Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Harry Potter (plot))
Good articleHarry Potter has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHarry Potter is the main article in the Harry Potter novels series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2025Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 1, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 4, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 16, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 17, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 26, 2022.
Current status: Good article

"Criticism of Harry Potter" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Criticism of Harry Potter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 14 § Criticism of Harry Potter until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 11:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical URL

[edit]

Strugglehouse (talk · contribs) changed the harrypotter.com URL in the infobox from "https://www.harrypotter.com/" to "https://harrypotter.com" saying Removing unnecessary "www." from website URL. After being reverted by me with the edit summary "www" is not unnecessary: the canonical URL is "https://www.harrypotter.com/", they reverted me, with the edit summary Absolutely no point in having this if the URL resolves without it.

If you check the web page source, you will see that the canonical URL contains "www", and it is common practice among webmasters and search engines to use the canonical URL and not some other URL that redirects to it (the name does resolve, but the web server has to redirect). So, imo, Strugglehouse's change is unnecessary – pointless, even – and incorrect. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric I disagree. The "www." is only needed if the website doesn't work without it. It adds unnecessary clutter to the infobox and looks less appealing. Multiple infobox documentation, including Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox station, states "Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it." Therefore, it is completely unnecessary to include it unless required for the URL to function. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, if that's what the guidance says, then you're correct. Thanks. It's just that it creates work for the web server and the browser. Eg from an Apache virtualhost or .htaccess file, it may require a 301 redirect:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.(.*)$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://%1/$1 [R=301,L]
Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric I understand. Thanks. I'm just following what guidance says and what seems to work best. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Television series

[edit]

I see that no one has updated the TV series part. 2806:250:414:BED0:CC3F:3040:5203:416F (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]

Does this really need a further reading section? Bruhpedia (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minera McGonagall

[edit]

There's a typo in the article, it says "Minera" instead of "Minerva". I can't fix it due to the protected status of the article. 178.41.152.115 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks a lot. Also no need to pipe the wikilink as it has the same display text. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overcitation

[edit]

There is some egregious use of citation overkill and primary sources here -- mainly containing things from the Harry Potter website re-iterating things mentioned in secondary sources. wound theology◈ 08:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the citations involved are in the last two paragraphs of the Cultural impact section. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that primary sources are used throughout the page, but the citation overkill is indeed under the "Cultural impact" heading. wound theology◈ 09:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used to make straightforward facts, which these are, and I don't think the secondary sources fully cover/verify how the event originated year-by-year for the historical record, evolved and became organized by Warner Brothers etc organizing the events. As the guidelines also say: "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." I'd be open to some grouped references solution which I'm not sure how to do technically. newsjunkie (talk) 12:48 am, Today (UTC−4) newsjunkie (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources cannot be used to make straightforward facts, they can be used as a source about themself -- if someone notable wrote a book where they called themself "politically conservative", that primary source can be used to attest that fact. That is why it is the best source for its own contents. The Harry Potter website sources are, put simply, fancruft. wound theology◈ 04:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are fancruft, because they are verifying that the official movie/rights company that owns the Harry Potter IP organized certain events on a particular day, it's not just some random fan site. The guidelines precisely say that primary sources "may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." newsjunkie (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not whether they can be used, but rather whether they should be used. The discussion is whether this is citation overkill. The objective of a cited source is to provide verifiability. If you can do that with one or two citations, then that should be all that is necessary. Additional citations just parrot what is already verifiable in the other listed sources. If it's in a reliable secondary source, then a primary source is generally unnecessary. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in reviewing the list of sources along with the sentence they are supporting, if the intention is to use these sources to show that "the date has evolved", this is a case of editorial synthesis from primary sources (which is one of the main culprits of citation overkill). I don't see a source there that says this has "evolved" and it appears as if that's an interpretation from primary sources. It should probably be stated that it "has become" such an occasion, as noted by one of the sources from the next sentence (which is also overcited, since both sources say nearly exactly the same thing). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty much a straightforward fact in the sense that there were just more and more events organized by the main rights holder for lack of a better world as a promotion tool, which is the main thing I think the primary sources make clear: Not just that they happened, but that it's a thing they specifically organized year over year. It started with initial social media comments by the author in the one year (the line before), and then in the following years it was something the official rights began doing year over year with increasing larger scale events newsjunkie (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's really just saying that they organized increasingly more events over the years as a promotional tool, which is pretty much self-evident from those sources, but with only the other sources it can sometimes come across as fans just showed up, without making clear the roles of both the rights holder and the fans. (And then how it diverged somewhat in the subsequent most recent example.) newsjunkie (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just described WP:SYNTH. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be analysis. It is simply stating that they organized events and an increasing number of them as promotion, which is self-evident from the sources. newsjunkie (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's statement of facts that they organized an increasing number of events as promotion from one year to the next as is clear to anyone who looks at the sources, not an opinion. newsjunkie (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(And it's also a statement of fact that they asked fans not to appear at certain locations the most recent year, and then they showed up anyway.) newsjunkie (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "evolved" is a synthesized conclusion. There isn't a source that states what is being claimed - that the events increased as promotion and evolved over time. To state such without a source that says it is OR. That last part (they asked fans not to appear at certain locations) is fine because there actually is a source that verifies what is stated. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's self evident from the official sources that show announcements and documentation of the events over time and an increased number of them with clear promotional elements. The evolved is simply in reference to the previous statement when it was "just" a social media post by the author before the official IP-holder began promoting multiple real-life events year over year, which both the primary sources and secondary sources document. newsjunkie (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statement of fact that they began organizing/promoting events in 2017 and the subsequent years following the author's earlier social media post when they were not doing it before that, that's the only meaning of the world evolved. newsjunkie (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just again described WP:SYNTH. wound theology◈ 17:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's simply stating the fact that is documented that the in person events began at that point with promotional elements after it started as a social media event. There is no further analysis or conclusion, just stating the facts that these events took place as both the primary and secondary sources document. It is a documented fact that there was a social media event in one year, and it is also documented fact that there were real life events with promotional elements in several subsequent years. The statement says nothing more than that. newsjunkie (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a documented fact, then you need a source that says that; and in that case you do not need a dozen sources. If, however, what you're saying is that this list of 11-12 sources shows what you're trying to convey - then you're synthesizing the statement from a list of sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the primary and secondary sources support it and that it took place over multiple years, not just one year, and indicate the role of the IP holder as organizing the events. Using multiple sources by itself is not synthesizing if the sources straightforwardly document what is being stated, that would be claiming additional analysis/ conclusion that is NOT self-evident from the sources, which it is. newsjunkie (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using multiple sources by itself is not synthesizing if the sources straightforwardly document what is being stated - actually, yes, it very well can be. Which specific source says that this "evolved"? If you don't have one that says that, then you're synthesizing a conclusion. Writing for the encyclopedia is not like other forms of writing. We specifically "summarize" what the sources actually say. We don't report news, nor do we provide a conclusion derived from a series of sources (as is the case here). If you need a dozen sources to craft the narrative of a single sentence, then yes, you are synthesizing a conclusion. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is documented that the real-live events took place, and also documented/factually clear that the events didn't take place before when it was just a social media event, than it is simply stating that the events took place in that form in a way they didn't before. newsjunkie (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word "evolve" in this situation is just "summarizing what the sources (both primary and secondary) actually say." newsjunkie (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using "evolve" in this instance is just an alternative to saying "Starting in 2017, they began doing XYZ after not doing so previously...." newsjunkie (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saying one that thing happened because of the other, or that some third thing happened as result, it's just a sequential statement of the event being marked in one way and then in another way. newsjunkie (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One, you need to get the WP:POINT. Two, please learn to leave only one reply. If you need to add something else, you can always edit your replies. wound theology◈ 13:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address the substance of my reply, so I don't think it is appropriate to remove the content, especially without considering an alternative like suggested. newsjunkie (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are the only one who thinks it is appropriate to keep this content -- you are free to disagree but the page should reflect the clear consensus here that the content under discussion is WP:OVERCITEd; and apparently represents WP:SYNTHesized material. Furthermore, you have shown in the discussion directly above that you do not understand the policy on synthesized sources. Please refrain from reverting the page back to your preferred version. wound theology◈ 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how describing a sequential series of events is synthesized material or point to any information that is not in the source. And the OVERCITE tag was removed was by another user previously, so the consensus is not as clear you say. You took out all the sources now versus just some of them, and it is now completely missing the fact that Warner Bros organized events in the intervening years which is a statement of fact supported by the sources. newsjunkie (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Butlerblog (talk · contribs) already explained exactly why that particular sentence was WP:SYNTHetic. We don't present the truth, we present what sources say. It doesn't matter if the sources themselves support a conclusion if that conclusion is synthetic. wound theology◈ 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "Conclusion" it's simply a statement of fact. They organized the events as a promotional effort. Primary sources are allowed for "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That is exactly what is the case here. newsjunkie (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained, there isn't a source that states what is being claimed - that the events increased as promotion and evolved over time. To state such without a source that says it is OR. wound theology◈ 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the statement said. The evolved was with respect to the situation before when there was a social media driven event versus when when the organized in person events began in 2017. the word "evolved" was only meant with respect to the fact that the organized WB sponsored in-person events began versus the social media event the year before, nothing more, which is supported by the sources. The statement was "The date has evolved into an occasion for Warner Brothers to organize events across the world, including at King's Cross, and make new announcements related to the franchise." While I had added some additional commentary here about the event's growth over time, that was not in the statement. The "evolved" referred simply to the officially organized in person events versus the social media only event the year before. newsjunkie (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't clear, the WP:OVERCITE was the initial part of the problem - not just the WP:SYNTH from it. It wasn't "change the synth and the refclutter was OK" - it's both/and. You are now edit-warring[1] against consensus, and you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Please stop. I would recommend that you drop the stick at this point. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Overcite tag had already removed by somebody else. But it still does not make sense to refer the organizers in 2024 and what changed in that year without describing who they are and what they were doing in the year leading up to it. newsjunkie (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure that given the length of the page that AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) simply missed the string of 12 citations, most of which were primary sources. Or, perhaps more likely, they did not see it appropriate to apply the tag to the entire page. Maybe they can clear this up. wound theology◈ 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is just one instance, you can use an inline tag. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to delete the whole sentence and all the citations rather than explore an alternative. newsjunkie (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "evolved" sentence was WP:SYNTH and no one deleted "all the citations" -- I just removed the primary sources where the secondary ones would suffice. wound theology◈ 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you did remove the sentence again, which NO longer says "evolved", which explains that Warner Brothers organized the events, which is a statement of fact. Now it refers to the 2024 events and "the organizers" of those events without saying who they are (and that they are Warner Brothers/Official IP Holder), but it makes less sense and is less clear because it doesn't state what happened in the years prior. If Warner Brothers is officially organizing/promoting these events since a specific year, it should be specified so it is clear (rather than, for example, a "grassroots fan event.") The revised sentence without evolved was simply "Beginning in 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers officially began organizing annual promotional events on the day virtually and in person in London and around the world to make announcements related to the franchise." That is a statement of fact supported by the primary and secondary sources. Including at least some of the primary sources makes clear who is organizing the events, that is not always made fully clear in the secondary sources, which tend to just focus on this event happened without always being clear as to who organized it. If we can use primary and secondary sources to explain what happened in 2024, we can use at least some of the primary and secondary sources to explain what happened in the years prior leading up to it, including what year the officially organized events started and what they entailed taking place annually, these are just statements of fact supported by sources. As the references are included now currently without that sentence, it is misleading because some of them refer to the 2016 year when it was just a social media thing and some of them refer to the in person events that began in 2017. Those references now at the end of the first line are meant to support the factual statements about Warner Bros organizing official events beginning in 2017 that are now not mentioned at all, not the earlier social media only events in earlier years. It didn't become an official event promoted by Warner Brothers/IP holder until 2017, when they first posted about it: https://www.harrypotter.com/news/catching-up-with-harry-potter-deathly-hallows-epilogue-nineteen-years-later newsjunkie (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is MORE overcitation now with all the references associated with the first line, than by breaking it up by adding a line describing how the official events started in 2017 and associating some of the references with that sentence and some of the primary sources at least, which can used to support the basic facts that they organized these events starting in 2017 and what they entailed. newsjunkie (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the citation concern tag had already been removed by another user a few days ago. newsjunkie (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(And also years after the original book/movie release.) newsjunkie (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's found to be important to include all the references, since the refs are unnamed they could all be grouped together, eg <ref>*cite ... *cite ... *cite...</ref>. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to what's in the Cultural Impact section, most of that appears to be unnecessary WP:PRIMARY. Regardless, it's definitely overkill. The objective is to verify what is stated, not to provide a list of every known source. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement as I had edited it no longer used the word evolved. Also the paragraphs at the end now refer to "the organizers", but describing what happens in "2024" and what changed in that year does not make sense without explaining who the organizers were and what was happening leading up to it. That's why including this information and the sources is important, possibly with one of the alternatives suggested. newsjunkie (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCITE was part of the problem as well (see my reply to the already-too-long discussion above) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing rewritten/deleted content

[edit]

Can someone please substantively discuss/point out what is unverifiable about this content and why it merits complete removal, rather than improvement. The subsequent lines also use both primary and secondary sources. (Or how it contradicts the guidelines on primary source usage in this case for statements of facts about a company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources which seems to be the closest relevant section)

In 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers first officially organized virtual and in-person events focused on Kings Cross, including an appearance by actor Warwick Davis.[1][2] In the following years, Warner Brothers continued to organize events on the date in person in London, around the world and virtually,[3][4] including promotional appearances by Eddie Redmayne,[5] Jude Law,[5] and Tom Felton[6] and made announcements related to the franchise.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Variety noted in 2023 that the day had "morphed into a global phenomenon, with Warner Bros. Discovery now taking charge of proceedings," and that Kings Cross had to shut its doors by 11 a.m. that year due to the large number of fans atttending.[13] As part of the events leading up to the day in 2023 in Germany, and also marking the 25th anniversary of the German book publication, 1 748 Harry Potter impersonators gathered in Hamburg in order to break a world record, as part of a larger festival that had over 4,400 attendees.[14] newsjunkie (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your premise. This is not a WP:V issue, but a WP:DUE one. Of the 14 sources listed, 8 are directly linked to the Harry Potter franchise. Neither Harrypotter.com nor Pottermore Publishing are considered genereally reliabnle. WP:ABOUTSELF may apply, but the sheer volume of citations makes it feel more promotional and less factual. Put another way, if the material is adequately supported by the secondary sources, then only use them. After all, if it's important enough to mention in an encyclopedia article, it'll be adequately covered by secondary and tertiary sources. As an aside, sentence two has six citations. That's clearly WP:OVERCITE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there ARE also secondary sources, so why delete everything, rather than deleting some of the sources? newsjunkie (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is they organized the events itself. That is most clearly supported by the statement from the company itself and is not always so clear in the secondary sources, which tend to just focus on "this event happened." At least two of the lines have no primary sources at all, but you removed them anyway. newsjunkie (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to update my original post, but got caught in an edit conflict. Anyway...
The important takeaway is WP:VNOT. Just because it can be verified doesn't mean it must be included. As for why take it all out, and your WP:PRESERVE argument, I'd refer you to WP:ONUS. Not many editors have the time to workshop someone else's contributions. If I don't have the time to fix something, then I can't fix it. Therefore, tagging or excising is appropriate. In other words, you're not obligated to do my work for me, just because I submit a rough idea that needs improvement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The events in the same paragraph in 2024 were included with the same combination of primary and secondary sources and are not being removed. The statements about the events in 2024 refer to the "organizers" currently without specifying who they are, the same "organizers" who organized events previously and the best way to explain is with prior sentences. If we are are discussing the events in 2024, doesn't it make sense to also describe in the same way using the same combination of sources, when the organizers started doing those events and what they were doing in the intermittent years? Here is another version with only three primary sources:
In 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers first officially organized virtual and in-person events focused on Kings Cross, including an appearance by actor Warwick Davis.[15][16] After Warner Brothers continued to organize events on the date in subsequent years in London, around the world and virtually[17][18], including promotional appearances by Eddie Redmayne, Jude Law, and Tom Felton and making announcements related to the franchise, Variety noted in 2023 that the day had "morphed into a global phenomenon, with Warner Bros. Discovery now taking charge of proceedings," and that Kings Cross had to shut its doors by 11 a.m. that year due to the large number of fans attending.[19][20][21][22][23] As part of the events leading up to the day in 2023 in Germany, and also marking the 25th anniversary of the German book publication, 1 748 Harry Potter impersonators gathered in Hamburg in order to break a world record, as part of a larger festival that had over 4,400 attendees.[24] newsjunkie (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current version as reverted *also* has six sources, just in a different place, but not connected to the right sentence really. The sources at the end of that line are about the events organized by Warner Brothers starting in 2017, not the social media event only. That is relevant in the context of what happens later. Now it says "organizers" in the following lines without specifying who it is and what they were doing before. If we can use primary and secondary sources to describe what happened in 2024, the same should be possible for the intervening years beginning in 2017. My most recent edit WAS a "more than rough" attempt to fix initial concerns about synthesis and primary sources by removing the use of the word "evolved" which was prompted the initial removal of the content in question. But there has been no feedback about how this version addresses or doesn't address those initial concerns or to improve it. newsjunkie (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am now under the three revert rule for now, but I would appreciate a version of what I what I wrote being restored at least with limited primary sources and the secondary sources. The objection was not the content, it was the citations and synthesis. I believe I addressed the synthesis concern and my version did not really have more overciting than the current version, which now also has six citations, of which several are attached to the wrong sentence. newsjunkie (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is it really promotional if the events are in the past? That is exactly what the primary sources are there to verify: That Warner Bros organized, promoted and coordinated these events beginning in 2017, which is what the "organizers" at the end of that paragraph is referring to, currently without identifying who the organizers are and not distinguishing them from fan-driven events. There are secondary sources for events taking place every year, but they are not all explicit about who organized and coordinated the event, or they just imply it and tend to just state that fans gathered. The guidelines don't say primary sources can't be used at all if secondary sources are available, the guidelines say they can be used to support explicit statements of fact, in this case to be explicit about who promoted and organized the events. There has to be a way to be able to use both primary and secondary to describe the events taking place in the years leading up to 2024, the same way as they are used in 2024. Here is a revised version that makes clear that there are primary AND secondary sources for each event/year described and making clear who the organizers are, with only one instance of five sources in a row versus six, a mix of primary and secondary sources. Primary and secondary sources support statements of fact, as well as a separate attributed sentence with attributed analysis. Without the primary sources, it comes across as fans just randomly decided to show up from their own volition -- the primary sources make clear that it was promoted, coordinated and organized by Warner Brothers, which is just a statement of fact.
In 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers first officially organized virtual and in-person events focused on Kings Cross, including an appearance by actor Warwick Davis.[25][26] In the following years, Warner Brothers continued to organize events on the date in person in London, around the world and virtually[27][28], including promotional appearances by Eddie Redmayne[5][29], Jude Law,[5][29] and Tom Felton[30][31] and made announcements related to the franchise.[32][33][34][35][36] Variety noted in 2023 that the day had "morphed into a global phenomenon, with Warner Bros. Discovery now taking charge of proceedings," and that Kings Cross had to shut its doors by 11 a.m. that year due to the large number of fans attending.[37][38] As part of the events leading up to the day in 2023 in Germany, and also marking the 25th anniversary of the German book publication, 1 748 Harry Potter impersonators gathered in Hamburg in order to break a world record, as part of a larger festival that had over 4,400 attendees.[39] newsjunkie (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't have the time to respond to repeated WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and I doubt other editors do, either. Try to keep it concise.
  2. Why did you put "more than rough" in quotations? What is it quoting? I don't see that anywhere else on this talk page.
  3. Note the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Look at PRIMARY's point 1: it must be an RS. Harrypotter.com is not an RS.
  4. The current version already had implicit consensus. Your version does not. Hence the reversion. If you think parts of your version are good, try implementing it in small chunks, so only the bad parts get reverted.
  5. Yes, mention of past events can 100% be promotional. A company touting its track record of safety, an artist emphasizing every accomplishment and award they received, a brand detailing every time it was used are all the past, and all promotional.
EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would emphasize what @EducatedRedneck noted about keeping it concise. With the page now under full protection, only an admin can approve a change. No one is going to approve any changes that are controversial. The larger the suggested edit and the more they have to wade through, the less likely it is to get approved. Right now, the primary sources are a no-go, consensus-wise, and if you have a reliable secondary source, there is no reason to add a primary source to it. The article has been tagged as having too many primary sources, so I would highly doubt any suggested edit with a primary source is going to be approved no matter how many times and ways you restate your case. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most simple is argument is this: in 2024 as it is currently written, the primary source as currently included supports the statement that fans were discouraged from attending Kings Cross by the official organizer of the event. "Come 1st September, fans are strongly discouraged from attending Kings Cross Station this year, as there will be no event, departure board or countdown held at the station."[40] In the previous years they were *encouraged* to go from the official site, the same "organizers" referred to in the section about 2024. Currently, the paragraph nowhere clarifies who those organizers are or when those coordinated announcements/events started. The fans didn't just randomly show up --beginning in 2017, the year of the "epilogue" per the author, events in Kings Cross, elsewhere and virtually were coordinated and promoted by the official site[41][42][43]. That's what the secondary sources currently attached to the first line refer to, the coordinated events taking place beginning in 2017, not the social media events before that. There are plenty of secondary sources about the events taking place each year or noting the appearances of the actors, but for the most part, but they tend to skip over or take as given who was organizing/promoting these events and just present it as fans gathering together organically . The Variety article from 2023 I quoted directly does say it generally, but it should be explicitly cited with at least some primary sources as examples for the previous years as well, with the start in 2017. The official site should be a reliable source for itself that it promoted/coordinated these events and overall franchise announcements. The Variety article [44] from 2023 notes that "Back to Hogwarts Day has morphed into a global phenomenon, with Warner Bros. Discovery now taking charge of proceedings," but for example does not note the start in 2017 in connection with the epilogue. The secondary sources from that first year 2017 for example note actor Warwick Davis' and fans' appearances at Kings Cross in 2017, but don't really go into who was organizing/promoting it.[45] newsjunkie (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stipulate that harrypotter.com is reliable WP:ABOUTSELF. Note points 1 (unduly self-serving) and 5 (not based primarily on such sources.). 8 of 14 cites being to harrypotter.com clearly fails #5. Given that several of the cites were for WB "[making] announcements related to the franchise" which are not specified, I'd argue it fails #1 as well.
  • If there are no WP:RS which talk about who did the organizing, then it is clearly not WP:DUE for inclusion.
  • The current version already had consensus. The article text doesn't specify who the organizers are, but it doesn't have to; the source calls out WB specifically. I could see an argument for specifying and eliminating the passive voice in "fans were discouraged", but that's a VERY limited wording change, not a large en bloc addition. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also two of the sentences in my edit had no primary sources at all, and therefore should be uncontroversial. I'm happy to go through it sentence by sentence if that makes it easier. "Variety noted in 2023 that the day had "morphed into a global phenomenon, with Warner Bros. Discovery now taking charge of proceedings," and that Kings Cross had to shut its doors by 11 a.m. that year due to the large number of fans attending.[46] As part of the events leading up to the day in 2023 in Germany, and also marking the 25th anniversary of the German book publication, 1 748 Harry Potter impersonators gathered in Hamburg in order to break a world record, as part of a larger festival that had over 4,400 attendees."[47] newsjunkie (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go through it sentence by sentence Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. As for the rest, I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. It looks like you're just re-pasting your proposed article text, but without anything to differentiate it from your words, and certainly not going through it sentence by sentence, just reposting the entire thing en bloc. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot the quotes which I've added in, but my point was those two sentences from the original edit had no primary sources and therefore should be uncontroversial. The Variety quote explicitly does point out who the organizers are, although not specifically by year or when the events started. newsjunkie (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's starting to look better. I'd remove the, "Variety noted... ...taking charge of the proceedings" as the tone sounds promotional (the phrase "global phenomenon" feels marketing-speak to me), but "In 2023, Kings Cross had to shut its doors..." sounds good to me.
The second sentence might more succinctly read, "In 2023, on the 25th anniversary of the German book publication, 1,748..."
I'm having trouble seeing how one would shoehorn WB as the organizer in here; it doesn't seem relevant to the topic, which seems to be "there were a lot of fans." EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because the fans showed up because Warner Bros promoted/coordinated the event, and the year after as is documented in the current paragraph, they as organizers had to explicitly *discourage" fans from attending after promoting it previously. If it's Variety as a news outlet making that analysis about the event and attributing it to Warner Brothers, I don't see how it's marketing, they 're not quoting WB, it's their characterization of it as an independent news outlet. Variety is the reliable source stating that WB are the organizers of the event. Here is the primary source from 2023 of WB promoting the events at Kings Cross and elsewhere, which one could add to that sentence.[48] Var newsjunkie (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Harry Potter | Catching up with Harry Potter, Nineteen Years Later | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  2. ^ "Harry Potter fans join Warwick Davis to mark '19 years later' date". Glasgow Times. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  3. ^ "Harry Potter: Back to Hogwarts Day is going virtual". BBC Newsround. 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  4. ^ "Harry Potter | Get ready to go Back to Hogwarts digitally in 2020 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  5. ^ a b c d Haring, Bruce (2018-09-01). "Harry Potter 'Back To Hogwarts' Day Celebration Gets Star Power Surprise". Deadline. Retrieved 2025-04-05. Cite error: The named reference ":0" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Tom Felton returns to Hogwarts for Harry Potter film's 20th anniversary". EW.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  7. ^ "Harry Potter | What happened when everyone went Back to Hogwarts in 2018 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  8. ^ "Harry Potter | All the celebrations from Back to Hogwarts day 2019 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  9. ^ "Harry Potter | All the action from Back to Hogwarts day 2021 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  10. ^ "Harry Potter | Catch up on all the announcements from our Back to Hogwarts 2022 – A Look Ahead showcase | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  11. ^ Garvin, Maisie (2022-09-27). "Back to Hogwarts 2022 Round-Up". Pottermore Publishing. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  12. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts 2023". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  13. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  14. ^ "Multiplicado! Hamburg Harry Potter fans break costume record – DW – 08/26/2023". dw.com. Retrieved 2025-04-05.
  15. ^ "Harry Potter fans join Warwick Davis to mark '19 years later' date". Glasgow Times. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  16. ^ "Harry Potter | Catching up with Harry Potter, Nineteen Years Later | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  17. ^ "Harry Potter: Back to Hogwarts Day is going virtual". BBC Newsround. 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  18. ^ "Harry Potter | Get ready to go Back to Hogwarts digitally in 2020 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  19. ^ Haring, Bruce (2018-09-01). "Harry Potter 'Back To Hogwarts' Day Celebration Gets Star Power Surprise". Deadline. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  20. ^ "Tom Felton returns to Hogwarts for Harry Potter film's 20th anniversary". EW.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  21. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  22. ^ https://www.mugglenet.com/2022/09/announcements-galore-in-the-back-to-hogwarts-2022-a-look-ahead-livestream/
  23. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts 2023". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  24. ^ "Multiplicado! Hamburg Harry Potter fans break costume record – DW – 08/26/2023". dw.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  25. ^ "Harry Potter fans join Warwick Davis to mark '19 years later' date". Glasgow Times. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  26. ^ "Harry Potter | Catching up with Harry Potter, Nineteen Years Later | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  27. ^ "Harry Potter: Back to Hogwarts Day is going virtual". BBC Newsround. 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  28. ^ "Harry Potter | Get ready to go Back to Hogwarts digitally in 2020 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  29. ^ a b "Harry Potter | What happened when everyone went Back to Hogwarts in 2018 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  30. ^ "Harry Potter | All the action from Back to Hogwarts day 2021 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  31. ^ "Tom Felton returns to Hogwarts for Harry Potter film's 20th anniversary". EW.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  32. ^ "Harry Potter | All the celebrations from Back to Hogwarts day 2019 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  33. ^ "Harry Potter Fans Descend On King's Cross to Celebrate 'Back to Hogwarts'". Yahoo Entertainment. 2019-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  34. ^ "Harry Potter | What is happening on Back to Hogwarts day in 2022?". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  35. ^ MuggleNet (2022-09-01). "Announcements Galore in the Back to Hogwarts 2022 - A Look Ahead Livestream". MuggleNet. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  36. ^ "Harry Potter fans mark moment train leaves for Hogwarts at King's Cross | indy100". www.indy100.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  37. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  38. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts 2023". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  39. ^ "Multiplicado! Hamburg Harry Potter fans break costume record – DW – 08/26/2023". dw.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  40. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts season 2024 | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  41. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts 2023". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  42. ^ "Harry Potter | What is happening on Back to Hogwarts day in 2022?". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  43. ^ "Harry Potter | Catching up with Harry Potter, Nineteen Years Later | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  44. ^ https://variety.com/2023/film/global/harry-potter-fans-back-to-hogwarts-day-kings-cross-1235710543/
  45. ^ "Harry Potter fans join Warwick Davis to mark '19 years later' date". Glasgow Times. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  46. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  47. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  48. ^ "Harry Potter | Everything you need to know about Back to Hogwarts 2023". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.

Trimming an Overcite

[edit]

In Harry Potter#Cultural impact, the pennultimate paragraph, I propose we change:

...Hogwarts, though in 2016 she later acknowledged that she was wrong by a year regarding the King's Cross events in the epilogue.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

to:

...Hogwarts, though in 2016 she later acknowledged that she was wrong by a year regarding the King's Cross events in the epilogue.[7][8][9]

Reasoning: It's currently very much WP:OVERCITEed. This change solves the overcite and preserves 3 WP:RS to cite. Before making a formal edit request, I wanted to see if anyone had thoughts about a better way to trim it, or if different cites should be retained. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good suggestion. You're keeping the strongest sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the references about the events 2017 and after should be attributed to separate sentences about the events after 2017, the year of the epilogue and the first year that WB started coordinating events. That sentence and references should only be about events up to 2016, so only the first two, as it was in this original version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1282237824 The overcite here is a result of the previous sentences about the events in 2017 and after being deleted, the 2017 and after references were intended as citations for the events in 2017 and after. newsjunkie (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. That sentence is conveying, 1) that "Back to Hogwarts Day" is getting more prominent, which is supported by two of the sources, and 2) that JK Rowling was off by one year, which the 3rd source supports. Other than point 2, it isn't rooted in a particular year, just that it's getting more attention, which the sources bear out. What in the sentence (not citations) is referring to post-2017 events? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the sentence refers to 2017, but before that that it was only social media attention primarily via Rowling, rather than promotion by the official site, there were no coordinated in person or with the actors events prior to 2017, the "correct" year of the epilogue, the first year that WB started coordinating it and a change from 2016. That's why I would document that with separate sentences. The first suggestion after that sentence would be with one primary and one secondary source "In 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers [or the Harry Potter website] first officially organized [or promoted] virtual and in-person events focused on Kings Cross, including an appearance by actor Warwick Davis.[10][11]" The later Variety quote about WB as the organizer generally also supports this sentence. Then there could be another sentence summarizing the other events and actor appearances using the other references, which we can discuss separately. newsjunkie (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my version I've replaced the 2017 Radio Times reference with the Glasgow Times one, as it actually reports on who was at Kings Cross that year rather than speculating. newsjunkie (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that sentence refers to the "wrong year," then it makes sense to have a separate sentence about what happened in the actually "correct" year. newsjunkie (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tweak that sentence to say it "initially" gained more prominence in 2015, and then have the new sentence about 2017, the "correct" year of the epilogue, where it was first promoted prominently by the official website/Warner Brothers. newsjunkie (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's a little bit like trying to prove a negative, but searching Getty images for "Kings Cross" and "Harry potter" the first documented news editorial images for Kings Cross events related to that date in September are from 2017, with the appearance of Warwick Davis:
https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?family=editorial&phrase=%22king%27s%20cross%22%20%22harry%20potter%22&recommendconfig=none&sort=oldest&page=2
Here is also a secondary source on one of the announcements made in 2017: https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/missed-the-hogwarts-express-you-can-now-visit-harry-potters-wizarding-school-online-instead/ newsjunkie (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "JK Rowling makes 'back to Hogwarts' gaffe by getting key date wrong". BBC News. 2016-09-01. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  2. ^ Walker-Arnott, Ellie (2016-09-01). "Harry Potter fans! Today is officially 'Back to Hogwarts' day at King's Cross". Time Out London. Archived from the original on 2024-07-08. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  3. ^ "Harry Potter 19 Years Later | JK Rowling celebrates return to Hogwarts | Radio Times". www.radiotimes.com. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  4. ^ Haring, Bruce (2018-09-01). "Harry Potter 'Back To Hogwarts' Day Celebration Gets Star Power Surprise". Deadline. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  5. ^ "Tom Felton returns to Hogwarts for Harry Potter film's 20th anniversary". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  6. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  7. ^ "JK Rowling makes 'back to Hogwarts' gaffe by getting key date wrong". BBC News. 2016-09-01. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  8. ^ "Tom Felton returns to Hogwarts for Harry Potter film's 20th anniversary". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  9. ^ Yossman, K. J. (2023-09-01). "Harry Potter Fans Celebrate Back to Hogwarts Day Across the World". Variety. Retrieved 2025-02-24.
  10. ^ "Harry Potter | Catching up with Harry Potter, Nineteen Years Later | Wizarding World". www.harrypotter.com. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
  11. ^ "Harry Potter fans join Warwick Davis to mark '19 years later' date". Glasgow Times. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2025-04-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter&oldid=1284795127"