Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Book covers

You do have permission to put these images of the covers in, right? (--User:67.171.166.178)

Before I uploaded any book covers (and I uploaded a *LOT* that week), I posted to the village pump to find out what the dela is from a legal perspective. You can find the discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Fair use of book covers. The summary is - as long as we use them in an article related to their content, we're covered by fair use. →Raul654 09:32, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there any particular reason that the cover image shown here is of the US version (with the alternate title)? Surely the Bloomsbury ones are more relevant, since they were the first publishers to pick up the series. - Mark 09:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - because it's what I had sitting on my shelf when I scanned them in :) →Raul654 09:24, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

The book cover for the UK version can be found on the UK's Amazon site:

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0747532745.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I finally got hold of a scanner, and scanned in all the Bloomsbury covers. Six months isn't much of a delay! ;-) - Mark 13:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Grown-up covers

Can anyone get us the covers for the "grown-up" editions? (I hesitate to write "adult" for obvious reasons :-) --Phil | Talk 16:58, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that there's a grown-up cover of the Philosophers Stone on the Leaky Cauldron website, but I don't know how to paste pictures into Wikipedia.

--Janet6

Controversy

Should this section be merged into the corresponding section in Harry Potter: we don't really need a "controversy" section for each book, do we? --Phil | Talk 13:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Plot

Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Need synopsis of Gryffindor Hufflepuff Ravenclaw Slytherin?

I think this article lacks a synopsis of the different houses the sorting hat sorts students into. What do people think? Each "house" already has its own article (Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin) but there aren't even any links to them in this article, let alone a synopsis. zen master T 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree! Although I'd choose a very brief mention to them, like:

===The four Great Houses=== [or something, and even maybe under some already existing section]

Hogwarts rules imply each student to be sorted into one of the four existing Houses: Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. This sorting is done in their first arrival at the caste, during a sorting cerimony in which the Sorting Hat reads their minds and chooses appropriately the house.

This houses were founded by four wizard of the same name, during the creation of the school, a thousand years ago.

Then perhaps add a Main article: sentence referring to the links of the Houses.

Jotomicron | talk 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are chapter titles necessary?

I removed the chapter titles from this (and the other books) because the consensus at Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince indicated that Chapter titles were not necessary for an article that is supposed to be a brief summary of this piece. Just thought I'd explain my now-reverted edits and try to get a gauge on how the folks on this article feel. --Deathphoenix 13:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You removed them? Then they came back I see. I just removed them again in an effort to make all the book pages consistent. All that uses the non-standard look is HBP now since it has a lot of news stories attached. I definitely think the chapter titles are not necessary. -Matt 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Spanish cover

I think that the Spanish cover should be deleted, edited, or made smaller because it is very pixelated. What do you all think?

1012159-n.jpg

File:1012159-n.jpg

Which one?

The Sorting Hat's preferences

In chapter seven the sorting hat sorts Harry Potter into Gryffindor; however, the synopsis of the article states that the hat wants to sort Harry into Slytherin. I would take out the phrase that states that the hat "reluctantly" sorts Harry into Gryffindor. I think that the hat is above a personal preference. It debates with Harry, who has his mind set on not being sorted into Slytherin. Perhaps Harry's being linked with Voldemort, from the Slytherin house, is a factor leaning the sorting of Harry into Slytherin. The hat is influenced by Harry's own will in his not wanting to be sorted into Slytherin. So my contentions are:

• 1. The hat does not have a personal preference, and from the text of the story it does not appear that the hat wanted to sort Harry into Slytherin, and
  2. The hat does not reluctantly sort Harry into Gryffindor.

The first contention is not as strong as my second: the hat firmly sorts Harry into Gryffindor not reluctantly. IMHO, David Boisclair drboisclair 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot Overview

This section needs an overhaul. The writing style is very childish and opinionated. Wanka 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing text

" "Thomas, Dean," a black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table. I read this in the American version and seem to remember a capital B for black. Rich Farmbrough. 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And... - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone buy Rowling's explanation about the presence of this extra sentence in the American version? If the sentence were in the original manuscript and the British editor removed it, how likely is it that this just happened to make the number of people remaining to be sorted correct? Isn't it more likely that the extra sentence was added by the American editor (who forgot to change the people count), in an amusing attempt to make the book appeal to the more "multicultural" American audience? 66.25.138.120 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1991 or 1997?

Hey guys, I really think Harry was born on 31 July, 1986 . . . can I change it, or should we all have an agreement? :-) --Janet6, 31 January 2006

• The general accepted consensus is that The Philosophers Stone is set in 1991, therefore Harry would not have been born in 1986. The timeline in use is the most widely accepted and has been used across the whole of the Harry Potter articles, so to keep this article in line with the rest please don't change it. Thanks Death Eater Dan 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How has it been determined that the fist book starts in '81 and takes place mostly in the year of 1991 and the early months of '92? I just want to know how people figured this out. --Thaddius 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

see Dates in Harry Potter for the explanation of that. It does seem a little silly to spend so much time and effort establishing specific "real time" event dates to fictional events that never actually happened. But if you try to remove references to AD (or CE) years, then you get a riot from the fanatics, mostly from the younger crowd who seem to want to relate their ages and birthdates to various characters. --T-dot 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick's birthday sets up the timline, it WAS 1991, and Harry was born on July 31st, 1980. Check the dates (Nearly headless Nick article)Purplerains06 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Overview Revision

I'd like to start going through each of the HP books' pages and condensing the plot sections, but I was worried what opinion was on the matter. For instance, though Philosopher's Stone is considerably shorter than the other summaries, there are several instances of information mentioned here that is revealed over the course of other books, such as the details of what Voldemort did to the Potters, why Harry survived, and why he had to stay at the Dursleys all his life.

True, this is important for informing HP fans of important information, but why is it being revealed on the first book's page? If this issue has been settled, fine, but I wondered whether or not we were being strict with only events happening in the book are featured on the page. Cybertooth85 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that plot details revealed in further books should not be covered here. The spoiler notice doesn't cover the other books - I can well imagine a new reader having finished this book deciding to read the entire article and then having the other books spoiled. There is a variant spoiler notice that would cover the other books, but I don't really see the value of that over simply doing as suggested above and removing the references. In other words, I support this suggestion. BTW, please sign your talk page posts with "--~~~~" --Estarriol 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've copied all the current plot overviews and will be combing through them on my PC, before seeing how they compare. One thing that really needs to be done is the removal of the "Long Summary" section on Goblet of Fire. That's just ridiculous. I'll look at the Long version for important details, but honestly, if a scene by scene synopsis is desired, go to the Wikibook or Sparknotes. Apologies for the lack of signature, usually I don't forget. Cybertooth85 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm solidly in the camp of having short plot summaries (I once condensed the plot summary for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince from about 600 words to abou 300, though now it's huge again), but there are also plenty of people on the other camp. I've become a little tired of being one of few voices arguing for shorter plot summaries, and it's actually hard work to shrink these down. If you want to do it, you have my full support. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First edit made. Not sure if it's necessarily shorter, but I think it makes efforts to only have the most important, book-centric information featured, with other minor features taken out. I think there are still minor sentences to be retooled or taken out, but it's good enough with the main plot to allow easy trimming. Definitely will need more trimming for the rest, though, as they give a real blow-by-blow of the novels. Cybertooth85 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need the information about Harry's wand being a brother to Voldemort's. It's in the book, but makes more sense in the Goblet of Fire summary where it's more useful and simply say that Harry received his first present. Also, do we need information here about each School house as there is a separate page for that as well. I have taken it out, if it's all right with everybody else.Eragon fan 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Original UK book cover

The UK has two different versions of the back cover. The second version definitely depicts Dumbledore but I am not sure whether the original is Dumbledore or Cornelius Fudge. Could anyone help with this issue? Should it be added into thea article?

If I remember correctly, Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear until book 2 (although Hagrid mentions him in book 1 shortly after meeting Harry, implying that he is incompetent). That would suggest that the original cover in particular does not depict Fudge. Brian Jason Drake 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it to be Dumbledore; this also makes sense why he was later changed, to match the book's description. I have one of the old copies if you need a scan of this picture. User:ADR3988

I disagree, I belive it to be Hagrid, in now way did it depict Dumbledore, I ahve it here in front of me and it is a tall, brown haired man smoking a pipe, either Hagrid, possiblyanother teacher? Is there any official refernce to it on any websites? User:Deadferrets

I have it in front of me. It is a tall skinny man with a long nose and a beard and moustache. And eccentric clothes and a spell book. It doesn't look like Hagrid; it does look as one might depict Dumbledore with some of, but not all of, the facts, and rather too much imagination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Is there a pic online somewhere? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. If you go to the following website, you will see a picture of the original back of Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone. The picture was only changed after the movie came out and a child asked Rowlings who was on the back of the book. http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=34&pos=8 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eragon fan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Reference

Why is the reference commented out? What does 'Dead note "dumbledore"' mean? Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

French cover

Shouldn't the French cover be on the French equivalent of this page, not here? -Phi*n!x 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean Thomas

Do the British books ever mention Dean Thomas is black? If not, the Dean Thomas line in the US version creates an even bigger gap between the two versions, because the British readers never get to know he's black. Anyone know more about this? MrTroy 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Why doesn't this article contain the ISBN of the book? Isn't it one of the most important information that an article on book can have? --Acepectif 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorting Hat's owner

"The Sorting Hat, which was once the property of one of the school's founders, Godric Gryffindor"

Should this be mentioned in this article? It wasn't specifically mentioned until the next book, so this may be spoiling more than needed. The Sorting Hat is already wikilinked anyway. --Geopgeop 05:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it really shouldn't be there. In the interest of being bold, I'm making the edit. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter Abandoned Plot Line

On JKRowling.com, if you punch 62552 into the cell phone and press send, you get a sheet of old plot.

On it, it mentions that Nicholas Flamel was already dead, the stone had been stole, and it was found in Harry's parent's vault. Should this be included in the article, or is it somewhat un-needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.9.14.58 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think rejected plot ideas are relevant. We should just give a general outline, not information of interest only to HP fans. Person132 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They definitely aren't relevant. Wikipedia would consider it fancruft.John Reaves 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good note, honestly, if someone is coming to read about PS, and looking for informtion, SHOULDNT it be detailed, not a slight overview. Purplerains06 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes Section

Is this really necessary? A general overview of the book's plot is needed, but not its subtle connections to other books in the series. I put spoiler tags around it (some of these are big spoilers for later books), but I think it may be necessary to remove it. Your thoughts? Person132 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it.John Reaves 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Where is the citation for the amount of copies sold? le Dan 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy concerns

I am concerned that the current version of this article may be in violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, as the majority of it is currently a plot summary. It is very borderline right now, but adding another section or shortening the summary would be very helpful in preventing it from becoming a problem.

Reasons for name change?

Both the book and the motion picture were released in the United States with the revised title Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, citing the reason that the American and British uses of the word philosopher were slightly different, giving the book title a different meaning in the two countries, thus hurting sales.

Is there a source for this? I have not heard this explanation before, and it seems slightly... wacky, to say the least.

I suppose there are two separate issues here:

1) does the word "philosopher" really mean something different in American English than it does in British English?

2) does the phrase "philosopher's stone" mean different things to Americans and Brits? Is the philosopher's stone actually called the "sorcerer's stone" in the USA? (The philosopher's stone article does not suggest so.) 217.155.20.163 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical alchemy is not really part of American bedtime stories. I would guess that the term "philosopher's stone" means absolutely nothing to most Americans. Philosophers are boring dead white males that one must read about in college courses. I think that the publisher's choice was good for the American release. IMHO, it never would have caught on in the US with the original title. Schoop 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it sounds silly, but you think that Full Metal Alchemist had anything to do with the name change? Xwing 4:26, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

The term Philosopher has the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic. But the "Philosopher" is "Philosopher's Stone" has a different meaning entirely. It might be more accurate to call it the "Alchemist's Stone", but Philosopher's Stone is to most common name for it. I think that the book would have done just as well in the US with the original title. Neither the terms Philosopher's Stone not Sorceror's Stone were particularly well known before this book came out, it just didn't feature in that many stories. I do know that some decades back, there was a children's author in the US who wrote a story about the Sorceror's Stone, and to the extent that this item was known in popular US culture, it was known as the Sorceror's Stone. But it is difficult to sort through a google search without getting Harry Potter references.--RLent 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Americanization

Scholastic, the book's US publisher, also "translated" the original book into American English. The spelling as well as many words and expressions were changed. This led to criticism by many readers.

Is this treatment unusual in any way, or is it the norm for British books to be published in the USA with British spellings intact?

I know that books by American authors are often "anglicized" when they are published here in the UK, so I would have assumed that the reverse was also the case. 217.155.20.163 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally, only spelling is Americanized. In this case, the publisher did considerably more in the way of "cultural translation" of words and phrases than is the norm, apparently on the assumption that Americans were too clueless to understand that BritEnglish is different. They may not have been wrong; see the recent suggestion below that the article should be retitled to the American version because there are more Yanks than Brits and therefore should prevail, regardless of what the author titled the work! --Orange Mike 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that's the worst idea I've ever heard. It should of course be the original title. As of now, the article starts with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (published in the United States as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)...". I think the American translation is more or less wrong even here. The American translation shouldn't be more important than any other. Now, of course, this part of Wikipedia is for both American AND British English, so perhaps it should be there... --Erfa 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the book was published in English under a different name. I also think, because Rowling's two major publishers of the books are Bloomsbury and Scholastic that we should have the U.S. cover shown on each article (not in the infobox, that definitely should be the U.K. cover), but that's a different matter. Anakinjmt 18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think...

...the article should be reverted to the version on the left of this... [1] I'm doing it --Smokizzy ^{Review Me! (Please!)} 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this description on the page intended as a practical joke? "Severus Snape, the friendly Potions master and Head of the gay club, ..." Friendly? Gay? Stephenephelpsjr 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoofs/Trivia section

Should this article feature a spoof and/or trivia section? One spoof in particular may be the one surrounding Nicolas Flamel. It is said that he becomes immortal by the Elixer of Life from the Philosopher's Stone. However, at the ending of the book, Dumbledore states that he'll die as the stone is destroyed. This contradicts earlier statements. One is immortal, or one is not. You can't be semi immortal by using enough Elixer of Life, thus even though the stone might be destroyed, Flamel should still be immortal. Just one spoof I thought of. I didn't add it to the article yet, as I'm not sure wheter or not it has any notable importance. -Jort227 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "spoof" used the way you are using it -- Merriam-Webster defines a spoof as a "light, humorous parody." You seem to be talking more about "bloopers" or mistakes in continuity. I can't comment on whether or not they belong on the article, but I will tell you that WP does not encourage trivia sections. --whit rink 74.223.3.210 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just about the mistake you've noticed: Flamel is inmortal as long he drinks the Elixir Of Life. Now that the stone's distroyed, he will not drink anymore the elixir of life, making him mortal again. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot: book or film?

I think some of the plot details listed here are from the film version, rather than the book. Specifically, it tells that Hagrid visits Harry, on his 11th birthday, on the island, and the next day they go to Diagon Alley. Which is how it goes down in the film. It's been a while since I read the book, but in that version isn't there a month between the scene on the island and Harry's departure for Hogwarts? PurpleChez 12:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All this extended naive retelling of the plot, enough to get my book report returned in fourth grade to redo, I can tell you, and no prominent mention of the publication dates of the book's two version. Perhaps someone will go over the Harry Potter books and add publication year in parentheses at the first mention. A formality. --Wetman 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they do go the next day to Diagon Alley; Harry takes his school supplies with him back to the Dursleys and stays with them for a month before proceeding to Hogwarts.--Gloriamarie 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that a lot of people confuse the books and movies. There is a BIG difference. The people don't really aggravate me by confusing them that much, but still... before they go writing a whole ARTICLE they should at least get there facts strieght. People will read this who have only seen the movie and get all confused and think that they don't have to read the book now cause they read this1 and what they read was not even right!! If u are going to write an artical for wiki. or anything for that matter, make sure u get your facts right. Thank u!!!!

1 they probably could not bring themselves to read the whole thing, so they read the first two sentences, then actually got off of their fat ass and get somthing to stuff into their fat face. Like chips or something. And they thought that they were smart and could read and stuff. Humans...

                                                            -Arya
                                      MERRY CHRISTMAS

---

Merge Quirrel here

Quirrel has no notability outside of the book, and so his article is just a rewriting of this books plot. As there is really no article, his character should be redirected here. Judgesurreal777 06:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Quirrel probably should be merged, but to Minor Hogwarts teachers. faithless (^speak) 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read that, and I'm afraid I come off sounding like a dick. I apologize. :) faithless (^speak) 07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's ok :) I was debating which it should be merged to, but I suppose that would be fine too. The point is, it shouldn't be its own article, and that would be an equally good merger. Judgesurreal777 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No I think it's OK the way it is Ryan(^talk/_contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Judgesurreal777 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Or if anything, merge it with Minor Hogwarts teachers like Faithlessthewonderboy suggested but it certainly shouldn't be merged to this article. Definitely not. Ryan(^talk/_contribs) 16:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No Way, do not merge this article,individual articles like this are one of the main attraction of wikipedia, this article is well written and mashing everything in to one article togheter is counter productive. Give Prof. Quirrel a mention in different article naturally and link his name to this article for good measure, or then of course why not merge everything into one mega article called infinity?--Netwhizkid 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Minor Hogwarts teachers, not this article (which is already monstrously bloated)! --Orange Mike 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with any merge of Quirrell. He was notable only in this books, yes, but his article provides good information and is long enough to exist. Lord Opeth 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Quirrel is an idiot. He is dumb and they make him sound good in the books. I don't like that. Even though you find out more about him as you read all of the books, I don't like him and never have. I am glad that everyone like him had the ending that they deserved. I am glad that Voldemort dies in the last book too. And if u didn't want to know that then why the h*** are u reading this?!! For other people who think they are all that and everything like those retarded prissy girls and that they are better than everyone else, and for just everyone... DON'T YOU DARE DELETE ANYTHING UNLESS IT IS YOUR OWN!!! IF U DO, THEN I WILL TRACK U DOWN AND ****************** -ROAR- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                               -Arya

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quidditch Cup is absent

I just finished reading again "Philosopher's Stone," and I noticed something: the Quidditch Cup is totally absent, and the points earned in the matches are given for the each house's points for the House Cup. If you're not sure about this, read the part of the book where McGonagall takes Gryffindor away 150 points because of Neville, Harry, and Hermione. It is stated that Harry thinks that all his points earned in the quidditch match were for nothing, since these are taken away now. But this is completely different in the rest of the books, since the Quidditch Cup and the House Cup have different points one from each other. So I think this should be added to the article. What do you think? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I remember Quidditch points counting towards House points in later books. Maybe I'll check through PoA and see if you're right. If you are right, it does seem like something that should be added in, somewhere. I just don't know where. Anakinjmt 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In later books, Quidditch points and house points are different, but in this book they're the same! Look in Harry Potter 6, when Harry kisses Ginny. They're celebrating that they won the Quidditch Cup, therefore those points are different than the house points because the year is not over yet! I also don't know where to put this in the article (I think in a "Trivia" section), but it's a revelant point. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I think that's a different matter. Quidditch points contribute to House points, but I think they make note of how many Quidditch points there are for each house. So, a house can win the Quidditch cup but lose the House cup, or lose the Quidditch cup and win the House cup. That's the impression I got. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't explained, and the fact that Quidditch points contribute to House points doesn't appear in the next books. So it's different. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't clear, then any speculation we mught make is original research, and shouldn't go here. This article is about this book, not about what is different in later books. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Heading left) If it's made clear in the books, then it's not OR. And I believe it is made clear in the books. All someone has to do is check SS and PoA. I would, but I don't have my books with me at home (they're at school).Anakinjmt (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Heading 'lefter') I don't recall having seen in later books that the Quidditch points contribute to House Points. They are different. That's why Gryffindor wins the House Cup in PS, but looses the Quidditch cup in the same book. Even though this happens in PS, in this book it is told that the Gryffindor House Points are the same that Harry won in the Quidditch match! But in later books it isn't like this. I don't know, I think I just found an error in the books. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true the quidditch cup isn't mentioned in book 1, I don't see any evidence that quidditch points don't count to house points in the other books. From memory, house points become somewhat irrelevant in the other books. Yes they're mentioned when taken away or given (particularly in book 5) but not in the way they were so core to book 1 where Harry et al helped to win the house cup at the end. So the points total was very significant in this book and therefore the fact that quidditch points contributed to house points was. But was the house cup even mentioned in any of the other books? Point being, this is probably an error but there is no conclusive evidence, and probably various ways around it. (Personally the biggest issue I remember from book 1 about the points was the way 100 points were such a big deal but from that book and later books they really seem to be given away willy nilly. Sure a sudden 100 points change is a big thing but considering the large amount they change it hardly seemed a big deal in the grand scheme. I believe JK said she was always bad at maths... Of course this is all OR) Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stale argument? Meh. I'm chiming in anyway. I am of the opinion that QP contribute to HP, partly because of what Percy said in (probably, I'm not too sure of which book) Phil.Stone: "good flying the other day, Harry, you earned us fifty points". Also there is information which says that Gryffindor has taken the lead for the house cup (thanks to Quidditch) somewhere in one of the books (again, probably Phil.Stone). Just my two cents on this. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. There are two cups. The house cup is for everything, even quidditch. Quidditch is not a huge part of the house cup, but it helps. The Quidditch Cup is the real reward for Quidditch. The Quidditch Cup isn't mentioned in the first book because it wasn't important enough at the time. Rekija (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Characters

Is the main characters section necessary? I was thinking that maybe the article could list them but not go into detail about each character, as there are complete articles devoted to each character. I was just wondering what everyone else thought.

RPlunk2853 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. One brief sentence is enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (has been described as looking like Hagrid, if he wore all-orange)

Yes, I agree.--WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I think that the artical is not necessary. I mean, come on... there is so much about each character that if they r mentioned, then come on! Just make a list or something. If u want to know more about the character(s) then look them up. That is what Wiki. is here for!! Also, if u have not read all of the books yet, or were just looking into it, and happened to look in here then look what the person did!! They ruined the books and stuff!! Seriously, it would have been better if they had just typed the whole book here and put it down for us to read! Gosh, the people who write these things ruin everything... but really, if u didn't want to find out till u read the book(s) and/or movies then what are u reading this for?!! Go read the d*** book(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                 -Arya  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 

Links in the lead

Someone broke a few links in the lead. If anyone has time, feel free to correct them; I don't know what they were supposed to be before and I'm worried that there may be a lot more vandalism in the article that has been overlooked? Gary King (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the lead up at least - copied lead section from [2], so I hope no major changes were made from then til now! It was the first one I found that had no vandalism in that bit, though I admit I did pick almost at random... Quick scan revealed no other vandalism, but it is late and I am tired so I may have missed a bit of subtlety somewhere. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Section headings in the plot summary

The plot summary does not need section headings. Other plot summaries don't have them. If this plot summary becomes so long as to need headings, it should be shortened, not subdivided. --P3d0 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial Gains

It was recently beaten by 'The Dark Knight' and has been pushed back into fifth place, please edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isafos (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaps in summary

The summary has numerous gaps in the story logic that would make it very confusing to somebody who hasn't read the books. For example, in the "Troll" episode:

(QUOTE) On Halloween, a troll enters the castle and traps Hermione in one of the girls' lavatories. Harry and Ron rescue her, but are caught by Professor McGonagall. Hermione defends the boys and takes the blame, which results in the three becoming best friends.

Why were they "caught" and "blamed" for doing something heroic? Because the students were ordered to evacuate and the boys stayed behind to look for the missing Hermione. And there were numerous other gaps, like why Neville was given a reward with the other three at the final ceremony. Rule of thumb: summaries should reflect cause and effect in a story. CharlesTheBold (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)