Harry Potter Wiki talk:Community Portal

The Harry Potter WikiCity wants you! Together we are building an encyclopedia and a wiki community based around Harry Potter. You can edit and create articles on Harry Potter WikiCity right now. If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

For help, questions, and contact information, you should see Help:Contents.

Older discussions can be found at Harry Potter Wiki:Community Portal Archive.

To-do
1. Expand:
 * These articles have little or no text in them. Since we cannot build an encyclopedia out of infoboxes, I believe this is what we have to do first.


 * Minerva McGonagall
 * Severus Snape
 * Ron Weasley
 * Hermione Granger
 * Neville Longbottom
 * Luna Lovegood
 * Seamus Finnigan
 * Dean Thomas
 * Albus Dumbledore
 * Lord Voldemort
 * James Potter

2. Upload
 * There are many file paths leading to nonexisting pictures. This is the next step to comprehensive reading material.

Check
 * Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
 * Rubeus Hagrid

for starters.

3. Write
 * The writing of completely new articles is necessary for the existence of this Wiki - it must not (may I repeat, NOT) be an exact copy of En articles, lest people take this to be an unnecessary carbon copy of the orig. articles. I myself have been frustrated many times when I searched for a topic on different pages, only to find that they contained the same text.

That's all for now. I'm sure this will keep us occupied for a couple of weeks or so. 18:00, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The list of wanted pages should give everyone an idea of pages that are desperately needed but don't exist yet :) --Batiu-Drami 09:16, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed link above. - Vostok 09:39, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Inferius
I was wondering how I should categorize Inferius - it's not a magical creature, nor is it a spell. Any suggestions? Chosen One 10:44, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Publicity
User:Lord Voldemort once remarked that we should post mention of this wiki on public forums, e.g. Mugglenet. We could do this, but first, let's have your opinions.

Pros:
 * more editors
 * work gets finished faster

Cons:
 * risk of vandals
 * risk of misprints
 * bleak and unfinished pages are turn-offs

Feel free to voice out whatever you're thinking. 00:27, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Approximately how many regular editors do we already have? Hermione1980 01:06, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think we should publicise it once we have about 250 articles. 06:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say 200 articles, but 200 decent articles. Not 200 articles that are either copy-pasted from Wikipedia or just empty pages with infoboxes.  We certainly need more editors and I tend to think a mention on Mugglenet will attract more willing contributors than vandals.  But the unfinished pages are a turn off, so lets get 200 finished ones done. - Vostok 07:58, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wiki is now at a stage where we can start advertising to get more editors. Anyone agree? - Vostok 06:46, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree.    13:12, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Well where is the best places to start? Muggle.net?  Veritaserum?  Any regulars from those sites willing to do a bit of publicity? - Vostok 09:11, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the Harry Potter Wiki should adopt either an entirely new, shorter / more attractive name, or just consider one as a nickname, before trying to advertise for new editors. First impressions count.  "PotterWiki," perhaps? &mdash;qrc 03:23, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * What about a play on words like Flitwiki? - Vostok 04:26, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * And maybe we can call the editors "Winkypedians". :) Hehe. Should wwe start attracting vandals from the Main 'Pedia or from somewhere else? I'd like to block someone other than myself.    12:28, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone else has done, but I e-mailed MuggleNet about advertiseing us.

Priorities...
Let's work to expand the major articles before we get into too much detail on other topics. I just saw that The Quibbler had an article but Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban did not. This is the kind of thing we need to remedy. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:12, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

What if we started...
What if we started an informal "Collaboration of the Week" or something of the sort. Then we could focus our attention on the major articles that are considerably lacking. Perhaps start on the books whose articles are VERY VERY weak (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). Just a suggestion. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:01, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Dark Lord on this one. Maybe one or two articles we could collaborate on each week, it would really up the value per article.  And I definitely agree that we should start on the big articles, especially with the help of a bunch of editors.  It's really scary trying to add something to a big article all alone.  And I'd like to suggest Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.Ginny Weasley 19:35, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Book, Film, Game...
Following on from my above thought, what should be the purpose of those pages that end in (film) and (game)? I'd like to suggest that whereas the link to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone goes to the story of the book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) goes to information on the film itself. That means rather than repeating the story again, the film page really just contains information such as the date it was released, who directed it, and other things usually associated with films. Somewhere on the page could be listed "Main differences to the book", but apart from that it should not go too deeply into the story.

Similarly with the game pages, these should provide details like date of release, platforms it is on, etc.

This could also open up a third type of page which would be Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (book), which provides details on the publication itself, rather than the story. So again, date released, copies sold, etc. - Vostok 08:12, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
To date we have had two vandals visit our Wiki. In the next week I hope to do up a policy dictating what is and is not suitable content for the wiki, but in both of these cases the vandals didn't need a policy to know what they were doing was wrong.

Currently I'm the only user with admin powers and therefore the only one with the power to block IPs. At the moment, with editor numbers being what they are, I'm not sure we really need more than one admin, however if enough people believe we need a second admin then I'll begin a process to nominate a second admin.

If you see vandalism, please revert the page to its original text and report the act to me so I can take appropriate action. - Vostok 08:19, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now, I think one admin should be enough. However, if the wiki's ever publicized on Mugglenet or some such, one or two should be added. One thing that might be good at that point is having the admins be from different time zones, and then one might be quicker to respond. Just my thoughts. *shrugs* --Dragonclaws 08:39, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * One admin should suffice for the time being. But when more admins are created, I'm not sure if requiring them to be from different time zones is so good. I have a dream that one day, admins will not be judged on their geographical locations, but on the quality of their content. Or something like that... --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:15, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, suppose there's a fastacting vandal who messes up a bunch of stuff in the middle of the night for both admins. It will take a while to clean it all up. Whereas, an awake admin could reach the vandal faster, ban him before the damage can be too extensive, and revert everything before people view the site. Surely it's important to ensure that a user is trustworthy before giving them admin powers, but the time zone thing should (IMHO) be a second concern. --Dragonclaws 00:05, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Warnings?
I know this isn't much of a concern right now, but some time in the future, will we need vandalism warning templates like test1 and so forth like those used at Wikipedia? Just a thought. Hermione1980 23:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
Deletion issues should now be discussed at Category talk:Candidates for deletion. - Vostok 08:24, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno if I overstepped my bounds, but I changed the speedy deletion part to just deletion, as speedy deletion is generally for pages where it's obvious (e.g. an article called "Test" or something) that the article should be deleted. Things that are put up for a vote are things like Places vs Locations for the category name. The main difference is that speedy deletion doesn't get a vote - it's just deleted by an admin as soon as they get around to it. --Schrei 23:23, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * How long will it take before the articles are deleted? The notice was put up in August and it's Sept already and nothing has been done since.    13:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to get at least three votes for a page before it is deleted. Pages that have three votes are now deleted. -Vostok 09:12, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Page title
Should the page on Petrifying be located at Petrify, Petrified, Petrifying, Petrification, or what? Hermione1980 18:51, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say Petrification. --Dragonclaws 00:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, the title meaning "the act of Petrification". But create redirects on each of those pages. 09:34, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme
I guess I never thought about it before, but the welcome on the main page and the logo are the only parts of the site with a black background. We should stick with either all black or all white I think - or is there some technical issue preventing that? --Schrei 20:30, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it is doable. I had a search through the Wikicities stuff and couldn't find any reference to changing colours... but then I am new to this whole Wiki Admin thing :) - Vostok 08:19, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Turns out the stylesheet for Wikis is MediaWiki:Monobook.css. From Furry:MediaWiki:Monobook.css, it looks like admins can create it like any other page. --Schrei 23:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're quite correct. If you've got a style sheet you'd like to try out submit it to me and I'll put it up. - Vostok 08:47, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't know anything about stylesheets. Maybe someone else who does will read this and be able to help out. --Schrei 14:04, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be able to make one for you to add to that page, I'll just need to know what colours and styles and stuff you want. 09:57, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Logo
I've found the file path for the German HP wiki logo. Do we still need to change logos or does the present one suffice? Btw, my internet connection is broken, so I can't pop in very often. 12:40, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should just copy their logo. We can be more original! I quite like the current one, though. Better than anything I've created! 08:57, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

New Wiki Skin
Hey guys, I'm testing out the style for this wiki here. If you want to experience it, just copy the code I used and put it on your monobook.css page, User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.css. What do you think? Remember I haven't finished yet. I've fixed many of the awful looking stuff, but there's still a few things I need to fix. Otherwise I reckon it looks pretty good. 14:28, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Not too bad, Rainer. I've got a few comments, although you're probably on your way to dealing with them but haven't finished it yet.
 * External links are particularly hard to read
 * Categories boxes are virtually unreadable
 * I think perhaps a darker colour would be better for empty links (links top pages that haven't been created yet). The pink still seems to say "I'm a link" as opposed to the standard red in the normal theme that indicates something isn't right.
 * Personally I find it easier to read dark text on a light background rather than the opposite, but that is a personal preference; I'd be keen to hear other people's opinions.  - Vostok 09:20, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for your input! I agree with the red links, I'll make them a bit darker. I'll go and fix all the other stuff that needs fixing. As for the light on dark text, I personally think it's not too distracting, but we'll see what other people think. Something that is distracting is the Google ads bar, the white doesn't suit the page. Maybe we can get Angela or another Wikicities admin to change the colour for the HPWiki if it's possible. 13:31, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I am grumpy right now) I'm not particularly fond of it myself. (Perhaps because I don't like yellow.) Somehow the font size in the navigation bar got changed. I agree about the Google ads thing. I tried changing the colour for empty links to a brighter red to make it easier to see &mdash; the red that was there was just a bit too dark. One thing I do like is changing the colours of the links at the top right to green. (I think I'll go reinstate that to my monobook.css!) Hermione1980 22:39, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's alright. Just wondering, what shade of red is good? Because I've been having trouble deciding on the particular shade of red. And as for the yellow links, perhaps another colour is better? 03:21, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wiki:Policy
I'm all for punishing vandals and whatnot, but isn't blocking people for 72 hours for one act of vandalism a bit harsh? 24, maybe, with longer blocks for repeat offenders, but I think blocking for 72 is going a bit overboard. Thoughts, comments? Hermione1980 21:54, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * 24 was the recommended blocking time, but I thought it too short. Let's say someone vandalises a page one night, then logs off.  We block them immediately.  In 24 hours when they next log on, they're unblocked already.  Doesn't seem like much of a punishment.  For the most part vandals will be one time offenders, and a 72 hour block gets the vandalism out of their system and they'll have forgotten about us and moved onto the next Wiki to vandalise.  So that was my justification.  I usually gives vandals the benefit of the doubt before blocking them anyway.  However, as always, I'm open to debate. - Vostok 03:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * 72 hours is fair enough. And there isn't much chance that within that time someone else with the same IP tries to edit the same wiki. I mean, if it were, say "10 months" for just one bit of vandalism that's unfair, but 72 hours is alright. I don't think it is a "punishment", since most vandals (or "trolls" as they're called on the H*R Fanstuff Wiki) wouldn't care whether or not they could edit some site. It's more a measure to prevent them from vandalising again. 08:10, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I see. I'm just used to Wikipedia's policies, but you have justification here. Hermione1980 13:53, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd block the vandal a week. 48 hrs ain't enough to cause him harm.    21:13, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

We've just had our first repeat vandal, from IP 24.6.38.33. As a result, they are the first person to get the full penalty of a 12 month ban. Speak now if anyone thinks this is too harsh a punishment. - Vostok 08:37, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * That's too harsh. Double the penalties every time he/she vandalizes until the third time, I'd say, where the vandal receives a 3-month penalty, then 7-month, then indefinite. That's how I'd do it.     15:47, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * We should never block a vandal for "indefinite" if he/she is an IP address, because IP addresses get shared around and everything, and other users who want to make a good edit could be unable. 08:47, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, registered vandals then. And after what User:Quebeck did the other day, I'm surprised that this whole wiki is still standing. More active RC patrollers, anyone?    14:20, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New Admins
I can't be everywhere at once and I haven't got a lot of time for visiting the Wiki as often as I'd like, so I've given Admin privileges to Hermione1980 and Chosen One. That's probably more admins than we actually need right now, but I felt there needed to be someone other than me with these privileges. - Vostok 04:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I do not know where to place this anger, I think what was done here is a stolen idea from another site. The other site was registered before this one. Sorry.


 * What was "stolen" and what site was it "stolen" from? Do you mean this whole wiki? To my knowledge there is no other English Harry Potter Wiki... 09:30, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * There is, through FictionAlley, but it seems to be geared more toward information for fanfiction writing. It also doesn't look very complete at all. Hermione1980 14:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think if something has been stolen you should have a complete refund. 199.176.87.2 16:15, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing was "stolen". 06:16, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

 * We should rename the sandbox here, we could call it "Quidditch Practice" or something.Padme829 04:51, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829

Other stuff
What does everyone think?Padme829 20:03, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829 But, CAN anyone change the home page, Because I can't.Padme829 01:20, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829
 * I belong to the star wars wiki too, and they have improvement drives and featured articles on the main page. I dont have access or the know how to change anything.
 * Yeh we should have those features from wookiepedia. I'm all for having a listing of new and popular pages too like on wookiepedia--Darth Mantus 22:13, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Chosen One protected the page because a lot of anons were changing it to American spellings. Admins can modify the page. We were originally going to have a daily/weekly featured article, but the active editors at that time decided to discard that for the time being until we have more editors and more decent articles. New pages can be found at Special:Newpages and popular pages can be found at Special:Popularpages. Hermione1980 01:34, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Article titles
Should we have Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game) or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (game)? Hermione1980 01:36, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The New Film
Who's seen the new film? It is fantastic. Voldermort is portrayed perfectly! Fantastic! Great!--Darth Mantus 20:20, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I didn't like Voldemort at all. He was shorter than Lucius, for crying out loud! I think it's better than Prisoner of Azkaban, at least, but Philosopher's Stone is still my favourite. Hermione1980 21:22, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * What? I have just had this same conversation with some friends on another forum. I still think that the last section with Voldemort was the best part of the film!--Darth Mantus 16:29, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was really good!Padme829 23:12, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)Padme829
 * Yet to be released in Australia :(. Come on, 1st December!... 11:21, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The only problem I think, is that Michael Gambon cannot match Richard Harris as Dumbledore. They should get someone else, like David Attenborough.--Darth Mantus 22:44, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ian Mckellen, who played Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" would also be a good choice. Too bad Mr. Harris passed away.    19:13, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely Ian McKellan would be good, but perhaps that would be typecasting him. Perhaps we would start getting confused between Dumbledore and Gandalf!--Darth Mantus 18:35, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Current events
Our current events should perhaps be a little more ... current. There's no information whatsoever on the release of "Goblet of Fire" the movie, and the last entry was for the release of Book 6. Perhaps someone should update this once in a while. (Sorry for the criticism - I should be doing it but I'm going to be busy until mid-January. Hehe :p )    19:17, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Template
Is it really neccessary to use the spoiler template on this wiki? After all, one would expect that a site that covers every detail of Harry Potter would include spoilers about the books. I mean, we might as well have a spoiler template on every page, which is pointless. We could just warn users on the Main Page of spoilers or something. I do think, though, we should use a spoiler template for spoilers of Book 7 when it is released, and then remove it after about a month. What do you guys think? 10:26, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I personally would like to see a separate spoiler template for each book, saying something like "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details from book 2 follow." If we don't have that, then yeah, I think it's pretty useless. The thing about putting spoiler templates in is if/when we start getting linked to by other sites &mdash; they're not all going to link to the Main Page, and then we'd have people whining about how "You spoiled the book for me/my friend/my dog/etc.!" Hermione1980 13:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can change the code so that we can have a generic spoiler warning below the actions bar. And put a spoiler warning on the Main page (which I still think should remain black unless we take out the two torches and the Hogwarts seal).    14:19, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that the horizontal rules at the top and the bottom of the spoiler tag tend to go through the character templates and anything else next to them. If you just make the whole thing as a blockquote tagged paragraph, and maybe all bold, you really don't need the horizontal rules above and below it. Travlr23 17:43, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * We might still need some spoiler tags for the books and/or some of the characters. Even if we have a generic tag on the MP, some readers might enter through Google (as Hermione1980 said), and we might spoil their fun. Perhaps some well-placed spoiler tags might do, perhaps just before the character dies? or something like that. And of course, we have to put spoiler tags in the book summaries for those people who haven't read all the books yet.    08:06, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Second Grawp Discussion
All right, I think it's time to settle down for a talk now that we have some new editors and new stuff to work with. All your opinions are welcome!


 * 1) I've noticed that some of the articles are copies of Wikipedia articles of the same name. Though it is possible, copying should (imo) not be encouraged as the HPW is not supposed to be an exact copy of Wikipedian content. Or is it?
 * 2) Some of the articles are poorly written, some are okay, and some are up to par. I think we should have a common standard and form that we should follow, instead of just following our own ideas of how an article should be written.
 * 3) New Main Page, anybody? Perhaps a navigation section (Places, Characters, Objects, etc.) and an article of the week, etc. (I like the torches, Rainer)
 * 4) And how about getting some more new editors?

17:12, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should allow copying from Wikipedia. But, the problem is (and it's true IMO) at the moment Wikipedia has more info on Harry Potter than this wiki. So maybe copying just sections or something could be alright.
 * Yep, standards are absolutely neccessary.
 * I'll start my Main Page redesign now (here). It'll have some sort of article of the week thingy. I'll try my best to incorporate those cool torches in the new design!
 * I think it's time to tip Mugglenet and other HP sites about this. Vandalism shouldn't be a problem, we have enough active users here.
 * That's what I think, anyway. 06:45, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not like we can just post advertisements for editors. Also, what are you planning to do with the main page? Padme829 16:34, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)Padme829
 * No, but if this wiki gets linked to on a site like Mugglenet, I'm sure more editors will come. Also, you can see my Main Page design at User:Rainer/New Main Page Proposal, but it is not finished. Please don't say "it's too small", because I'm still adding stuff to it. 22:59, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Page Style
So far, every page I've seen is simply a large chunk of text. This community page is the first I've seen that even has a table of contents. Should we try to make it more like Wikipedia, or is the goal essay-style articles? MadMuggle 02:33, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

List of....
I ran across two articles today (Ghosts and Teachers) that got me thinking: a) shouldn't these be List of ghosts and List of teachers and b) are these lists even necessary, considering that the goal is to have an article on everything and the existence of categories should cover it? Lachatdelarue 00:41, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Nuke 'em, I say. Nuke 'em all! ::pounds fist on keyboard:: But make sure the info on the DADA teacher position is in the Defence Against the Dark Arts article. Hermione1980 00:55, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)