Archive
Talkpage Archive
This is an archive of old talkpage messages. Please do not edit this page, instead you should edit the actual talkpage.


Merge

It seems like you've proposed a merge of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PC, Mac) to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game). Perhaps you are not aware of the fact there are completely different versions of each videogame for each platform. They're produced and distributed by different companies at different times. They're not the same at all. Besides the summary above them all (which is the game page), users have created articles for those specific versions. We can do this since we're meant for it, differently from Wikipedia with its notability policies. - Esbonl (talk) 00:46, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment in the the merge discussion. - Esbonl (talk) 12:44, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

RE:Wiki maintenance

Hello! I can't think of any specific tasks at the moment, just general maintenence (fixing typos, mistakes, formatting, etc.) -- though those things you suggested would be a good place to start. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:10, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I guess there isn't anything that forbids using tools like that, although it did slip my mind about user rights. I suggest you put up a Content Moderator nomination at Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for permissions.
About files; the usual rule of thumb around here has been to keep unused files if potentially relevant and decent-quality (i.e. to keep a library of "usable" images for articles), and delete if non-free and unused if otherwise (e.g. user images unrelated to Harry Potter, etc.). That isn't to say that some of the latter don't fall through the cracks.
As to the issue of inactive rollback users, I don't think we've ever removed rights from inactive users (e.g., see Harry Potter Wiki:Administrators#Inactive), we just label them as inactive, in case they do want to start editing again. Though you'd better leave your suggestion on the forum (it wouldn't be up to me, solely, to decide about that anyways). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:30, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Permissions

Sorry, I'm no longer regular around here, only making the occasional edit. I don't feel qualified at this time to weigh in on such discussions. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:44, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Umbridge

Talk page. See it. Read it. Now. That is all. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:48, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have needed to demand if you hadn't started the war by reverting the stuff I added in. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:32, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
One prior editor undid what I'd wrote, yes, but they only undid it once; you've undone it more than once -- making you the sole reason to blame. The information I added has to be correct based on canon information anyway. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:38, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah; that person undid it but they didn't know the source of where I'd got the information -- when I added that they didn't undo it. Seth is an admin -- they can undo and redo what they like. You, however, are not. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:06, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
Do not that the edit war didn't start until you reverted; the other reverter stopped once I explained my sources. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:18, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
I only reverted it once, but I did suggest that an admin investigated the situation, which is what happened. They explained where you went wrong. I didn't stop because I believed that your sources were correct. I stopped because edit warring wasn't helping. But when an admin undid your edit, I was not in the least bit surprised. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 18:30, February 13, 2016 (UTC)

RE:ArchiveTool

Hello! I'm not at all familiar with ArchiveTool, so I'm sorry but I wouldn't know what to say. We've been archiving talk pages manually when they become far too long but that's pretty much it (see Talk:Tom Riddle). (And thanks for the suggestion -- I've been putting off archiving my talk page for a long time!)

As for redlinks, I'd ask you to exercise discretion. Redlinks are actually useful tools to detect articles we need to create, so unless they're obvious mistakes (i.e. mispellings, articles that have already been deleted, etc. -- which I understand the ones in my talk page were, anyways) they're actually best to be left as is. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:09, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Wizarding World

Say how good is your information on the Wizarding World and i don't mean the Harry Potter universe i mean the theme area at Universal parks? There are no strings on me (talk) 18:04, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

But what about from watching the videos? There are no strings on me (talk) 18:11, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
Really but what about the food and drinks there like Butterbeer, Chocolate frogs and Every flavor beans?There are no strings on me (talk) 18:15, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
They serve food from the Harry Potter Universe in the park. There are no strings on me (talk) 18:57, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that. There are no strings on me (talk) 19:00, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Link edits

For the most part, I don't mind the piped links, sans the redundant ones, but that's just me. If you want to just use the redirects, knock yourself out; be bold! But also, be careful; sometimes piping is necessary. I noticed one of your edits to the Ginny Weasley article removed the link directing to Arthur Weasley while describing their relationship as parent and child; "Arthur" by itself directs to King Arthur, which is obviously wrong in that context, so the pipe is needed. But other than that, I say go for broke. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 00:49, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Also, as an afterthought, piping usually helps in preventing links to disambiguation pages (e.g. pages with similar or the same name). As an example, simply linking to "James Potter" doesn't accomplish much, because it can refer to Harry's father, Harry's son, or the fanon short story. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 00:54, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

re

Awwww thanks for noticing <3 I've been meaning to since a lot of information's come out, the last couple of years I just sorta pop around randomly or if I notice vandals, so many wiki's, so little time xD but this'll always be my main wiki even if I don't have a lot of time to edit every day. :)  BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.    17:49 3/4/2016 (UTC)

Responded :) hope that helped, if you ever need anything I am around, even if I'm not editing <3  BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.    19:18 3/4/2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought it up though, it's something that's bugged me for a long time, I mean crashing/slow loading aside, the amount of scrolling you have to do to look at like the Harry Potter article is insane xD  BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.    20:30 3/4/2016 (UTC)

Rights

Oh, you have been granted rights? Congratulations! --  ArrestoMomentum | talk  18:29, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

Why did you remove the quotes that went along with his individual relationships?Misskatniss1546 (talk) 12:54, March 8, 2016 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

Some of the relationship articles on other wikies have one quote pertaining to each individual, would that be fine? Instead of a numerous amount, just one.Misskatniss1546 (talk) 13:11, March 8, 2016 (UTC)Misskatniss1546
I have the quotes and what if it's a quote from the author? I haven't added any. Misskatniss1546 (talk) 13:36, March 8, 2016 (UTC)Misskatniss1546
Okay thanksMisskatniss1546 (talk) 13:43, March 8, 2016 (UTC)misskatniss1546

Talkpage

FYI What I put on the TALK page WAS NOT theory - it was fact and if you read the book you'll know what I mean! IDIOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatyPerryFan4Eva (talkcontribs).

AND THE MORE YOU DELETE IT - THE MORE I'LL PUT IT BACK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatyPerryFan4Eva (talkcontribs).
well in that case ur the biggest idiot that walked - do ya feckin' maths and read the book and then you'll see that what I'm saying is right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatyPerryFan4Eva (talkcontribs).

Re: Cheers!

Yeah, no prob. If she continues her disruptive editing when the block expires, I or one of the other admins can re-block her for longer. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 17:04, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

M Dudziac

The problem is that there is no talk page. Got the name off of wikia and had put it away for first names and was going to put it away for surnames and then realized that it no longer existed. If I can no longer find the name, then I can no longer find the talk page. Either it has been deleted outright or someone decided that it was spelt wrong and changed the spelling. Either way, I want to adjust my notes. (Vaudree (talk) 11:20, March 21, 2016 (UTC))

Deletion discussion

Category talk:Candidates_for_deletion is the centralized location where deletion discussions are held and has been for many years. It is linked in the Recent Changes header. If you believe it would be better to hold discussions somewhere else, feel free to propose your ideas in the Wizengamot forum, but don't just presume to override (and in the process, break) an established community procedure. Starstuff (Owl me!) 18:07, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Title template, Discussion on forums

The {{Title}} template used to modify an article's title without actually changing it (i.e., when in the From Egg to Inferno: a Dragon-Keeper's Guide article, one would see an italised title -- because there was a {{Title|''{{PAGENAME}}''}} on the source code -- even though the title itself wasn't italised in any way). I'm guessing that it doesn't work anymore, and it's probably legacy code.

About the bot, I must've missed it. Though I don't think RFP has been used to request for bots before (come to think of it, it's been too long since I've seen a bot round these parts -- I wouldn't know the proper procedure to set up one)

About the Forum discussion, I just went there. I've deleted the vote for now, since we usually have some discussion before formally opening it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:51, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Forums

I appreciate the invite. However, as I've mentioned to others here recently, I haven't been regularly active here for a while now and make only the occasional edit. Therefore, I don't feel comfortable at this time weighing in on such discussions. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:35, March 25, 2016 (UTC)

Archives

Thank you. I have forgotten about that completely.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:35, April 5, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Deletion process

Hello! I'd ask you not to take Starstuff's concerns wrong. I don't think she is trying to discredit you or actively disregarding your input. Everyone -- and that obviously includes you -- is welcome to be bold and propose change; that's literally the driving force of all wikis. The issue here is not the change that you proposed (I don't think Starstuff has an issue with that, regardless of wether she agrees or disagrees with you), but how atempted to implement that change without prior community consensus (you did create a forum post, but lack of response cannot simply be taken as an a-ok to just go ahead and overhaul an established community procedure).

As for Starstuff being "overreacting unnecessarily over someone doing something in the correct (and standardised wiki) way", bear in mind that there necessarily isn't a correct way to do things. What works on a wiki might not work on another. All things on wikis are reviseable -- provided the community decided for it.

About Starstuff's message on my talkpage, don't take it too personally. She's basically asking me, as an uninvolved administrator, to act as a neutral intermediary. It's standard procedure. She's just exposing the situation so that I can mediate, nothing more.

  • Tl;dr: you have to procure community consensus to go through such a large wiki-wide change. "Be Bold" also advises not to get upset if your bold edits get reverted. Dialogue is key! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:49, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Block

Yes check.svg Done Looks like you're right. I guess I saw he had edited a spam page and jumped to the conclusion that he had created it.--Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 15:09, April 16, 2016 (UTC)


Reference Quotes

Hey - I'd like to undo you edits to my DADA reference that included the pertinent quote. I would suggest in general that small contextual quotes be included when possible with references so as to provide the details immediately at hand and avoid losing the information if the source link breaks. Given the very extensive link rot on the site (especially with the Pottermore change over) much of the previously cited info now lacks a confirmable canonical source. Pulling a small quote preserves and highlights the fact being referenced, instead of a general citation for a web page or book chapter. While this ref is for a book, there is no link to break and I can always include the info as a quote in the article, but as a general reference style, brief quoting is is more complete and permanent and worth using when possible. Your thoughts? Ironyak1 (talk) 10:59, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

While I agree a quote is not necessary do you feel they are harmful in some way? Why remove solid canonical information from the page? Imagine if everyone had copied small snipets from Pottermore for their Notes and references instead of a naked link? That information would still be viable and supporting the article instead of a broken link. Future proofing and preventing link rot is a common wiki & referencing concern yes? Saying that the fandom will just die off anyways so who's to care is pretty pessimistic IMHO. Ironyak1 (talk) 11:39, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree you with if it was a just a "reference" section, but the articles have a Notes and references section and as such acts both like foot notes that provide additional explanation, quotes, examples as well as basic references. Its not necessary to ref anything at all and many people don't bother leading to all sorts dubious info. In this case, I'm happy to move this info into a quote box, but I will be using small direct quotes in other notes and refs section for clarity and would appreciate you not erasing the extra time and effort this takes. Sound good? Ironyak1 (talk) 12:03, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
There are many pages that have foot notes without any links or source refs in the Notes and refrrence section including Harry_Potter so its not just for reference links as you seem to feel (or there are many, many counter examples to this expectation that need fixing?) As for community pages, I can add stuff, you can remove it, and I can add it back, etc, etc, ad naseum. This talk is trying to prevent that. As you seem disinclined to recognize any other use pattern than your own it's probably best to have an admin weigh in. Ironyak1 (talk) 12:52, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Including direct quotes from the books in references is acceptable (and even preferable) in certain cases. Sometimes information is "buried" within the source text or delivered in a confusing manner, and, thus, providing readers with the relevant quote instead of simply giving them a book and chapter may be more helpful. It resolves any ambiguity over where the information is being culled from the source text, and can help prevent the inevitable cycle of someone removing information from an article because they can't remember the exact place it's revealed in canon, and someone else having to restore said information with an explanation.

That said, I can understand concerns about excessive/unnecessary quotes cluttering up "Notes and references" sections, so the inclusion of quotes in references should only be done on a case-by-case basis. If there's any doubts over the utility of particular quote included in a reference, this is probably best resolved on the article's talk page. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:43, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

re: Quotes

Hmm... I´d tend to say that including the chapter reference is enough. --Rodolphus (talk) 12:17, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

The issue I am running into is that the article text sometimes doesn't align with the source text so I've been adding small quotes in some refs to clarify the source material. This page is not the best example but having the specific quote up front hopefully helps avoid future edits that re-obfusicate the facts. Is it necessary? No of course. Is it helpful? Can be when sorting out nuances and details IMHO. In this case I'm trying to untangle Dippet's info that is overloaded with lots of assumptions and speculation; but the answers hinge around the DADA position dates so having clarity of evidence there to discuss is essential. Hope that helps explain the reason for adding some extra details. Ironyak1 (talk) 12:52, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

re Discord

Yep that's me, I always forget to sign on though cuz I mainly use skype. User talk:BachLynn23 20:55, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Trivia Note

Hi, as a Potter researcher I use the wiki a lot. However, I saw a mistake in "The Hogwarts railway viaduct". The jacobite isn't the locomotive no 5972 used in the HP movies, but another type, not even from the GWR. I changed it but it appears you removed it. Why, may I ask? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JiskPotthead (talkcontribs).

Ah, thank you. I'm completely new here so I need to know the standards, but thanks. Hope to have a wonderful time here. --JiskPotthead (talk) 12:40, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

I want to say something: I know you try to help me, but it gives me a rough time. Alot of people-Maybe even you- Find it annoying that I don't enjoy help much. Sorry for the inconvinience. =(  CorporealPatronus (talk) 22:06, April 19, 2016 (UTC)Patronus

Source Material Templates

Thanks for the clarification on the templates and how to use them within refs - obviously I missed the quotes. Making the change over from article links to the templates seems like a large but useful task. Is this part of what you are looking to automate? Ironyak1 (talk) 21:55, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Jdogno7

Sajuuk,

a word to the wise - User:Jdogno7 is a known cross-wiki vandal and troll, which can only be dealt with by blocking him indefinitely.

You can check his past history on here, on hercxena, on disney and on a number of other wikis you can google yourself - "Jdogno7" and "wikia" as key words. Grow some hair on your chest 'cause it is a fugly read. Easy enogh, because he's got a small repertoire of tricks, but fugly nonetheless.

I know you've got rights over text, but none over users, so I'll recommend the following: 1) don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness; fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state; 3) hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.

You won't get from me anything more than this - I have interacted with J7 in the past and have no intention to do so again. Best, RegardingJdogno7 (talk) 11:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

"User:Jdogno7 is a known cross-wiki vandal and troll, which can only be dealt with by blocking him indefinitely.": I do not know who you are but that is a lie.

"You can check his past history on here, on hercxena, on disney and on a number of other wikis you can google yourself - "Jdogno7" and "wikia" as key words. Grow some hair on your chest 'cause it is a fugly read. Easy enogh, because he's got a small repertoire of tricks, but fugly nonetheless.": As a general rule I try to be polite at all times but all I can say about this is: What the fuck are you talking about?

"I know you've got rights over text, but none over users, so I'll recommend the following: 1) don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness; fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state; 3) hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.": "don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness;", Why shouldn't questions be answered if they are legitimate questions? "fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state;", Why? Have I damaged them somehow?! "hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.", well I wouldn't wish that on your cowardly arse so that does that make me a better person?

"You won't get from me anything more than this - I have interacted with J7 in the past and have no intention to do so again.": Who the fuck are you, you bloody COWARD?

Jdogno7 (talk) 12:10, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Discussions with Jdogno7

I, all with numerous other users, have across several years and wikis striven to reason with this user. I have never heard him accept being in error, and the debates were always endless. He has decided that 'gods' must be replaced by 'deities', and will now set about converting this entire wiki, until the next time he is blocked, which has happened frequently in the past. His talkpage provides ample evidence of the situations there have been. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 11:59, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Phineas Nigellus Black

Why have you locked Phineas Nigellus Black's page? Jdogno7 (talk) 12:26, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

"The page was locked because of counter productive edit warring that you were engaging in.": In your opinion it was counter productive. --Jdogno7 (talk) 00:12, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Game vs. Video Game

On the "Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone" game soundtrack article you stated in the edit sumary "because it's misleading and incorrect. "vi..." : What was the rest of the summary? Jdogno7 (talk) 12:58, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

"As for the summary, it is because that it is incorrect and not to mention completely confusing. The soundtrack pages are about the video game soundtrack, so why would you move them to "virtual game soundtrack", which has no context, does not make any sense and is blatantly false?": How is it incorrect and confusing? Virtual Game does have context and does make sense because Video Game refers to all non-computer related versions of the games. So how is that blatantly false? --Jdogno7 (talk) 00:14, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

The term "video game" refers to console games, handheld games, computer games, and arcade games alike. Basically any game that is played by interacting with a visual interface on some type of screen. Back in the 1990s, many probably would've taken exception to computer games being called "video games," because the console and computer game communities were more isolated from each other than they are now. But nowadays "video game" is applied across the board, and I've certainly never encountered the term "virtual game." Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:04, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
When I say virtual game, I mean virtual reality game. --Jdogno7 (talk) 01:11, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Page protection requested

Pages involved: Cecilia, Hermes, Flora Carrow, Lovegood family, Pandora Lovegood, Libatius Borage, Hestia Carrow, Orion Black. Thanks, Ariel159 (talk) 08:42, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks is likely not enough, Sajuuk. If Jdogno7 is not blocked, preferably indefinitely, by then, you'll have to protect those pages indef, I'm afraid. Ariel159 (talk) 09:00, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but this situation might require exceptional measures; we'll see how it shakes out. Thanks for your help, anyway. Ariel159 (talk) 09:16, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Editing of full-protected pages

Hi, Sajuuk! May I ask if you are a helper or do you work for Wikia that you can edit full-protected pages? Normally only admins and higher can do so if I remember correct.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 15:15, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the missing logo irritated me. And that there are things you don't like I didn't know. But as content moderator you should have a logo, too, but I don't see any. So that's the cause I asked you. Thanks for the information!  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:10, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
Then let's hope the best. This bug exists already for a long time.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:20, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

"Overzealous"

You might consider that when multiple people have to call you out, including actual sysops, on your tone and approach to handling things that there might be a better way? Given your extensive experience, perhaps sharing some of that knowledge and providing a pointer to this new user as to how to use a sandbox would be a useful and friendly follow up to removing their first edit? This doesn't seem to be your style which is why I consider it overzealous and decided on a good will gesture to be more welcoming (even at the risk of "inciting laziness" ;). Ah another day, another argument with you. Same time tomorrow? --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:17, May 3, 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bot

Sorry, but if the proposal appeared uncontroversial, then I'd feel comfortable weighing in on it. But as it stands, it appears that there's quite a bit of concern. It's not personal. I just don't feel I know enough about the situation to be comfortable making an informed decision. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:05, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Link templates

I edited {{PS}} to fit the current input/output we were talking about so it can demo in the forums. I put the Chapter after the default value a little differently to avoid the double pipes. I am doing something similar on QTA, TBB, and FB so let me know if you find any issues with it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:17, May 13, 2016 :(UTC)

One more thought - perhaps all the template names should drop including the initial letter for 'the', 'of'. So PS, CS, PA, GF, OP, HBP, DH. Saves a little space ;) and is more consistent for WWHP: The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, HPE: Harry Potter: The Exhibition, MHP: The Making of Harry Potter, etc. I added HPCV to replace TCV to follow the same convention. The two letter codes are familiar to anyone who followed The HP Lexicon so they should be uncontroversial. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:09, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
DOH - I just noticed that the changes I made to PS removes the chapter=1 approach we had settled on so I went back and modified it. Sorry about that! --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:56, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
Ok last change idea - I would like to move the chapter number up to the |B option - the call would look like this {{DH|B|1}} and the output would be Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Chapter 1. This combines the best of both worlds in that you don't have to type out chapter= and you can only set chapter information for the book. Just a single line of code on the |B option and Bob's your uncle. {{#if:{{{2|}}}| Chapter - {{{2}}}|}}. You do need to remove the (book) text however -> redlink. Let me know if you want to edit these or if you unlock them I can make the change over. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:26, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
From DH: |B=Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (book). I disagree with having to type out "chapter=1" just to have the code return "Chapter - 1" as higly redundant and requiring users to know the variable names. Also with the current approach they have to know to double pipe the call to pass in 2 whereas |B|2 links together the idea of citing a book - chapter. I can ping sysops on the matter (FWIW), but I really do think the B|1 is cleaner and easier to understand and makes for simpler code. Any final thoughts before I check with others? --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:47, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
I really like the idea of covering both bases and it removes the double piping, but it seems to still allow some odd constructions {{PS|F|chapter=5}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) - Chapter 5
I can see a couple options to try as it's probably best to link {2} and chapter to |B and #default choices only I think. PS - I'm in chat if that's easier --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:03, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
It's an interesting argument although I don't think anybody would cite film - chapter 2, or game - chapter 4. If you really want to support this citation method, I think you'd just pull {2} for each of the switch cases and cite: (film) at: 30m 15s, or (video game) - Level 3. Overall, I think the current approach allows for both a short and explicit method and that is good, but overloading the notion of chapter when displaying information the other mediums doesn't make much sense. Again, no rush on it so think through some options and we can go from there. FWIW, it feels very close to a complete solution. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:28, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
So I moved the {2}|chapter= check up to the |B|#default and I think that provides the behavior desired. See User:Ironyak1/Sandbox for the full test suite. If you want to support a similar specific citation method for the other mediums then it is simple of course to add {2}|time, {2}|level, etc for each case. With our back and forth, I think we've found a very robust approach so I think it's been time well spent. Let me know what you feel is left to sort out. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:22, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
FYI there is some trailing space issue or something causing trouble with comment tags after (video game). See Parvati Patil --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:06, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I can understand the frustration, but saying that allowing for creating citations like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack) - Chapter 2, is intentional, sounds a little like the old "it's not a bug, it's a feature" argument ;) If you really want to support detailed citation for the films, soundtracks, and video games, I am wholly supportive and would probably find ways to use it, but the language needs to fit the medium so film (regardless of viewing - theater, DVD, etc) uses "at:time", soundtracks use "track: name/num (at:time)", and video games use "Level: name/num". The simple way I restructured PS allows for adding these medium specific citations but preserves the key solution that you came up with, namely the if {2}chapter approach. Let me know if you plan to add in these extended citation options.
If you're not going to implement those now, then I think PS is complete and covers all the common uses in Appearances and References. The other 6 core templates just have to be updated. I have started to work up the documentation asked for (User:Ironyak1/Link Template List) so let me know if I missed any templates or options (I need to add in chapter= option for QTA for instance). I coded a new HPV for the vault books now that the Artifact vault is being released in June whose name I think fits better than HPCV or TCV so these can be depricated & deleted.
Given the little display oddities seen like with Patil (I created some with my PM|link changes as well) I think it best to review WhatLinksHere for now and slowly use the templates on edits during the next few days to see what else we run into. As everyone has been clearly in favor thus far, I will bump the thread with the documentation later today, then bump/notify admins in a few days to solicit any final input. Unless there are any isues found, the link templates should be in wide circulation at the end of the week. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help, and thanks for all the hard work! --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:00, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
I sorted out PS by separating |B and #default for the citation option. I think it's working as intended so give a look and let me know if all's well. If so, I will update docs, bump forum, any copy to other core templates. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:28, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussions

I recently opened a couple of discussions on the Wizengamot forum proposing changes to policy. The first proposal concerns adding new guidelines on the listing of family members in character infoboxes to HPW:CIFG. The second proposal concerns updating our formal policy on the use of copyrighted material (such as screenshots from the films) to bring it into line with current practice. If you have time, feel free to check out these discussions, and contribute your thoughts and suggestions. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:05, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

hi how are you?

Rita Skeeter

If you want to change it back to your way for the difference between the books and films for Goblet of Fire you will need to make a Rita Redirect page for that to work, unless you want to go with my previous approach instead. -Adv193 (talk) 16:03, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Nice for taking care of it. I'll also help take care of any spelling problem are adding in any information that is important to note like what I did for Percy to make it more understandable for people to read. I will note that any differences that do not have anything with the importance of the plot in the film can be just be kept in the "Behind the Scenes" area of that character's page, while Harry, Fred, and George recognizing Cedric Diggory in the Goblet of Fire book unlike the film can be one such think that will be reserved for the character pages and not the film pages since it will help avoid too unnecessary words in the film pages which I hope you understand the importance of what I am trying to say. But nice work on making sure the same subject is not repeated twice like S.P.E.W. to cut down on unnecessary space. -Adv193 (talk) 16:19, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

RE: RC / Activity feed subpages

You probably saw my Forum post already, but just toying with ways to find talk and forum discussions a little easier. Likely there are ways to improve it so feedback is welcomed as always. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:52, May 20, 2016 (UTC)


Well. If I will upload image of conversation as a proof then it is ok isn't? --Matthew Bowyer Fan (talk) 14:57, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

Interesting user

Hi, Sajuuk! I'm admin and bureaucrat in the German Harry-Potter-Lexikon. We have a user there since today, which also is user here, also since today. He / she has created a page nonsensical in our wiki. I thought I tell you in the case this happens here, too.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:50, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. When there would really be trouble an admin must be alerted.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 15:29, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Unlock LEGO

Can you unlock {{LEGO}} please? I'd like to update its usage notes for easier referencing of the params. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:28, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

All done - thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:34, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Order of Merlin

Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:17, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Merlin Silver.jpg Order of Merlin (Second Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Seth Cooper for having over two-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.

Page problem

Hi, Super! I have a problem with the page Forum:Character Images and Infoboxes. I can only edit it with my smartphone but not with my computer. When I try to edit it with my computer it always says:

A script on this page may be busy, or it is no longer responding. You can stop the script now, open the debugger or run on.

By copying this message I got also this here:

Script: http://slot1.images3.wikia.noc…__am/1464990246/group/-/eplrte:1451

But when I open this link I get this message:

The side slot 1.images3.wikia.xn - noc__am-2e14b was not found. Perhaps the Internet address (URL) is not correct.

Neither of the 3 possibilities work. It's only on this page, all other pages are okay. And it's only this wiki. So I thought I ask you what's happening. Perhaps you can help.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:42, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will see what I can do.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 20:29, June 4, 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.