Hi. I saw that you worked on categories recently. Would it be a good idea to get thethe books category better organised? My idea was to add categories "Book by authr", "books by genre". "Books" by subject" Maybe you could help me. I am not very skilled at working with categoriwes.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:52, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

While this is a good idea, I don't know if it's really feasible to clear out the root-level Category:Books, given that there are a lot of books within canon we don't know anything about besides the title. But I don't think it would hurt to add some subcategories along the lines that you've suggested. Starstuff (Owl me!) 17:59, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

re: Deletion Discussions

Actually, I did. Forum:Discussion of an article deletion. But as you can see, despite bumping it over and over again over the course of a long period of time, nobody cared to grace the discussion with a response. As a result, I just decided that either nobody cared or people didn't feel like saying they were fine with it, so made the needed changes.

Centralising deletion discussions is not common practice on any wiki's. In fact, many wiki's ask users to use the talkpage of the article that has been called for deletion: this has to be the only wiki which doesn't follow the common format. I can only assume that this is down to the founders of the wiki not actually changing the templates or knowing much about wiki's in general (no offence meant obviously, I wasn't here when the wiki was created). --Sajuuk 18:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Don't mistake a lack of response for consensus. Especially when it concerns overhauling a major wiki procedure. "Bumping" isn't a reliable way of bringing discussions that are falling under the radar to wider attention, because each "bump" is as likely to be lost in the Recent Changes list as the initial post. Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion is to ask people to weigh in.
I imagine deletion discussions were centralized on a single page to make it easier for people to keep track of ongoing discussions. This is a small wiki. We might have a maximum of ten or so ongoing discussions at a time, which removes the need for specialized discussion pages like they have on Wikipedia (Articles for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, etc.). Starstuff (Owl me!) 18:36, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I don't like to "ask" people. I mean I asked "one user" who didn't even seem to care about the message and didn't even respond in the discussion. That was enough of a reason for me not to bother spamming talkpages for a response that seemed unlikely. And on many wiki's on Wikia, a lack of response is usually taken to mean consent for the change.
And I'm not even trying to copy Wikipedia. Even some wiki's on Wikia, which aren't that active these days, still use the article talkpage for discussing article deletions, it's literally the common practice on 99% of wiki's on the internet. That way, the discussion can be found simply by looking at the deleted article, not hunting out a deletion category.
This is why the newer Wikia Forum module would be better, but Wikia plans on replacing it at some point anyway. It has the ability to highlight a thread so people cannot complain about missing discussions. Wiki-style forums are, to put it bluntly, crap for wiki-wide discussions because there is absolutely no way to get anyone's attention with them.
I am disappointed that this wiki has so few editors. It's a popular series and is still on-going (through Pottermore) and yet few seem to care to edit. Maybe more should be done to encourage contributions: there's a wiki I'm a member of which struggled similar to this wiki for contributions, but had a nice boost of activity by enabling the Forums module and allowing some open discussions about the series, which has helped to make the wiki more active than it would've been without said discussions. Maybe it's something to consider to help in procuring more editors and interaction.
Or another method would be to use the chat. I mean, I've been here only a few months, but the chat seems like it doesn't even get used by anyone, which makes it rather redundant: maybe it could be used as a place for more interactive chatting between community members. --Sajuuk 18:39, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
I know that asking people to weigh in on a discussion can raise concerns over canvassing. But we haven't reached the critical mass that Wikipedia has in terms of userbase, and thus we can't rely on discussions meeting enough eyeballs to generate a response, even if they're brought to our equivalent of the Administator's Noticeboard (the Wizengamot forum). Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion on a small wiki like this is to actively contact people about it.
The practice on this wiki is to delete article talk pages along with articles after closing a discussion as delete. Which is another reason we probably don't conduct deletion discussions on article talk pages -- it would make maintaining an archive of deletion discussions more difficult.
I've been here since 2008. The height of activity on this wiki was probably 2009 to 2011. I think the movies played a major role in popular interest in Harry Potter world, and when they ended, mainstream interest tapered off. But I do agree the wiki could do more to try to bring in Potterphiles. Starstuff (Owl me!) 19:48, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to create a forum post about enabling the Wikia Forums module. It'll obviously need forum moderators to assist (which we can do through the Discussions Moderator flag), but it might help in improving the community (the forums also include some neat tools to get discussions to be noticed). When you get the chance, please post your opinion in said thread (when it's available). --Sajuuk 13:57, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
Discussion made. See here: Forum:Wikia Forum system? --Sajuuk 15:06, March 24, 2016 (UTC)


What page do you post to find out whether something has been deleted? If one cannot find a name, it has either been deleted or the spelling of it has been altered. (Vaudree (talk) 20:20, March 22, 2016 (UTC))

Durmstrang's Location

Hello! I’m sorry for the poor formatting in my edit of the Durmstrang Institue-page. I’m still learning how to contribute on harrypotter.wikia, and I’ve been anxious to fix the information about Durmstrang’s location. I was hoping that some skilled wizard or witch could work their wikia-magic and do it, but I’m feeling pretty ignored in this matter. Maybe you can help?

The biggest problem here isn’t that Accio Quote would be an unreliable site. The problem is that THAT particular article is the ONLY place on the whole internet (that I could find) that claims that Rowling has said that she thinks Durmstrang is located in Sweden or Norway. What makes it even less factual is that it’s not an interview. It’s stated to be a reading followed up with a QA. Which means that the person who wrote the text most likely must have recited what was said directly from their memory. This leaves the door open for misinterpretation and misheard sentences. How can we be sure that this is what was said when no one else can verify this information? Especially since a lot of other facts (like new information provided by Pottermore, which is all written by JK herself) contradicts that one article? We were just blessed with a gorgeous map that shows all the schools' possible locations, and Durmstrang isn’t even close to Sweden or Norway. Why are we ignoring this? Why are we STILL clinging to that one source from 16 years ago?

And even if we assume that the article from Accio Quote is 100% accurate, even Rowling herself says (in that very article) that she’s not CERTAIN where Durmstrang or Beauxbatons are located. So why is the harrypotter wikia stating it as a FACT that Durmstrang “IS the Scandinavian wizarding school” and that Durmstrang IS located in Sweden or Norway? Shouldn’t JK’s own words be reason enough to keep this information speculative? Also, what if JK has changed her mind? Is she allowed to say one thing on a reading in 2000 and then officially state something different in 2016? Or will the first statement forever be the only true fact, despite anything that is said or done after that?

And more importantly, when one piece of information contradicts another one, what source will you prioritize? One, unverified article from 16 years ago, or several verified statements, one from this very year? At the very least, it’s worth to discuss.

I don’t mean any disrespect to any of the contributors on this site, and I’m truly sorry if I’ve upset anyone. I love harrypotter.wikia, and I’m impressed by all the work you guys put into this place. All I want is for it to be the main got-to site for any Harry Potter-fan who is looking for reliable information.Lokrume (talk) 11:51, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my answer? Or is there someone else I should talk to about this? I think it is a pretty serious matter when the text on the wikia page doesn't match the source it's referencing. And when there are reason for discussion, I think we owe it to the books and JKR to make sure that harrypotter.wikia is an accurate place for HP knowledge and not missleading in any way.Lokrume (talk) 11:35, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

Infobox <small> links

Heya Starstuff :)

Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you, but I've been out sick. So here's what I've done to fix your {{C}} issues. Instead of wrapping it in <small> tags, I've given it a named class, .template-c, and then have styled that via MediaWiki:Infoboxes.css. The result is that there's one style for the <small> tag and one for {{C}}. I think it gives you what you were looking for on the Longbottom page. Lemme know if you see any further problems. — CzechOut @fandom 17:59, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Little Hangleton graveyard, Reliable source?

Hello, hello! I really can't confirm the names that come from the Goblet of Fire video game, since that's probably the game I've played the least. Anyway, I don't remember one is very much able to do much exploring during the Little Hangleton level (it's essentially a big boss fight). Though, skimming through walkthroughs on Youtube, it seems that the Charles Epanel one, at least, is correct (see this, around the 0:20 mark).

As for using HarryPotterProps as a source, I think it's fine. We've already used it as a source in the past. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:06, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Update Template

Is there an update or expand template on the wiki? There are no strings on me (talk) 21:05, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Well a template for updating and expanding information on a page. There are no strings on me (talk) 21:11, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
Well my skills with typing are a bit limited and for what i feel that has to be expanded i'm not really sure i could successfully pull it off. There are no strings on me (talk) 21:43, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
Well i'm busy right now on other wiki's i just want The Wizarding World of Harry Potter page be updated for the Hollywood version. There are no strings on me (talk) 22:11, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
You could leave a message on the article's talk page suggesting these updates. Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:26, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Universal Studios Hollywood Map Update

Just thought i would share this link with you. [1] There are no strings on me (talk) 03:01, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to post that link on Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. That way other people could use it as a reference. Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:19, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Oh well that is good advice. There are no strings on me (talk) 03:29, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Deletion process

Oh, I see. I had already responded to the discussion in Talk:Antidote to Veritaserum when you left me a message, since I was prompted to intervene by a user. I didn't find it odd that the discussion for deletion was on the article talkpage, since it also concerned if this particular antidote actually existed in canon through analysis of Dumbledore's line that references it (I figured it was a discussion on the article subject itself as well, rather than a discussion solely about the merits of deleting vs. keeping the page). I hadn't really noticed his message in the Candidates for Deletion talkpage.

That said, I don't think you need me to tell you you're absolutely right -- no one is above community consensus, the policies, or established practice. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:23, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Spambot vandalism

Yo. I already reported that spammer you blocked to VSTF, they would have deleted the spam and globally blocked the account from the service. When you see spam like that, instead of deleting and just blocking locally, let the VSTF know on VSTF Wiki, as they'll be able to global block the account (and possibly the IP), as well as add the spam into the global filters so that it's unlikely to happen again. Hope this helps. --Sajuuk 19:59, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Will keep this in mind in the future. Starstuff (Owl me!) 21:55, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

About the Headmasters' portraits and date of death

I see you've been removing the dates of death on the articles concerning portraits of the former Heads of Hogwarts. I do think they were improperly sourced: this interview transcript seems to be more relevant for that particular piece of information (the relevant quote is: "Some have been asking why hasn't [Snape's] portrait appeared immediately. It doesn't. The reason is that the perception in the castle itself and everyone who was in the castle, because Snape kept his secret so well was that he abandoned his post. So all the portraits you see in the headmaster's study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it's like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office."). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:25, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the quote provides full context: "So all the portraits you see in the headmaster’s study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it’s like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office. Abdication is not acceptable, particularly if you marry and American. I’m kidding! [laughter]"
JKR was clearly making a joke, comparing Snape to Edward VIII, the only King of England in history to abdicate (because he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American, and people were forbidden to remarry while their ex-spouse was still alive in the Church of England at the time). She wasn't literally saying that headmasters and headmistresses only get their portraits hung if they die while in office. It's a huge stretch to derive that interpretation from the quote.
Anyway, the incorrect information about dates of deaths has infiltrated many articles, and needs to be removed. Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:14, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Signature question

Hi Starstuff,

I'm kinda new to wikia and was wondering how exactly to create custom signatures?

Felix Scamander (talk) 16:15, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

Policies and procedures

Hey Starstuff - if you're around, I'm hoping the Wizengamot can weigh in on the discussion I'm having with SuperSujuuk on the Talk page policy. It seems he has expectations based on other wiki's that are not clearly expressed here and deleting people contributions based on these expectations. I undid these changes as removing talk comments is expressly against the current Talk policy, moreso as they were not off-topic, spam, or vandalism. Hopefully we can have a discussion about best practices so that everyone is clear before they are enforced against people making useful contributions. Sorry to be a bother, but this seems to be an on going issue? Cheers Ironyak1 (talk) 20:52, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Active Admins

Do you happen to know how many of your colleagues are still giving this wiki regular attention? {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 21:56, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Five including myself. Six if you include User:Nick O'Demus, who last edited in February. Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex (Jiskran)


Hey there - My workflow for these Unidentified Headmasters has been to use the "Add features and media" - "Add Photo" which (as you no doubt know) doesn't prompt for any of this info. I assumed wrongly that it was presuming "Fair Use", but upon looking closer, that isn't the case. So sorry about that - I'll go back and add the necessary info and possibly crop or re-source some of the images. (Fair use and Copyright gets to be quite layered when it's a screen capture of a video taken of a flip-through of a book based on images of props from a movie based on a book). PS Thanks for adding the OOU to your new actor pages (even though it'll cut down on the "fluff" edits I've been getting to make ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:49, May 1, 2016 (UTC)


Can you block Jdogno7? He has been engaging in persistent edit warring and apparently has a very long history of doing so here. I'd like to recommend a pretty long block, somewhere in the region of 1 year or infinite, since the user is clearly not improving the wiki. --Sajuuk 08:56, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the recently-expired block was at least his third; and since he's only been back a day or two and is back to his old disruptive habits (including bizarrely unique uses of language, such as saying "deities" where anyone else would normally say "gods", or misusing the term "virtual [reality] game" to mean any video game, rather than those few which specifically need a VR rig in order to be playable) and is incapable of seeing that he could be is wrong, I reckon an infinite block is the only way to go. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:05, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
The user above me is correct, they've just come back from a 1 year block. Therefore, 100% support that the block is infinite. --Sajuuk 10:36, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

To SuperSajuuk "Can you block Jdogno7?": Why? "He has been engaging in persistent edit warring and apparently has a very long history of doing so here.": Is that so? "I'd like to recommend a pretty long block, somewhere in the region of 1 year or infinite, since the user is clearly not improving the wiki.": "...the user is clearly not improving the wiki.", How so?

To RobertATfm " back to his old disruptive habits...": What do you mean by that? "(including bizarrely unique uses of language, such as saying 'deities' where anyone else would normally say 'gods',...": How is the term deities being used in a manner that is bizarre? "...or misusing the term "virtual [reality] game" to mean any video game, rather than those few which specifically need a VR rig in order to be playable)...", I concede on this point as I understand that Virtual Reality implies the use of a VR rig. "....and is incapable of seeing that he could be is wrong,...": Not true. I have admitted I was wrong with what constitutes a virtual reality game.

Jdogno7 (talk) 10:49, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+