Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 12, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
October 17, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Novels: Harry Potter Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Wolf, Jessica (February 7, 2002). "Harry Potter DVD Features Include Games, More". hive4media.com. Archived from the original on June 18, 2002.

Philosopher's Stone vs Sorcerer's Stone debate summary[edit]

The following summarizes archived debate discussions regarding motions to change the name of the article from the British Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to the American Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. There are additional shorter discussions and queries on the same general subject that have also been archived along with the main discussions.

Requested move[edit]

The first major actionable discussion debate was proposed in July 2007 as a formal move request to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film), which was in turn in response to a discussion debate entitled Why the different name?. Both are topics located at the Move Request subpage, with the Why the different name? discussion included there as a preamble to the move request. The result of the straw poll move request survey: Three users (including one anonymous IP user) supported moving the article, to 16 users opposing the move. An ensuing discussion debate included 13 participants, with three firmly debating in support of the move, six firmly against, and three more appearing to be neutral acting as clerks: asking general questions, or making general observations without stating a clear position for or against. The conclusion was there was no consensus to move the article, and the subject was closed by a neutral non-participating third-party after 4 days.

RfC: Title of this article[edit]

In January 2008 after another Title discussion, the general subject was taken up again as a formal Request for Comment on the title - see the Title RfC subpage. Many of the participants in the original Move Request discussion rejoined, and many new ones joined in. There was no formal "poll" but rather a re-examination and discussion debate of the issues raised from the July debate. The discussion included approximately 25 participants, with 2 participants debating in support of changing the title to Sorcerer's Stone, 22 debating against, and one neutral. After one month the RfC was closed by a neutral non-participating third-party. The precursor discussion from Aug-Dec 2007 that resulted in the RfC is included as a preamble. The subsequent Notice of Mediation announcement and discussion (see also Further Actions below) is tagged on at the end of the RfC subpage as a postscript.

Further actions[edit]

Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents[edit]

In mid-January 2008, some of the parties in support of the title change sought relief from the Administrator's Noticeboard of Incidents - see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone. The inquiry was turned away within an hour as not an issue for ANI to resolve, but rather for dispute resolution, with recommendations to take the dispute to an RfC, which was already underway but near to closing.

Request for Mediation[edit]

Parties in support of changing the title also sought relief from the Mediation Committee - see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The case was rejected after about 5 hours, as the involved parties did not agree to mediation.

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Parties in support of the title change also sought relief from the Arbitration Committee - see Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone. The Arbitrators declined and rejected the case as a content dispute, and the case was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice.

Similar discussion elsewhere[edit]

A similar discussion debate was held during April and July 2007. See Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/Archive 3#What makes a film from a certain country?.

Music Situation/Remove Conrad Pope's Credit[edit]

Why are we crediting Orchestrator Conrad Pope? There is no reason to. We should save his name for the soundtrack page. Also, he's not the only orchestrator for the first three Potters, seriously, why don't we just credit every single individual who was associated with the music? The music is by John Williams and no one else, why should we credit someone who didn't write a single piece of music for the film, but only arranged it? My opinion, remove his credit and relocate it to the soundtrack page, because if there isn't a credit for Pope on the Soundtrack page, why should there be a credit for him on the film's page? ThatsGoodTelevision ThatsGoodTelevision, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Film was produced in US, so why british english?[edit]

Confusion here. Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a co-production, so on that front it could go either way. On every other front, the franchise is primarily a British film. Producer David Heyman is British, the whole cast is British, the characters are British, the locations are British, the original books are British. —El Millo (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small change[edit]

As the page is writtien in British English I changed "gotten" to "got". 147.147.29.0 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]