I'm a member of which struggled similar to this wiki for contributions, but had a nice boost of activity by enabling the Forums module and allowing some open discussions about the series, which has helped to make the wiki more active than it would've been without said discussions. Maybe it's something to consider to help in procuring more editors and interaction.
 * Or another method would be to use the chat. I mean, I've been here only a few months, but the chat seems like it doesn't even get used by anyone, which makes it rather redundant: maybe it could be used as a place for more interactive chatting between community members. --Sajuuk 18:39, March 22, 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that asking people to weigh in on a discussion can raise concerns over canvassing. But we haven't reached the critical mass that Wikipedia has in terms of userbase, and thus we can't rely on discussions meeting enough eyeballs to generate a response, even if they're brought to our equivalent of the Administator's Noticeboard (the Wizengamot forum). Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion on a small wiki like this is to actively contact people about it.
 * The practice on this wiki is to delete article talk pages along with articles after closing a discussion as delete. Which is another reason we probably don't conduct deletion discussions on article talk pages -- it would make maintaining an archive of deletion discussions more difficult.
 * I've been here since 2008. The height of activity on this wiki was probably 2009 to 2011. I think the movies played a major role in popular interest in Harry Potter world, and when they ended, mainstream interest tapered off. But I do agree the wiki could do more to try to bring in Potterphiles. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 19:48, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

What page do you post to find out whether something has been deleted? If one cannot find a name, it has either been deleted or the spelling of it has been altered. (Vaudree (talk) 20:20, March 22, 2016 (UTC))