Appendix talk:Harry Potter/Events

RFD discussion: April–June 2022
Appendix:Harry Potter passed RFD. However, at least there are some general terms of lexicographical interest, e.g. "horcrux". This does not seem likely to be the case with a list of events, like "Quidditch World Cup" and "Battle of Hogwarts". This is just self-indulgent fancruft, lacking lexicographical worth for a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure how this is useful or dictionary material. - TheDaveRoss  12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jberkel 12:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: lists of fictional proper nouns are completely irrelevant (and the first one is wrong anyway - it's "Sorting Ceremony"). Theknightwho (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: We don't want to compete with WP and others for this kind of thing. Let the capitalists do this. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Appendix:Harry Potter/Spells" (which was already deleted; why?) and "Appendix:Harry Potter/Events" should be of value, on the same basis as the other HP appendices. To keep these from being "self-indulgent fancruft", however, we can cut excess content, to keep it from being very detailed info, of interest only to true HP fandom. "lists of fictional proper nouns are completely irrelevant". No. That's what appendices of fiction ar for: to list terms from the fiction series.
 * "We don't want to compete with WP and others for this kind of thing." We won't. WP givs detailed info, unlike Wiktionary (WT), which only givs definitions, usage, etc.
 * This deletion of "Appendix:Harry Potter/Spells", proposed deletion of "Appendix:Harry Potter/Events", unsuccessful RFD on "Appendix:Harry Potter", and repeat removal of the WT article "Hermione" from "Category:en:Harry Potter"; makes it look like there is a war on Harry Potter. As for the last point, "Category:en:William Shakespeare" has the names of many Shakespeare characters; the rough criteria is, i think, if the WP article with said title refers to said Shakespeare character (e.g. the WP articles "" and "" refer to the title characters in '); then that is the "primary" use of said name, so the WT article belongs in said category. If HP characters ar held to a fundamentally different standard than Shakespeare characters; then that is a double standard, discriminatory. If you Google "Hermione", you get very few results that don't refer to . What would you expect?, given that each of the last four HP books – ', ', ', and ' – set a new record for fastest-selling book of all time. Hermione Granger is overwhelmingly the main use, nowadays, of the name Hermione (and almost certainly will be so for the foreseeable future). Not so for most HP names; most names ar common (Harry, Potter, Peter [Pettigrew]), or a lesser character (Cho Chang, Fluffy), or often refer to something else (there is, but also ; there is , but an unqualified use of the name "Sirius" generally refers to ). At any rate, it can't hurt to hav, on the WT article "Hermione", a link to the WP article "". I added to some WT articles a usage note about the term's use in a work of fiction; e.g. use of "walker" to mean "zombie", is mainly in '; or that the most famous use of "shrew" to mean "ill-tempered woman", is in ; both edits seem to hav been accepted. Why can't the WT article "Hermione" mention that the name nowadays usually refers to Hermione Granger?
 * Sorry if i got a little off-topic, but WT should giv proper, and honest, coverage of HP. And is a WT article "Hermione" that doesn't mention Hermione Granger, much different from a WT article "Juliet" that doesn't mention Juliet Capulet? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not Wikipedia, so what is included or not in Wikipedia doesn't matter. The origins of terms do not matter, what matters is how they are used. There are millions of instances the world over of people using the term "Romeo" by way of allusion to the character from Shakespeare, not speaking of the character directly but instead comparing the subject to the character, and outside of the context of the play. The name "Hermione" may be used outside of the immediate context of Harry Potter in reference to the attributes of the character, but simply because a character exists in a work of fiction does not mean they should be included in a dictionary.
 * Also, it is fairly obtuse if you think that it is a double standard that more terms from Shakespeare have entered the lexicon than the Harry Potter series, Shakespeare is likely the most influential writer of English that ever lived, and Harry Potter is pop-fiction which has been around for about 25 years. - TheDaveRoss  12:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Proper nouns already have to justify themselves for inclusion in a dictionary beyond other parts of speech, because they're commonly encyclopaedic in nature. When they're fictional, they serve absolutely no purpose. Theknightwho (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. If any non-admin is interested in the contents of this page, feel free to ping me or write on my talk page and I will provide it. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)