Forum:Suggestions for the Site - Quite Major, Sorry

Hello all! I've been looking for quality HP information for some time on the web, and I must confess I haven't been satisfied with a site yet. The Lexicon is obviously a fantastic resource, but on their profile pages and such, they don't follow an established template like you do, and they are remarkably slow on updates (I doubt they will get new information from Pottermore in the database for some time now.)

This site probably comes the closest after that. However, several things need improvement. First off, the movies, games, etc., should not be considered canon. Though sanctioned by Rowling, they were not her brainchild, and in some cases, such as the contents of Quidditch Training Pitch (which directly contradicts the books, which place practices on the one - and only - true Quidditch pitch) or Secret room near the Training Grounds stretch the reality of the Harry Potter series, and I highly doubt Ms. Rowling - and many of her fans - would want Harry to go around finding Chocolate Frog cards in secret rooms. The Lexicon has a foot over you in this respect: it only allows for J.K. Rowling approved content to enter its pages. I know deleting this would mean a lot of work, but its necessary to create a less cluttered and more fully realized site.

This being said, I fully support images from the Harry Potter films used to illustrate the books - most readers think of the "look" and "feel" of the movies when they read the books, but very few consider the two to be in the same continuity. However, less pictures need to be used in articles. Using so many pictures of numerous different sizes in such a close proximity to each other creates a cluttered, aesthetically unpleasing look.

As far as the writing of your articles go, they are in-depth and top-notch save one respect. Unknown information and speculation need to be removed. Readers like myself wish to see all the information they can, not three paragraphs telling them that a character's relationship with another character or their future or house, whatever it may be, is not known. This, even if you can't help it, reveals your ignorance of said facts more to the reader than if you simply do not state anything about them.

Furthermore, saying "probably" is speculation. In Rolanda Hooch's article, for instance, it indicates that she said 'hello' to a student (in the film) and that "she probably had a personal acquaintance with [the] student named Amanda." We have no way of knowing this to be true, and additionally, it bogs down your articles. Readers of encyclopedias wish to read insightful articles that are detailed without straying from the big picture. I don't want to read a replication of the Harry Potter books - and definitely not the scripts, regardless of my high opinion of the adaptations of the books - I want to read summaries.

This site is great, but it could definitely use some work to become the premiere resource for Harry Potter. I am sorry if I offend anyone, these are merely suggestions, and I in no way attempt to undermine the incredible amount of work users on this site have contributed. I hope I can edit here for a long time regardless of if changes are made, but I hope they are to ensure a better future for this site. LuciusMalfoy777 22:06, October 15, 2011 (UTC)