FANDOM


Please discuss notability reconsideration here

Current discussions

Every wand flagged as of 19:20 UTC

Padma and Parvati Patil's wands

Wrock bands

Unidentified Quidditch Spectators

MyHogwarts.co.uk

Unidentified bespectacled Slytherin girl

Bespectacled Slytherin girl has enough links that if it doesn't meet the notabiity standards, I believe there's something wrong with those standards. It allows all the relevant info--which admittedly ain't much, but ain't nuffin, neither!--to be collected in one place, which is good for the Wiki. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 04:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

It has six links, if you don't include the one on this page, those on talk pages, or the file link for the image. Sorry, but that's hardly anywhere even remotely close to a large number of links. On a sidenote, isn't it about time more of these articles were deleted? We're now over a month in from the introduction of notability. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a large number, I claimed the number was sufficient.
If the wiki keepers are determined to throw away useful information--and I know it's useful because I wanted to know it, and this was where it was accurately and clearly set forth--then my protests certainly won't stop y'all. Nevertheless, I'm obliged to say that such a result, esp. for a wiki of only a few thousand pages, seems to me a shining case of implementing the perfect as the enemy of the good. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 16:33, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
This article, along with every other short article of similar content, will be eventually merged into a hub article per the notability policy. No information will be lost. No offense, but you literally don't have an argument here. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:25, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified male Hogwarts employee (XVI)

Unidentified St. Mungo's patient (III)

Female Death Eater at the Graveyard

Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron

this article represents, at least as far as i have ever seen in canon, one of the few or possibly only time that an wizard of significant skill(use of wandless magic) has  shown any advanced interest in muggle sciences. Not only sciences, but a book by stephen hawking far beyond most casual readers who are not already well versed with the subjects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andre G. Dias (talkcontribs).

This page should stay. It is linked to the page discussing wandless magic which is a very important page. On the page "wandless spell" is a list of all wizards and witches to have performed wandless magic. As this wizard was never identified by name it is hard for the average reader to recall his use of magic if he has no page of his own. It is also very annoying when another page makes reference to something and there is no further information on the subject referenced. You are usually just left confused and in the dark. This page may not be needed all on its own but it is a very useful support page that strengthens other pages so they can stay on their focus and just link to this reference as a footnote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andre G. Dias (talkcontribs).

What is the purpose and objective of the Harry Potter Wikia: to be an online encyclopedia with all the content present in the franchise or be just another website with only the main content? If we decide to delete all content defined as not important, the Harry Potter Wikia would have only pages about the main characters, places, spells, etc.. Some pages are really good and we can see that the author made a good search to write the text, for example, search the scenes and images in the films, and this should be respected. Some users should stop trying to delete pages and start creating or improving pages!!! Andre G. Dias (talk) 18:57, December 28, 2013 (Brazil)

Please do not spam the same message multiple times on every discussion. If you look at the notability guidelines, we're not discussing deletion anywhere here, merely condensing information down into more useful hub-type articles (such as Unidentified Hogwarts employees). That said, if you truly feel that the notability guidelines should be abolished, starting a forum topic would be a better venue for that discussion. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:18, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

I understood your opinion and I am sorry for the "same message multiple times", I didn't realize that was spam. Thanks. Andre G. Dias (talk) 14:41, December 29, 2013 (Brazil)

I found this page linked from a cracked.com article here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-movies-that-followed-wrong-character_p2/  The article features the character of the 'Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron' specifically.  I think that despite not technically meeting the notability guidelines, the 1.6 million views of the Cracked article, and a direct link from the article to the character page, may well be enough to elevate its notability.  (If nothing else, if the page is moved, someone should notify Cracked to update their link so that it isn't broken after the move.)  NobodySpecial1 (talk) 22:07, December 12, 2016 (UTC)

Superhuman strength

Harry Potter and the Misadventures of the Muggle

(discussion moved from Category talk:Candidates for deletion)

FB mass unidentified individuals

Hi, there; I have read HPW:NG#Characters, but I have to say, unfortunately I'm still pretty confused as to why most of the articles in Category:Unidentified individuals are still independent pages. Breaking down my confusion a little, currently I'm seeing User:Hobbiton777 very diligently creating a lot of pages for unidentified individuals (the editing aspect itself isn't a bad thing, so don't put words in my mouth), however, I'm wondering, if some of them could just be grouped in "hub articles"? For example, though I can't pinpoint a description for the hypothetical hub article title, the Obscurial attack on New York could tie the following pages together:

(TBH, this batch I'm not entirely certain, because it looks like Unidentified photographer (II) is somewhat more distinguishable due to the mentioning of Martha (American Muggle); however, I would argue that, to me, the Beauxbatons boy Parvati later went out with, was pretty specific, yet he was slapped with the rest of Unidentified Beauxbatons students)

I'll also admit that as of now, I've only watched the film once, so I don't really know how many more "unidentified individuals" with associated scenes would continue to pop up, like Unidentified housewife and Unidentified hobo, judging from the pictures used, are just two out of the many people who "witnessed some of Newt Scamander's creatures escaped from his briefcase that year"; should more be coming on their way onto HPW, could they just be one page instead of many?

Also, while I understand there's ways to distinguish the cops (by their badge number), I don't think the same can be said for the bunch of Aurors. In-universe speaking, what's to distinguish Unidentified Auror (I), Unidentified Auror (II), Unidentified Auror (III), Unidentified Auror (IV), Unidentified Auror (VI), Unidentified Auror (IX), and Unidentified Auror (X) from one another? Can they just be a hub article like Unidentified Hogwarts employees and Unidentified Beauxbatons students? Like "Unidentified MACUSA Aurors"?

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:04, November 5, 2018 (UTC)

This can probably now be archived. Didn't realize there's a thread at Forum:Unidentified Film Characters when I posted the above. Seth has also resolved my the last proposal and there's now Unidentified MACUSA Aurors. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:28, December 18, 2018 (UTC)

Dragon keeper

Hey there,

I was editing today and stumbled across this article, and I really question if it is needed. The article pretty vague, and the article that it is about doesn't have a known name. I would request for this to either be deleted or renamed to "Unidentified Dragon keeper." Thoughts? Harrypotterexpert101 Council-icon-FANDOM.svg (talk) 20:00, May 26, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.