Talk: Winged Keys

Name

When were they referred to as "Winged Keys" (capitalised)? -- Saxon 14:22, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

See the source on the page. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:44, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I see. That source has been added since. -- Saxon 23:46, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

My apologies.

Image

I am going to start a discussion over its infobox image. There is nothing wrong with using an image from Pottermore which was used for several years over Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, a game which will also not exist soon. For an object, and often for things like potions and food items, Pottermore images are used over more recent video game images, which I would support, Pottermore is tier-one canon and I don't think its contents should be disregarded or relegated to BTS just because the images are old. Out of personal taste, I would argue that Atomhawk Design Ltd images are better illustrated than others. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the Harry Potter: Wizards Unite image because it fits in the infobox better. The other one's too small to fill the infobox. The image policy doesn't say that the higher canon source should be used over the lower canon. If so, anything that has a book illustration would not have live-action infobox images. Based on quality, I'd go with the WU one. I like the Pottermore one but I think the size needs to be bigger. - Kates39 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't think it fits the infobox better, it looks like it is above 250px where as the Pottermore is smaller and makes the infobox not scroll down the page. Not to mention Pottermore are of much higher canon than video game images. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, there's a number of things in your statements that's just "..."; it's a little hard to pick which one to tackle first.

File set at 250px, if you think this is too wide, ugh, sorry, the infobox is going to take up this exact width regardless of what you think.

1. I'll start by the super obvious. Perhaps you should stop relying on your judgement and how you "think", because the infobox has a fixed width; the image is maximized at exactly 250px, so no matter how huge the image's original size is, it'd be scaled down to 250px. IDK why you'd think "it looks like it is above 250px", but it is not and it's not even worth proving because anyone can observe the fact that the width of the infobox is the same as any other page. I'd rather you just outright say you simply don't like the image than trying to make a case on how unqualified it is due to size, when the accusation is just false.
2. You mind stop being a broken record and selectively tuning out when people pointed out the fact that if your "canon tier on image" holds, basically no main characters would be using film portrayal images? Come up with a better reply instead of talking in circles. Also, literally no one is saying WU is a higher tier, we are saying the image suits the infobox better as the PM one is too small, and I say this not because I "think" so, it's a fact when grey bars are on the sides, meaning it doesn't cover the entire space, and that we have eyes and we can read the stats that says the width is just 198px. If the situation is in reverse, that the PM image's width is larger than 250px (so it'd be scaled down to fit), and the WU is the smaller one, no one would be arguing for putting WU as the infobox image. You seemed to utterly miss the point.
3. Take your personal opinion elsewhere. As someone who worked on making sure Atomhawk Design Ltd has a page, I still find this comment "I would argue that Atomhawk Design Ltd images are better illustrated than others." condescending AF. I've seen you try tagging images by them for deletion because you thought they were fan art (as in, you failed to recognize it was by them), so you of all people suddenly professing them to be better than others, is frankly unpersuasive. Of course, you may have been a new fan after coming late to the game, and that's totally fine. Nobody is saying the image isn't well illustrated, again, we are simply stating the fact that it's too small. It feels quite insulting as if throwing the name of the artist around would prove a point.
4. "There is nothing wrong with using an image from Pottermore which was used for several years over Harry Potter: Wizards Unite"; do I also need to point out the obvious that, the WU image obviously couldn't have been used until said image has been uploaded? You uploaded it in July 2019, prior to that, the PM one was indeed relatively the most ideal candidate, factoring that the article simply doesn't have heavy traffic, it remained as the infobox image. Let's view the history of infobox image change, shall we?
   1. February 2009 first time placing the infobox itself, along with placing a concept art as the image.
   2. September 2009 switching to use an image from DVD Disc 2 special features, quite long withstanding, till Aug 2012.
   3. December 2011 first time the PM pic appearing on page; BTS section.
   4. August 2012 switching to use Clare Melinsky's art.
   5. August 2012 one minute later, switching to use the PM pic.
   6. June 2021 first time switching to WU, with reasons clearly stated: "none of the infobox image change happening on this page has been discussed, so don't mistake this to be the first." & "PM image width too small, still kept in the article."
5. Literally, no one is saying WU is higher tier; if you feel quite irritated for the reiteration of the same thing, think from our point of view when that is your only argument. Seems ironic how I don't see you fight for to be used as the pic, following your logic, book would even trumps PM, no? If you are going to say something like "it's too small", then excuse me for considering this entire discussion a sham, and you are insisting on the PM pic just because that's your preference.

I'll even compromise, since you love to bring up canon tier so much. Here. You can take it or leave it.

• It's grabbed and cropped from Bloomsbury Publishing's site feature "A Magical Year Quote Generator"
• It's also seen on:
  • The back cover of Harry Potter: A Magical Year, The Illustrations of Jim Kay
  • The cover of Harry Potter: A Journey Through a History of Magic, seemingly featured within as well as in Harry Potter: A History of Magic (book)
  • Banner for Harry Potter Reading Magic (yes, it's a wanted page) and elsewhere on Harry Potter (website)

It's possibly featured in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: Illustrated Edition, though I can't be certain, would rely on people who do have it to verify. If you have problem even with this image, then do us all a favor, don't ever use canon tier as an argument for infobox image, thanks.

FYI, I didn't have to do all that; I'm totally fine with the WU image, but since it's causing you some distress, this is the middle ground I'd go but that's it. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sam. Yes, the winged key you uploaded can be found in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: Illustrated Edition. The book has a page in which varying flying keys scatter the edge of the paragraphs. In the Kindle edition, they fly around at the top of a page together. In both, you can see the winged key you uploaded. In Harry Potter: A History of Magic, the winged keys are seen in a draft sketch. I'm happy with the WU one, and I do love the Jim Kay one too so I will be fine with whichever one. - Kates39 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra information, Kate! I did think it was in those books, I just couldn't find it via Google lol. The Kindle part feels BTS worthy imo! Would follow this up on your Talk! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)