The appearance section is so ridiculously long that it can only be based on every single time that human hair appears or is mentioned, which, given that baldness is an exceptional trait, applies to pretty much every character. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
That's right. We also have articles on other kinds of hair and its magical uses though. Cat hair, Veela hair, Puffskein hair which alsi etail on the tole of hair in magic. Shouldn't we delete them all then?--Rodolphus (talk) 08:17, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
- The difference is that Veela hair etc. are only referenced within canon in a magical context. Thus, information on them is relevant to the plot or world of the Potter series, not merely incidental trivia. Human hair is visible in every scene in the films featuring a person, and implicitly present in every scene in the books if it's not directly mentioned, so it's incidental in the same way as eyes, skin, air, and sunlight.
- The article, as it stands, is in dire need of clean-up. The appearances section needs to be streamlined along the lines you've suggested, because the current indiscriminate laundry list, at best, is unhelpful and cluttering, and, at worst, is inviting crufty or trolling additions to the article.
- There also needs to be a structure. A bunch of single-sentence paragraphs is messy and unhelpful. There should probably be a section on the use of human hair in potions, a section on spells and magical products used to style hair, etc. Maybe a section of listing characters by hair colour, which, yes, is trivial, but it would also be useful (from a HP fan perspective) and interesting in the same way as the list of characters who wear spectacles or characters by zodiac signs are. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:21, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
- It's okay. There's always plenty of tasks to do on a wiki if creating articles isn't one's strong point. For now trimming down the "Appearances" section is probably a good place to start. I might give fleshing out the article a go at some point, but unfortunately my backlog for this site is huge, and I don't have as much free time as I once did. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need an article on the concept of fining someone? I could vaguely see it being a list of times people have been fined and the amounts and such, but we could have similar lists for any number of things. And we don't have articles on imprisonment or loss of privileges or any other similar topics. Even Hogwarts detentions, a subject which gets far more coverage and is fairly different than at your average Muggle school, just rates a section at Discipline at Hogwarts. Surely in its current state, at least, the article is not really anything worthwhile. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:41, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
- The idea of deleting this article is fine by me (sorry;)) — evilquoll (talk) 20:37, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
- We have articles on far more incidental subjects. Any discrete subject potentially warrants its own article. I don't see this article's subject as being too trivial/incidental to warrant independent coverage. I just think that this article needs some work to expand it into something more in line with our mission. Adding a list of all fines issued within the course of the books, films, etc. would be a good place to start. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:12, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
- Why not keep it, if the images in this gallery are on-topic and within the rules? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, September 15, 2018 (UTC)
Image of a type which is against this wiki's policies, uploaded by a user who had already been warned and then blocked for uploading this type of image, and likely in defiance of the warning. If this image had been spotted at the time it would have resulted in a longer, perhaps permanent, block. As it is, this wiki is long overdue for a mass purge of images which have never been used, and are never likely to be useful. — evilquoll (talk) 23:36, January 8, 2019 (UTC)
The page contains a character that appears to not exist. The user who created it, User: ShoyabShaik3567, appeared to cite Scene 60 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them for a dialogue exchange from an Indian wizard of the International Confederation of Wizards present at the Pentragram Meeting in the film. No such exchange exists. IMDB does not credit an actor named, "Bay Ohshishak" for the alleged role of this character. Also, no such character was credited as existing according to IMDB. Midnight-Mint01 (talk) 03:30, January 30, 2019 (UTC)
- Or just delete, as it's clearly a common type of fanon, that of an egotistical user trying to insert themselves into the Potterverse. — evilquoll (talk) 11:22, January 30, 2019 (UTC)
- I have just read Scene 60. It mentions Newt, Tina and Jacob, Madame Picquery, the Swiss ICW delegate (Heinrich Eberstadt), the British envoy, and nobody else. Hence Delete this page. — evilquoll (talk) 11:34, January 30, 2019 (UTC)
Boy of Card Trading Club and Wizard Card Collectors' Club boy
These are both broken redirects of long standing (at least 6 years), and there is no longer any point in keeping them as any pages which once pointed to the first (there were never any which pointed to the second) have long since been pointed to the proper target. If deleting them turns out not to solve the problem with the Double Redirects page (it may take several hours for the change to ripple through), it would probably be best to contact Wikia staff rather than undelete or recreate these pages. — evilquoll (talk) 10:31, February 17, 2019 (UTC)
There is now edit warring going on; a new editor called Tazenda has tried to fix the double redirect, even though this has already failed multiple times — and reverted my restoration of the delete tag, so I have had to restore it again. Deletion of this troublesome and useless pair of pages is long overdue. — evilquoll (talk) 06:34, May 9, 2019 (UTC)
File:Pericles M G-013-Edit.jpg
Serious copyright violation: it was stolen from the web page announcing Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (play), and edited to attempt to disguise the fact (the uploader failed to realise that a picture has to be severely mangled before Google Image Search can no longer use it to find copies), and thus violates all five restrictions on its copyright, as detailed in the talk page. — evilquoll (talk) 17:29, March 16, 2019 (UTC)
- This is a copyvio, a crime under both US and UK law. It should have been dealt with at the earliest opportunity. — evilquoll (talk) 08:14, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at this, and I'm kind of not convinced this is 100% relevant to Harry Potter. Looking through, it just seems a collection fo books that have some tangential connection due to themes. — MechQueste talk 17:48, March 16, 2019 (UTC)
- "The stories [...] have been compared to J. K. Rowling's franchise but she never mentioned them as inspirations or favourite books that she read before writing Harry Potter." Quite; put another way, these "analogues" are just a bunch of coincidences, nothing else. Probably the only thing these stories have in common with the Wizarding World™ (or each other) is that they all drew from the same folk sources.
- Particularly absurd is the claim that the Discworld stories somehow resemble HP: there are many different story arcs running through the series, with wildly differing protagonists (one arc has Death as its protagonist; in Hogfather, Death has to stand-in for the Discworld's equivalent of Santa Claus), only a few of them feature Unseen University and only a few of those have Ponder Stibbons (the closest to a Harry Potter figure those stories have, but he's a young adult) as protagonist.
- I admit, when the page was first created, I misread the Username and actually thought the page was created by evilquoll. (facepalm) Just took another look and at the "not exactly valid source", and found there's the part for "Acknowledged influences" with actual sources. Is there a page on HPW covering the matter? Because if not, rather than delete, the page can perhaps be repurposed to focus on that instead of the other part (what the current article is doing). --Sammm✦✧(talk) 18:55, March 16, 2019 (UTC)
- Keep An analogue may well be a coincidence; nobody is claiming those aren't (with a few exceptions, perhaps). This list is just a piece of curiosity showing how themes in the HP franchise were already observed in previous works. As some of you guessed, I found the WP article "Harry Potter influences and analogues" and thought it would be interesting to bring this off-universe subject here. Perhaps we should expand the page to include the influences and favourites as well?
- As to Discworld, the WP article has a sourced section detailing how some have compared it to HP, with another one for each of the analogues in this list. I don't know enough about it, but the absurdity of the claim seems like a matter of opinion, provided that the section is sourced and does not contain original research. - Esbonl (talk) 10:49, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
Lovegood Family Tree
- I have copied this matter into page Lovegood family#Lovegood Family Tree. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:34, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
This is a Fandom staff/bot. Someone randomly created the talk page with only his signature. This bot won't relay messages to staff at all. MechQueste 14:42, July 9, 2019 (UTC)
User blog:Ganeshsiva/low cost web development services
I don't think this should be kept because it was seen once, but it was seen on a book cover. Are we just gonna include every bit of trivial stuff see in corner? This has virtually no impact. MechQueste 18:42, August 23, 2019 (UTC)
Deleting this gives an impression that we don’t care about the fandom.
- If the author wishes to start a blog for this then they can. It doesn't belong in the wiki main space though. - 13:55, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
- Allowing this gives the impression that we don't care about spam. It may be of interest to the fans, but it is not an official part of the Wizarding World®, hence does not belong in the main article space of this wiki. As Xanderen points out, the proper place for it is a blog or forum post. — evilquoll (talk) 14:40, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know who, if anyone, reported this article to the VSTF (I didn't), but the article has been deleted as spam (from the Pottermore Wiki as well) and the poster blocked globally. Not surprisingly, since putting a "this is not spam" declaration at the top of a page doesn't make such a declaration true. — evilquoll (talk) 15:46, August 26, 2019 (UTC)