Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Soundtracks column on Tempate:Harrypotter

Hi, while doing some poking around relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter music, I noticed that your template had no mention of the soundtracks. I thought it would be a nice addition, so I went ahead, (WP:BOLD,) and did so. Feedback would be appreciated. --RoninBK_ETC 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan Art

Why is there so much fan art in the articles? Surely no one accepts fan art as canon? To keep the quality of these articles up, I think all fan art should be removed from articles as it is not canon or officially sanctioned. There is already enough fan speculation in the text, it shouldn't continue to the images as well. John Reaves 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because it is non-copyright, and articles need illustrations. I think images from the films are much to be preferred on grounds of good content, and I doubt warner brothers will have any complaint as it is all advertising for them. But there are are still limits on what is includeable without consent and we try to stick to this. Sandpiper 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of places in the Harry Potter books

This article isn't very useful, and is drastically incompletely. In addition, the longest list of the three sections concerns itself with filming locations for the movies, something which the article title, books, doesn't seem to suggest. Either we greatly expand the article, or merge in the appropriate info to an existing article and delete this one. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think it should be merged with relevant information. John Reaves 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Complex Draco move

People here may be interested in a proposed I have made for Draco-related pages. I have suggested that Draco (currently about the ancient Athenian lawgiver) should be moved to Draco (lawgiver) and that Draco (disambiguation) should be moved to Draco. Given that Draco Malfoy is one of the Dracos in the disambiguation page and that Draco Malfoy is one of the top terms in a Google search on "Draco", I though that people here may be interested. Dr. Submillimeter 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we would have no problem with the move of Draco. Go right ahead if there's other consensus. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Draco move has been approved and completed. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Is there anywhere that details the number of articles that are FA/A-Class/GA/Stub etc across the entire project? I'm curious as to how many there are, and most projects have this. RHB 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's really bothered to set up an assessment department on this WP, though it really should be done. I'd do it but I don't know how. If you'd like to, please take the initiative! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go at it, but I have to state first I have absolutely no experience. I'll go for Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Assessment RHB 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to find someone on the 1.0 Team who was perennially involved with HP articles and could provide some neutral "outside of HP" opinions. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at these pages and still have real problems with the suggested categories. They were designed for choosing articles suitable for including in the published wikipedia, and as such are skewed to distinguishing articles which are perfect from those that are nearly perfect. We don't really need that sort of assessment, which is being done elsewhere anyway (see the assessment tags which have appeared on HP pages already). There is no point our categorising on whether something is a featured article etc, which would just mean tagging a page with essentially this same information for the third time. If there is to be a new HP assessment then it should follow its own assessment criteria. I would simply make a new set of criteria 1-6 (or suitable names). Top is reserved for bloody good 6 is a stub. We also need somewhere to register views. I am not sure that rigid criteria are very helpfull. Sandpiper 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because these categories are consistent with Wikipedia-wide 1.0 standards (in preparation for a future 1.0 version of Wikipedia), you should bring your concerns to the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you feel that HP articles (and subject matter similar to HP) require a different standard, these folks would be the ones to bounce your ideas off of... --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much outside of HP, and created the Assessment page with 65 yesterday. The only reason any Harry Potter articles have assessments thus far is because we were labelling them yesterday; If the template can fit the format of every other project out there, why not HP? You also said that no HP articles fit the A-class/FA bands yet..true, but hopefully they will eventually. Several GA exist, and thats only in the 100 or so assessed yesterday. There is little point in creating extra work for everyone by giving the HP project a unique assessment code, and it helps to distinguish the articles that need work from those that are perfect or near perfect, which is part of the idea surely? There is a talk page for the Assessment page, I would've thought views could be registered there? RHB 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But my central point was that the articles are all being assessed on that scale already by the wiki novels people, and also already get flags to say if they are featured articles (or would if they were). I don't see any reason to re-assess them on the same scale. Far better to use our own assessment of quality. Particularly, since when I read the explanation and description of the categories used by the wiki assessment people, I find a contradiction in where to place an article depending on which explanatory column I look at. By different listed criterion it seems to me it fits different categories. This is because they insist an article must have been reviewed and referenced, which essentially none of ours are, even if they have very good content. I really don't care if they have been reviewed and referenced, and I do not imagine a reader does so long as the actual content is good. While featured article status may once have been a good measure, considering the exponential growth in the number of wiki pages, it is rapidly going towards a ridiculously small proportion of all pages which can ever have it. How often does an article get 'featured'? Sandpiper 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As a case in point, I see 'Lord Voldemort' now has no less than four boxes saying it has been graded GA. If these are all by the same standards, then I find that not only pointless, but counter productive because the entire first page of the talk page is now nothing but advertising boxes saying the same thing. If there is one tag officially saying it is a good article, what is the point of everyone else repeating the same thing? Either we should grade by our own standards or not at all. Sandpiper 20:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FA-class is ideal, but hardly the necessary class of an article to be deemed 1.0-worthy. I think Class-A makes an article 1.0-worthy, it's a lot easier for an article to be Class-A than FA-class.

I'm sure I don't understand your full meaning about the Wiki novels people (and thanks for telling me about that)... are you saying that we can simply apply the Wiki novels assessment standards to HP articles, or that we cannot? If we cannot, why not? If we simply apply our own standards that are incompatible with the 1.0 Editorial team, any assessments we make to the articles will be worthless, and HP articles will not be included in any 1.0 versions. You've got some concerns about Wikipedia standards and how they are irrelevant to the reader's experience if the actual content is good, and also with the different categories/descriptions. Since you have problems with the assessment process, you should make it to the people who created them (either at the top-level, or perhaps to the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment), so we can discuss and tweak the standards as early in the process as possible (disclaimer: though I am familiar with the overall 1.0 project, I am not a member of the 1.0 team, so I wouldn't be the best person to describe the 1.0 process).

As for your note about Lord Voldemort... holy pastel boxes Batman. I'm not terribly happy with all the pastel boxes, but since some articles overlap different subject areas, it would be useful to all the various Wikiprojects to know how articles within their subject areas fall within the 1.0 assessment. I wish they'd be a little less verbose with the descriptions, that would make them more useful. Perhaps they should just have a single box saying it's GA for the following Wikiprojects, then list the Wikiprojects. Each WikiProject has its own pretty little pastel box, maybe it would suit us all to compress them all into a combo-pastel-box. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(meant as a reply to Sandpiper, edit conflicted with Deathphoenix) Many, many articles have large number of boxes detailing their assessment rating. Take London Underground, also four, because it concerns four projects and obviously needs the main FA banner. The project assessments help within the project, showing articles that need improvement, while the main banner assessment helps generally. Project banners, at least up to A-class, are often 'unofficial', and may not have gone through the GA process. Take Earth as another example. Assessed through GAC as a GA, though project banners assess it as A-class and it is part of a Featured topic. I'm sure there are articles that are even worse, but one project may categorise its differently than another project covering the same articles. RHB 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter/Assessment. P.S. – never seen myself referred to as "65" before… that's cool, thanks! :-) --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To return to Lord Voldemort. Voldemort article has one tag saying it has achieved Good article status. That is all that is neded. Novels, Hp and Films have all added their own grade, but all it is, is a copy of the GA grade given by whatever group does the wikiproject labels. Similarly, if by some miracle it became FA, all the tags would be changed. So what is their point? They are useless clutter parotting the one main label. I have absolutely no problem with the wikiproject people making their own decisions about what they need in an article. good luck to them. But we can't impose that grade. They award it. What is the point of us sticking up added labels all over the place and making multiple lists containing the same information? Not only is it a waste of time, but it is bad information management.

What we can do is make a HP assessment of what seem to be good articles. Anyone can then try to improve what are considered the best articles here to a different standard. Sandpiper 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your points (not that I agree with them), but as said above, they seem to be general complaints about WP:1.0's system. Before we do anything radical, discuss this at 1.0's project, not ours. Personally, I think it makes sense to have each banner, because it categorizes things properly, and it would be (at least just at first thought) more cumbersome to have just one banner which categorizes things without any other banners. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with wikipedia 1.0. They can do they own thing, as I said. What we do is up to us. They don't have a problem, we do. We have rubbish obscuring the first page that everyone has to look at when the discussion page opens. We have the suggestion that we ought to maintain a duplicate standard. I don't have a problem with our maintaining an independant importance standard, because I see it very likely different projects may have different views of the importance of an article. (though I think the name of the third level, mid importance, is badly chosen because it is not 'mid') But this particular standard is being largely set on the basis of technical features of a page, absolutely nothing to do with content. Their standard is ill suited to the needs of people working on an article who want to know how good the content is. Their standard was not designed to measure that, but was designed as a selection criteria for a project. Sandpiper 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What was designed as selection criteria for a project? The banners make no difference here, they just show what a project has rated it, and projects will assess articles differently. WPHP may decide that the Harry Potter (character) article is of GA standard, covering the Harry Potter spectrum well, but WP Novels might turn around and say, no, thats only B-class, because it covers the character participation in the novels badly, and is only B-class. Ultimately there is absolutely no need for an entirely new grading system for one project - it would only serve to confuse new editors and mess up the WP:1.0 grading system. All the HP articles are written as part of an encyclopedia; if an article has technical problems/template problems/heading all over the place its less encyclopaedic, and its content cant be good if the basic template/technical stuff isnt sorted first. Does anyone know if there are any other projects with their own grading system? If it can work for every other project, why cant it work for this one? If every other article has rubbish messing up the main page, make some of it into smaller boxes alongside the talk, as per London Underground, but again each box is information for one group of people. Why remove useful information? RHB 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a problem with 1.0's system. You are saying that their grading scheme does not work for our project. It does work, as is proved by our discussion here: our low number of FA, A and GA articles show we have much work to do. This WikiProject has never seen much work, it seems that for a long time it was simply a place where you could list your name in a participants list of Harry Potter Wikipedians. Now, we see the need to improve our articles and thus raise the level of our project. Assessment is doing just that for us: showing us where our biggest weak point is. Now, if we can all get out there and start referencing articles, we'd have a number (two I can remember from rating are Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape) to move up to GA. As we improve the articles within our scope, the rating system will show this improvement. We just need to get going on the work part instead of discussing here logistics of "cluttered talk pages". If you feel a talk page has too many project banners, just add {{skiptotoctalk}} at the top and problem solved. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The GA standard is supposed to be a wiki-wide one. there is a page to nominate articles, which then get accepted or rejected. it is not up to 'us' to award GA to any article. So all the banners which proclaim an article is GA(or not) are either copying the 'official' rating, or are making it up themselves to a different standard. If we are to make up our own minds to a different standard, as you seem to be suggesting, then I am suggesting we should make this quite clear by using a different rating system. If we are not making our own independant decisions, then I am still at a loss as to why any article needs more than one tag, and it should only be the one from the offical GA rating page. Similarly FA, though for statistical reasons to do with the tiny number of possible FAs compared to the total number of articles (0.07% and falling), this is going to be a very rare category.

Hmm. I had a second look at the rating scheme. I think the explanation chart is hopelessly confusing. But it might be better if it is reorganised as FA and GA, which we ought to ignore, and A, B, C (start), D (Stub). Maybe I can live with a 4-point scale, I shall revise the explanatory chart. But again, as it stands it claims that A grades should not be awarded by people who have worked on the article, which is us. Sandpiper 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are to make up our own minds to a different standard, as you seem to be suggesting. That is far from what I am suggesting. It is what you are suggesting, and that which I disagree with. The reason that the system uses GA and FA is to identify from which topic areas GA and FA articles come. We strive to have articles rated that, but we don't. So what do we do? We go out and fix them. Reference them. Remove fancruft. Make sure fair use images and appropriate. Then, once that work is done, articles improve, we get our first featured article, then we'll move to ten good articles, we'll get a second featured article (a lot of the articles are almost there), and then we move up the slope. Obviously, a topic doesn't have the majority of their articles as FA status -- well, it's good for them if all their articles are featured, but it's not expected. We should have articles across a variety of classes now, so that they can be moved up to a better status. Basically what I'm trying to say is, let's use the system we have and make our needs work for it, not find a different system and make it work for our needs. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(posted as reply to Sandpiper) Articles do not need to pass through GAC to reach GA standard. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Candidates#Skipping_the_nomination_process. A grades are often awarded within respective projects once an article has gone through a review process. It works, as long as ratings are objective. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment for an example. Why do we need so many project banners? You cant assess articles on the WP1.0 assessment by category with tables/worklists etc unless the project banners are {WikiProjectHP|class=X|importance=Y}, so a single banner would destroy this evaluation system. That one view tells you which articles need to be improved/merged/removed. As for ignoring A and FA, dont you think we should be aiming to reach those, rather than disregarding them? And for articles having more than one tag..theres always the banners used on articles like Finchley Central tube station, lots of projects, single banner. But what if the projects dont agree? RHB 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fbv, please see RHB's answer for what I mean. He is saying that currently different projects may disagree with each other over their interpretation of the standards. That effectively means that there are currently different standards. I had a look at the standards of assessment criteria, and frankly they are extremely complicated. For starters they assume that an assessor will know all relevant wiki style and content standards, and there are a lot of them. Most probably the assessors do not know all these standards, and also have their own views on which are important. So it all comes back to us interpreting the rules as we see fit, and 'marking' an article accordingly. If they did it precisely according to the criteria I doubt they would come to different conclusions. But if they do disagree, then clearly we have exactly the situation where each group has its own standard, and it would be better we state this plainly. So I am very sceptical about three sets of people setting up structures to make such assessments on the same article

As to FA, I made the point that statistically this is a very rare article, it appears to mean it will be featured on the opening page of wiki, at the crawling rate of one a day. So it is a very rare beast. GA is at least not numbers limited, but it is still a technical endorsement of an article, not a content one. This assessment scheme emphasises technical conformity to wiki standards rather than quality of content. This is not what appeals to me about wiki. I edit article to improve their layout and presentation, but it is with the aim of improving their ability to convey information, not to conform with someones view of one particular style for doing this. I consider an article 'good' if it does this well, and am disinclined to mark it down, or to make changes I might consider worsen the presentation of information despite making the artical conform better to the 'rules'. I see that as a rather trivial aim and the victory of form over function.

I think wiki has something of an obsessive hangup about accuracy and referencing which has more to do with attempting to prove itself superior to traditional encyclopedias than to do with making it better. I don't believe wiki will ever be 'finished', though a number of editors clearly do. I think the concept of wiki is such that the world is going to come round to the idea that no reference work can possible be guaranteed correct, and that while wiki can be brilliant, it is guaranteed to contain mistakes. We should be rubbishing other encyclopedias for claiming to be precisely accurate, rather than trying to prove that we are. People need to be taught to exercise judgement about what they read, not taught to believe that it is perfect, and that ought to be the aim of wiki (and us, in our own corner here). Sandpiper 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Patronus

Is character's patronus form important enough to incorporate into the HP character template? I think it would be a good way to mention it, as it is difficult to incorporate into the article. John Reaves 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't know enough character patroni/patronuses. Those we do know can be put into the article easily enough - if necessary, with a phrase like, "Such and such attended the D.A. etc, etc, learned lots of spells, and produced a [insert animal here] patronus in the final lesson." Or similar. It isn't necessary to add a Patronus to the info box. Michaelsanders 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

eventually. That does seem like a good idea. Valley2city 08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A few things

I think there are several or more articles that can be merged into others - as it is, something like Harry Potter characters birthday list is covered in all the article spaces, and just taking up space? Can't Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent be merged into another article, along with Felix Felicis? ~~Can Miranda Goshawk be merged into Minor Harry Potter characters?~~ Probably revealing my deletionist tendencies here :P. Thanks, RHB 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Miranda Goshawk to Minor Harry Potter characters John Reaves 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where would Flesh Eating Slug Repellant fit? I don't think it has ever been said that it's a potion. Is it save to assume that it is? Also, I think the birthdays list is useful for getting a grasp on the dates. John Reaves 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Dates in Harry Potter article good enough for that, or the individual article page? And is it really relevant to have their star signs there too? I'm not sure where FESR would go, but there are plenty of others like those mentioned above that are pretty superfluous independently. RHB 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter can't show Dobby or Flitwick. Also, the birthday list is easier - especially now - for immediate reference. The astrology is gone. Michaelsanders 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Create a subpage within the project and place a link for all the pages like FESR and we can go from there. John Reaves 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Merging. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, RHB 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea for a page. I'll go search around. As for the birthday list, definitely Dates in Harry Potter (which needs a major facelift anyway) should cover it. There's a births section; have two subsections: "by year" and "by date." --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor characters

I've been creating links to the name-specific sections within the minor characters page, and I wanted to get an opinion on whether or not each section should start "In the Harry Potter series...", or something similar, since the link takes you directly to the section without indicating that that you're looking at a list of HP characters list. John Reaves 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be clear in the context of the link that it is related to Harry Potter. If it's not clear, make it so! :-) The sections themselves don't need an "In J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series…" or whatever to begin with, though the lead should. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There not links, just redirects; though I doubt any minor character names would be mentioned outside of an HP context. John Reaves 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it is also important that the articles make sense. Anyone reading through the article from the top doesn't want to be constantly reminded that these are HP characters. That sort of repetition becomes annoying. But I do think every article should start plainly labelled that it is an HP/Rowling page in the introductory sentence. Sandpiper 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I had started removing the intros already, I'll just finish it up now. John Reaves 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Students in Harry's year

I am creating an article, Students in Harry Potter's Year, to properly organise the information from the 'Harry Potter and Me' student list (which is currently very hard to find due to being spread out all over the various articles, or not at all mentioned). Does anyone want to help? Michaelsanders 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the student article and the Birthday list have been put up for deletion. Would anyone who wants them retained please help to prevent this from happening. Michaelsanders 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, those who wish to delete these articles lack working knowledge of Harry Potter, this Project, and display an obvious contempt for the Harry Potter articles. Furthermore, they are making sweeping statements (e.g. "Only the most devoted fans care...") without any sort of hard evidence, and the least possible claim to representing that viewpoint. Michaelsanders 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort's up for GA Review

See WP:GA/R - the concern seems to be an in-universe approach and lack of inline citations. Please assume good faith and work to improve Lord Voldemort. - Malkinann 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

1. So far as I am aware, in British English, an abbreviation is not dotted if the last letter is retained. So, approx. (approximate) is dotted. Mrs (Mistress), or Sr (Senior), are not. I have already changed the articles of Barty Crouch Sr and Jr to reflect this (although am now wondering if the titles should not be their full names); unless anyone has any real objections, could editors please strive to remove inappropriate stops in other articles.

2. HBP spells the verb of apparate as apparition. If this is the only such spelling, please could it be established in all relevant articles - there seems to be confusion at present. If it is spelled as apparation at any point, please cite it, so we can decide what to do.

Any other questionable spellings, please note them here so we can all know what to do about them. Michaelsanders 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the American editions: "apparition" is most commonly used though in my first edition GOF I think there's an error, as "apparation" appears once. It's apparition all throughout HBP, when it's most prominent. I can't speak about Mrs and Sr as we take those far differently on this side of the pond, but obviously we will stick with those without a period/stop at the end. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Runes teacher, Professor Babbling. I have seen her forename written variously in this encyclopaedia as Bathesheba, Bathsheda, and possibly Batusheda. Can someone please source what Rowling actually said? Michaelsanders 01:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hidden in her official website follow the instructions here http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-tips.html#jottings1. HP Lexicon lists it as "Bathsheba", put the picture on her website looks more like "Bathsheda". John Reaves 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the name can't be taken into canon because there are other things on those idle jottings which have been proven wrong by canon (Trelawney, e.g.). --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not Bathsheba: the final consonant is definitely a d. However, the fourth letter could be either h or u - it could be either, based on other examples in that manuscript. As for its reliability, I already know that: the general rule seems to be that such jottings are tentatively accepted until something more authoratative comes along, but that it is made clear that the writings aren't reliable. I myself merely wanted to establish some consistency in relevant articles (which seems rather difficult). Michaelsanders 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline citation

What's the format for inline citation? Has it been done in any HP articles yet? I recently nominated Ginny Weasley for GA status and it failed. One of the reasons was the lack a specific references. I didn't know if the book and page number was generally included in the text or put at the bottom of the page in a footnotes section with a superscript or somthing linking it. John Reaves 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, as it's one of the reasons why Lord Voldemort is about to be deslisted as a GA. It's difficult, since there are two editions in widespread use. We should consider using Harvard citations, but I think we need to wait a few days until our difficulties at AfD and other excess articles are sorted out. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

websites frequently give up and just quote chapter numbers, rather than pages. There is still a difficulty with this, since some of the UK books don't have a contents page listing chapters. Sandpiper 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Chorley

Herbert Chorley (the muggle who quacked) inexplicably has his own, tiny article. Where should this information really be? Michaelsanders 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Minor Harry Potter characters RHB 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Crouches

Why is Mr Crouch's article named Barty Crouch Sr? He is most commonly referred to as Mr Crouch. His full name is Bartemius. And I am not at all sure that Barty is more commonly used.Michaelsanders 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it helps maintain continuity throughout the articles since his son is Barty Jr. John Reaves 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)