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)