Talk:The Harry Potter Lexicon

Short

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this article is short, but that's because it's not finished. Is "canonity" a word? RickK 01:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) I meant that they are very considered with what is canon. I'm not very good at spelling. I think you want "canonicity". Items of unquestioned "canonicity" are "canonical". -- Someone else 01:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) I'm sure your right, but I don't know which word to replace it with, your sentance is too confusing.

VfD

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Harry Potter Lexicon - about a website. Seems like a bad precedent to have entries about fan websites. Title also confusing, seems like the article is a lexicon of Harry Potter terms, but isn't. M123 00:37, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) Del. --Menchi 01:08, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC) The Harry Potter Lexicon is more than a "fan site." You won't find an article on a charactor from Harry Potter that dosen't have external link to a page on the Harry Potter Lexicon(see Lord Voldemort for instance). And in the context where the link is found, it is clear that the Harry Potter Lexicon is not "article is a lexicon of Harry Potter terms"(see Professor Quirrell) The site is not an official Harry Potter website, it was designed by a fan -- hence "fan website". If this is allowed to exist people will write about all sorts of unecyclopedic websites and the wiki will fill with spam for websites. Also, the "Professor Quirrell" mention was added by you. The context is not at all clear when I see an article title "X Lexicon", I expext it to be a lexicon on X, not some kid blabbing about a website they like. M123 16:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) My feeling is that all Harry Potter stuff should be merged in a single Harry Potter article. --Ann O'nyme 03:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC) Bad precedent? In what way? The Wikipedia should have information on every area of human knowledge, not just the ones that certain people deem to be worthy. The Harry Potter Lexicon is a well-known website. Whether it is official or not is irrelevant. And the title of the article should be whatever the title of the website is, naturally, although I'm not sure whether the definite article should be included or not. -- Oliver P. Harry Potter is too large and complicated a universe to be merged into one article. Shouldn't the fate of these things be decided by people who understand them. I have only ever seen one thing that has to do with Star Trek, but I don't take part in writing and editing Star Trek articles. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=http://www.hp-lexicon.org alexa says it's not important enough to warrant an article. See Wikipedia:Alexa test (when I write it!) Martin 10:56, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC) I feel that this is a very important article but that it should be tagged as a current event. It deals with an incredibly important case that could forever change the way literary commentary can be Published. If JK Rowling gets her way in this case then an entire genre of literary criticism and fan supported guides could be banned by US Copyright law. I feel that this article should thus be tagged as a current event and be regularly updated as the case progresses. It could prove to be one of the most important intellectual property cases of the early 21st Century. Just my Thoughts. KH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.176.236 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC) And also if RDR win it could lead to an entire genre of plagiarism. So yes, it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubycubed (talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) To the two guys who commented above me, the deletion discussion took place over five years ago! The article has expanded significantly since then, and because of current events it would not be considered for deletion now. So there's no need to respond to this section anymore! 78.133.51.232 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Perhaps we should archive this section now. But ya, people could check the dates when posts were added for a sense of pertinence. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

of importance

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think being used by the author herself to research past parts of her work at least constitutes hp-lexicon being noteworthy even as just a stub. I don't think it would be fair to put that on her personal article, or that of the series itself. Having the stub even of an unofficial site allows others to research more about the topic. Maybe giving one article for Harry Potter Fansites would be more fair then there would be less favoritism from the single article for the Lexicon by allowing a look at the larger picture in showing what kind of following the Harry Potter series has made as a Pop-Culture Icon. 71.71.79.235 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HarryPotterLexicon.jpg

Image:HarryPotterLexicon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lexicon lawsuit

Perhaps we should also include Steve's view on the matter? Now only JKR's is mentioned and I think it's only fair to also incluse Steve's own comments... What do you think about it? Chingchuanchiu (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should be careful, per VRTS ticket # 2007122410003381. The Stanford quote is good, but let's keep it strictly neutral and try to go with reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell no we need to include both sides I will try to find a good quote or two LordFluffington454 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is being sued.

Whilst the headline of the CNN article implies that she is suing Vander Ark, the third paragraph is explicit that she is sueing RDR. In such a case, the detailed text of the article takes precedence. The outlaw.com article is unambiguous that RDR is being sued, and helpfully includes a copy of the suit. Mayalld (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The headline doesn't 'imply' anything - it explicitly states that Vander Ark is being sued. You seem to be under the impression that only one or the other can be sued; this is certainly not true. As it is, we have sources saying that both are being sued. That being the case, I implore you to stop removing this information. If you have a source saying that Vander Ark himself isn't being sued and that only RDR is, please share it. Until then, we have a very reputable source saying that he is being sued, so this information most certainly belongs in the article. faithless (^speak) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, clearly we have to do it the difficult way. The outlaw.com source includes a link to the actual suit which does NOT mention Vander Ark by name. I'll add it as a specific reference. One would hope that an admin would display a great deal more common sense than this, and not re-insert incorrect information simply because the source was a second click from the cited source. Mayalld (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is completely inappropriate, and I suggest you modify your attitude, as I have been nothing but polite during this discussion. You were removing relevant, sourced information, while just asking us to take your word that you were right and CNN was wrong. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and asking you to defend your actions was hardly being "difficult," nor would it be "common sense" to take you at your word when a reliable source specifically contradicted what you were saying. Disagree if you want, but I've behaved by the book here, and your snide comments are neither appreciated nor productive. As it happens, it took me about ten minutes of searching to find what I asked you to provide, namely a reliable source explicitly stating that Vander Ark is not a defendant. Perhaps in the future you could spend time doing something productive instead of writing out insulting and condescending messages to someone who has done nothing but abided but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and asked you to do likewise. faithless (^speak) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I KNOW that it would only have taken you about ten minutes. Hardly surprising when the relevant reliable source was actually linked from one of the two sources already provided. I haven't asked you to take my word that CNN was wrong. Rather I have asked you to accept that CNN do not actually state that Vander Ark is being sued. The headline implies that he is, but doesn't actually name him. Conflating "fan being sued" in the headline with somebody in the article being described as a fan is synthesis. I have to ask, given that;

1. You found a reliable source that backed up what I said trivially easily
2. Your position was that BOTH were bing sued

Why did you keep reverting to a version that implied that only Vander Ark was being sued? Reverting to a version that you KNOW to not be fully accurate looks as if you are trying to make some kind of WP:POINT

Mayalld (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis? CNN specifically wrote "fan being sued" and somehow it is synthesis to write that Vander Ark (fan) was being sued? Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion. There was no implication, it was spelled out in the clearest way possible. To answer your two numbered points, 1.) you should have provided a source to back up your assertion, and not waited for someone else to do it for you, and 2.) I have no 'position' on this. I couldn't care any less about Vander Ark and if he's sued or not. As far as your final point goes, let me remind you that you never offered any proof to what you were saying and that you were therefore asking me to take your word for it. I never even said that what CNN wrote was accurate; I simply said that we had a reliable source stating something and, until another is found contradicting it, that's what we're going to go with. That is how Wikipedia works - we're concerned with verifiability, not truth. Disagree with that if you want, but you can't simply ignore Wikipedia's policies. faithless (^speak) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, synthesis. CNN says "fan being sued", and elsewhere in the article describes Vander Ark as a fan. Conflating these two statements into an assumption that the fan referred to in the headline is Vander Ark is exactly what we mean by synthesis. The headline could just as easily refer to some other fan.

Put bluntly, the CNN article does NOT at any point explicitly state that Vander Ark is being sued. Mayalld (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're really grasping at straws here. The headline says, "fan being sued" and the article is about Vander Ark. There is absolutely no synthesis whatsoever. In any event, the issue has been resolved so I say we forget our disagreement and move on. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 10:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi... Fairly new here, but, um... Steve Vander Ark is NOT being sued. Don't go to CNN, go to the actual court documents (linked at the bottom of the article). He is not a defendant. CNN is pretty dumb, but let's not be dumber, I guess? :) rubycubed (^speak)

The link to the JK Rowling homepage is a false LINK!

The link to the JK Rowling homepage is a masked link to a Judias site dedicated to promoting the HP Lexicon side of the lawsuit. If you explore the site you will find that it is utterly empty except for a supposed quote about Harry Potter Lexicon making it appear as though Ms. Rowling approves of the website and implicitly the book. Please type the url www.jkrowling.com into your browser seperate without clicking on the false link, and you will find an deeply interactive corporate website that really is the official homepage. I have attempted to remove this false content, but I get dinged from removing sourced material. I ask that someone who is familiar with this page and also has seen the real JK Rowling Homepage to click on the so called citation and realise that it is false. Then as community we can remove the false content and link to the real content that is JK Rowlings official homepage, which incidendally does not contain the quote contained on the false homepage. Please look to this and ammend this page becuase this type of blatant linking to bad source material is the reason that so many people are skeptical of Wikipedia being a legidimate source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.176.236 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go to the official site and click "Text Only Version" - you'll then notice that the site looks exactly the same as in this direct link. Numerous people have looked at the link and concluded that it is her official site and not some mock up by someone else. Shell ^babelfish 08:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To help further, I played around with her flash site for a while. When you enter the site, click on the paperclip like thing that says "Fan sites" when you roll over it. Its below and slightly left of the eraser. Once there, click the down arrow on the plaque labeled "Archive" until you see "Harry Potter Lexicon". Now click on Harry Potter Lexicon and you'll see the same quote that we're using on her text only site. You can imagine though, its a lot easier to link there than to try to give readers these directions ;) Shell ^babelfish 08:20, 29 April

BOY DO I HAVE MUD ON MY FACE, I am the original author of this diatrite against a so called fake sight and I find that I have been completely mistaken. I apologize to all involved for the error, I should have done better research. I will comment however that this article in general seems have a strong tilt in favor of the Defendant in this case. Still that does not justify my over hasty accusation that a false site had been created to fool fans. Again my apologies. KH2008 (UTC)

The Page should be tagged as a current event!

I am new to wikipedia and am not sure how to tag pages. But since the majority of the article seems to be dealing with the Lexicons yet to be determined lawsuit. I feel that is is appropriate to tag it as a current event. Or to remove the information about the lawsuit and create a seperate page dealing with the lawsuit that is also labeled as a current event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhagan19 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros

Seems that what makes the Lexicon important is the court case - which is basically between Warner Bros and RDR books.

Considering JKR's previous kind words concerning the Lexicon, it is questionable whether JKR was acting on her own or as an agent of Warner Bros. There was a quote in a Winnipeg Free Press article called "Fan being sued over Harry Potter guide cries in court" By: David B. Caruso, WPG Free Press, April 16, 2008, p. D2 [1]

"Vander Ark testified on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, pitting his publishing company, RDR Books, against Rowling and Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. "

or

"... Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies.

If someone has a law degree can tell me what JKR signed over with these "property rights" and what her legal obligations are towards Warner Bros because she signed these "rights" over to them. If JKR does, says or writes anything "related" to the HP books or HP movies which causes WB to lose money, I think JKR is in trouble, though. Does NAFTA Chapter 11 apply? Chapter 11 gives a company the power to sue for loss of future profits. If the potential for future profits is large, so is the compensation, but if it is quite small, then so is the compensation. Warner Bros is an American company they could claim financial compensation from JKR under NAFTA Chapter 11 if she, who signed a contract with them, does anything to lose them money.

Then there is the difference between Steve Vander Ark and Melissa Anelli, who is also trying to published a book. Steve gets sued and Melissa gets a very public hug. What makes her book different than Vander Ark's? Vander Ark was going to get his book published through RDR - which is not affiliated with Time-Warner. Anelli's book is being published by Pocket. Pocket is owned by Simon & Schuster. Simon & Schuster is owned by CBS corporation (from Wikipedia). According to Wikipedia, CBS corporation and Warner Bros tend to work on projects together. 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)~

The trouble of copyright law...........

• This is just another example of how rigid and greedy creators are and how copyright law can lock anyones ideas. I may not be a Harry Potter fan, but this is completely unfair. Who do they think they are? The court and their so-called "justice" really need to get over themselves. See, this is why we can't have any nice things and part of why this world sucks. It's because of these pushy law-types and the media! This whole copyright law is just another excuse for the media to keep anyone from fullfilling their goals. I think a guide like that would've been helpful. I really sympatize for that person and I think Rowling went a little over the edge and should've thought things out. She should've said to herself, "This person really put a lot of hard work and effort into this book. He should've asked me first and we could've worked something out, but why should this book be banned from released? Who am I to prevent one of fans from creating something that contributes to the franchise. This book could actually be a helpful guide that fans would pay good money for." --Kid Sonic (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice rant. BTW, it's been published despite the lawsuit. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you forget that she was actually okay for the not-for-profit version on the internet. The issue was when it was published for profit. Also, the publisher wasn't the original author, so no, no points for effort on their part either. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lexicon gone?

When I click on the link, I get a webpage saying "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 04/24/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion." So is the website gone, or is this just a temporary problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.124.74 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Harry Potter Lexicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080305000110/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8V406HO0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8V406HO0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Harry Potter Lexicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060316220934/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=14 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)