Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
The poll below has been closed by Francis Schonken 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Note 
Following Snoutwood's suggestion, there has been given enough time to (possible) further objectors to the proposed footnote technology change, and, besides, the current change wouldn't make objectors impossible to voice their concerns here or on talk pages of WP:FN or WP:FN3 or on Village pump pages etc.
Result of the poll: There appears to be a broad consensus to convert the numbered footnotes on the J. K. Rowling page to cite.php. So, anyone performing that, by Ref converter or otherwise, is free to do that, and should not be reverted.

Contents

References straw poll!

Evilphoenix (talk · contribs) blanked this straw poll and replaced it with a comment; I've restored the poll and placed the comment below at Comments. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


In an attempt to find consensus, we are going to run a straw poll. We are comparing two versions, current and Cite.php. Please vote below. And if you wouldn't mind, please include comments on why you are making your vote. Remember, we are voting solely on references style; everything else in the two versions is identical. The earliest this poll may end is on three days after its date of creation, which was 2006-04-25.

On a slightly more civil note, 1. There are some references out of alphabetical order. These were added by other users and I haven't yet corrected them, because I am too busy trying to convince people not to convert this article to cite.php. 2. This article is not the poster child for the anti-cite.php movement, as there is no anti-cite.php movement. I am not against cite.php, I am perfectly fine with it. I'm not going around converting articles from cite.php to ref. If I go and wander into an article reffed with cite.php, I'm going to use cite.php, and if I add any references to it, then I'll use that system. What I am against is the way this is being pushed forward (I don't endorse the RfC on Cyde being published, but do read my notes on the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. I counted more people voicing opinions against what is going on than for. If someone wants to point out to me where it was decided that ref is deprecated, other than someone simply stating it to be so because there was a "newer" system, please be my guest. However, for this article, which I am a heavy contributor to (unlike those advocating a change), I prefer using the ref templates. This poll is illegitimate, because none of you are actually contributors to this article, and therefore should not be attempting to dictate changing this article to a controversial referencing scheme. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken that our not being contributors to this article illegitimised the poll. If that were true, then *fD, PROD, RM, et al. would all be in violation of that policy. Snoutwood (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prefer current version


Prefer Cite.php version

  1. Polls are evil, but it looks like we have no other way to go about this. This article is being cited as one of the poster-boys for the anti-Cite.php movement, even though the fellow who prefers the very very confusing and strange citation system no longer endorses the RfC concerning this issue. Johnleemk | Talk 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. OK. I don't really understand the current system in the way it is being used here now, and I think standardisation is a good thing. Sandstein 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. See my comments above in the Footnotes section. Schutz 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. There are two main issues with the current version that make the Cite.php version vastly preferable. For one, the old {{ref}}/{{note}} system has very bad maintainability (in fact, the current version on this page even contains a broken note that isn't linked from anywhere in the article text). And the other issue is that the current system is just downright confusing. There are 71 numbered footnotes in the body but only 48 numbered footnote texts at the bottom of the article, and even worse, none of the numbers even correspond to each other. The Cite.php version is demonstrably better because it correctly handles multiple links to a single citation and the numbers match up, which is much more intuitive for 99.9% of the users out there. --Cyde Weys 05:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. What Johnleemk and Cyde said. Snoutwood (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. What Johnleemk and Cyde said. Alphax τεχ 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Prefer anything more consistent than the current mish-mash. It's not even clear that the current system is alphabetical: it took me some considerable time to tumble to it because the "key" upon which the items are sorted is not even consistently displayed. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. The Cite version looked much better (editing and reading), IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Converting any type of numbered footnotes to Cite.php footnotes (which is just state of the art technology for the numbering) should not be problematic. If Cyde's tool repairs the errors (resulting from inappropriate application of wikipedia:footnote3 by EvilP and possibly others), there should be even less a problem, please go ahead ASAP, the current version where the numbers don't match between the body of the text and the list of footnotes is way below wikipedia's standards (and guidelines). I see no intention from EvilP's (or other) side to fix the use of ref-and-note templates according to WP:FN3, which would be a minimum if they want to stick to the obsolete system, so, one reason more to move up to cite.php, wikipedia's current state of the art re. numbered footnotes. --Francis Schonken 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Cite.php may not be perfect but it is certainly better than this. What is the rule used for ordering the references? Alphabetical? Time order? Random? Confusing to say the least. Joelito 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. No reason not to use it. Ashibaka tock 23:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Template:Ref is kludgy and deprecated, cite.php is designed specifically for this role and is the manual-of-style standard. I don't see why this is even up for a vote. Convert over. Bryan 21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Cite.php is the right tool for the job. Warrens 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dislike deception

  1. Waiting until Evilphoenix goes on Wikibreak to hold this poll and to also invent unsubstantiated claims about whether or not he support the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde is very dishonest, and borders on bad faith.[1] Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    I reckon that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't moved and restored the RfC right after Evilphoenix said that he wanted it to wait until he came back. You can't start an RfC in his absence and then complain that people are responding while he's gone. Snoutwood (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    How can I make you happy? First you assault me for converting references styles without consulting the talk page and attempting to achieve consensus. So now I am consulting the talk page and trying to achieve consensus and you're still assaulting me. I guess the only way you'll be happy is if you get your way despite what anyone else may think on the matter. So much for consensus. --Cyde Weys 10:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Screw that. No, seriously, screw that. I don't get people claiming (as I have seen stated) that the citations on this page are ugly somehow. I grew up writing term papers and essays in college where I cited my sources in fucking alphabetical order, and that's exactly what I did on this page (with the exception of a few that got added by someone else, that I haven't had time to fix because I've been too busy trying to keep the whole referencing system in general from getting fucked up). Cite.php creates FOOTNOTES. What is in the article now is REFERENCES. Please understand that there is a difference. I don't care if twenty million of Cyde's friends wander in to vote on some stupid "Poll" in favor of cite.php, {{Ref}} is still a valid way of referencing this article, and it should NOT be converted. If you are not a contributor to this article, please do not try to dictate how it should be referenced. There is one other editor whose opinions on this will have any chance of swaying me, and that is Serendipodous, because he is the one who looked up all these links, and he is the one who wrote most of the copy. If you're going to come in and claim to have a valid voice to make a major change to this article, then you better be willing to A. Keep this article clear of vandalism B. Be prepared to spend time researching citations still missing C. Better be damn good at figuring out the shit that cite.php generates, because I sure can't stand it, D. Be a good copy editor, and actually make improvements to the article. Also, E. research new content. If you aren't going to do these things (which none of you voting on this poll are going to do), Fuck. Off. Wanna discuss how you think the article should change? Put in some damn editing time on the article, and then we'll talk. And for the record, no, I don't support the damn RfC on Cyde getting filed, because I specifically blanked it, left a note saying I was going on break, didn't feel it needed to get filed, and to leave it the fuck alone. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles are not owned by their contributors. Although I can understand that it's frustrating to have others who haven't worked on an article that you've put a great deal of time into wanting to change things on it, you should be aware at this point that that's how a wiki works. In fact, people like myself who are uninvolved with the article can often give good critiques on how the article could be, since we haven't any vested interest in the article itself, and, as we're only readers, we can give advice on how the article could make more sense to a reader. You have no more right to dictate the way things are going to be on this article than anyone else, whether that other person has worked on the article from day one or if their changes were their first edits.
Since you say that you don't understand why people dislike the citations on this page, it's because your footnotes are numbered and the numbering is madly out of order. This is extremely confusing to a reader. A reader is not going to know the name of a citation, and so the alphabetic system isn't helpful, unless you use a Harvard style of referencing (where instead of a numbered reference, you have the author and the date of publication). It's unreasonable to expect a reader to click on reference #68 in the text and figure out that it corresponds to note #19, which is the current state of affairs. Snoutwood (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess this kind of invalidates all those other article strawpolls we've had, doesn't it? Oh, wait... Johnleemk | Talk 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
While I understand and sympathize with your frustrations, and agree that editors should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references, I have to agree that the ordering of the references in this article is confusing. The references use numbers that don't agree with the numbers for the citations, and the method of alphabetizing is not obvious (sometime alphabetized on the author's last name, sometimes on the name of the source, sometimes on the name of the article.) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus. Wikipedia is not paper! Term papers are completely different spiel here. This is Wikipedia, not some term paper. In term paprs, you have a stangant "Works Cited," with a simple citation like (Rowling 35). You are writing your own paper and only have a few sources. Not so here. You have to specifically link to the source from the article reference itself, and this is where it gets hairy. As Snoutwood put it, References #68 corresponds to Note #19? The hell? How confusing and unintutive. You also have multiple editors contributing to this article; as someone pointed out, you do not own this article. You have constant contributions of new sources and the like, all of which are hindered by the unintuitive, time-consuming, and steep Harvard method. I'm not voting in this poll, but Evilphoenix's latest rant is clearly veering off course. Hbdragon88 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Evilphoenix stated that s/he did not wish to pursue an RfC until s/he returned from Wikibreak; however, s/he did write much of the draft of the dispute statement for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde
And would have changed the wording on a lot of it, had I actually chosen to file it. As I did not, I make no claim whatsoever to the wording of that RfC. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone close the poll - and perform the conversion to cite.php?

Just asking. Or do we still need to wait for more votes or anything else? I mean, I can perfectly understand that Cyde doesn't feel like firing RefConverter to do the transformation on this article any more, but this article was removed from the list of problematic cases on the RefConverter page [1], and the poll indeed seems pretty unambiguous, who volunteers:

  1. To close the poll?
  2. To perform the transformation of the numbered footnotes-by-templates to cite.php on this page?

Tx! --Francis Schonken 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to go ahead and do it manually, but I think that it should wait until Evilphoenix returns from his break, as he's the main opposer and hasn't really defended his point yet. He'll be back May 1, according to his userpage. If the consensus continues until a few days after he's back, then I'd say that conversion is O.K. Snoutwood (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why would you want to go ahead and do it manually when Ref converter works perfectly fine? I don't understand .. Cyde Weys 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think that I just wasn't thinking very clearly (there was some complaint about information loss when converting Harvard refs, but then J. K. Rowling doesn't use Harvard). I don't think that in this case there is one, it's just a slip on my part. Snoutwood (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think enough time has elapsed, and consensus is unanimous. Time to update the references. Y'all know the drill. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I maintain that waiting one more day to May 1, the day Evilphoenix gets back, an preferably at least until May 2 or 3 so that he can be certain to voice his opinion, is a good idea and of no detriment to anyone. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again, but I'm stating for the record that I think that it's a poor idea and of no benefit to anyone to convert it now, before Evilphoenix is back. No real advantage is gained by doing so, and what is lost is his say in the matter. Snoutwood (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Evilphoenix's dislike of Cite.php is entirely justified, and his work on improving the article's references is appreciated, but there is clear WP:Consensus on the subject, and that should be respected. A better long-term solution than endless bickering over citation formats, is to get Cite.php improved so that references can be alphabetized or separated out as is merited by individual articles. Warrens 06:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. However, since he is the most vociferous opponent to the conversion of this article and yet still hasn't been able to speak his mind, I'm very much interested in the points he will make (which may be convincing, who knows?), and I think he has a right to make them. That we have consensus doesn't change that we can easily wait for him to come back and hear what he has to say. Snoutwood (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other thoughts after closing the "conversion to cite.php" poll

(feel free to add your thoughts:)
  • Took way too long. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Requested move

  • J. K. Rowling → Joanne Rowling … Rationale: J. K. Rowling is merely her pen name, not Rowlings real name, and as such, the main article should be found under her real name. —Damsleth 09:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • No strong opinion. I misunderstood the policy on Wikipedia naming conventions when proposing this move. It's not important for me any longer. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Garykirk | talk! 10:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously — we do have people at their pen names or stage names, if that is how they are almost always known. — sjorford++ 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).--Pharos 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. There is another naming convention that applies here, which I mean gives us a different indication on what to do. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Please read the examples there: the whole point of that guideline is to avoid potentially insulting group names, and so we prefer "Roma" over "gypsy". "J. K. Rowling" is clearly the name she has chosen to be known to the world by.--Pharos 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Then I misunderstood the policy. I stand corrected. Thank you. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this stupid idea. --Matthead 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Matthead, please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. It's not stupid, perhaps merely misguided. That sort of rudeness is exactly one of the reasons good editors leave the project. — Garykirk | talk! 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I call(ed) the idea stupid, not the person behind it. I don't claim to be a good editor, but I don't see why good editors would waste their time dealing which proposals that no amount of good faith can assume to be well-thought. Has it found any support yet?--Matthead 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's still against the good-faith guideline. — Mütze 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mark Twain's real name was Samuel Clemens but the article is still named Mark Twain--the same idea should be used for J.K. Rowling. Dark jedi requiem 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose use the most common form, in this case the "pen name". Noel S McFerran 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If, in the future, JK Rowling publishes books using the name "Joanne Rowling" (perhaps if she writes adult books later on, as she has indicated she wants to do), it would then be appropriate to move the page. Until then, it is not. —Cuiviénen 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Based on Wikipedia policy about naming conventions. Excerpt:

When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.

Are we writing an article about a trademark or a person? Or perhaps the article should be moved to Joanne Kathleen Rowling? –DamslethTalk|Contributions 10:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know which name she uses, just look on the covers of her books. "J. K. Rowling" is the name she uses professionally, so that's where this article should be. — sjorford++ 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I already know what name there is on the books, having read them all a fair few times. I'm just trying to make this article as informative as possible, while complying with our policies, which tells us to be as specific as possible. I also don't think it's a good idea to use an abbrevation in the page title, because it creates ambiguity (and we already have a disambig on Rowling). –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Her name is not "Joanne Kathleen Rowling." It's just "Joanne Rowling." And, if you want to get really specific, that's wrong too. Her married name is Joanne Rowling Murray, which she uses for private business and correspondance. So which is correct? Her pen name, by which she is largely known, her given name, or her married name? I feel that mentioning her married name would be somewhat intrusive; Rowling signs her name "JK Rowling" when dealing with the public, and I see no reason why not to stick to her preferred public moniker. Serendipodous 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

Strong opposition against move. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Richest woman?

How does she rank in terms of the world's richest women? I know she past the Queen of England, but I have my doubts about Oprah. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

She has barely $1 billion, which puts her on the Forbes list, but not very high up at all. Serendipodous 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forbes magazine in 2006 listed four women among its 25 richest individuals -- Liliane Bettencourt, daughter of the founder of L'Oreal cosmetics, and the widow, daughter, and daughter-in-law of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. The estimated wealth of each ranges from $15.7 to $16.0 billion (US). Oprah Winfrey is estimated at $1.5 billion; J. K. Rowling at $1.0 (#746 on the Forbes' list of richest people, which doesn't sort by sex). — OtherDave 13:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it that Rowling has got so rich so quickly? Writers like Stephen King (who has been writing bestsellers since the 1970s and has had many books made into movies) have not made as much money as Rowling.192.139.140.243 03:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

King's individual sales are nowhere near the level of the Potter books; the fifth volume sold 5 million copies in the U.S. on its first day, thanks in no small part to "pre-ordering;" the sixth sold nearly 7 million on its first day. Total sales of her books passed 250 million in 2003, reportedly. Also, while several King books have been turned into films, few have had the mass audience appeal or opportunity for related products like games, toys, or clothing, that the Potter books have had. — OtherDave 13:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you OtherDave. Where can I go to find out information on an author's sales or a specific book's sales, or on the net worth of an author? Articles on Wikipedia do not typically contain this kind of down-and-dirty info. 192.139.140.243 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I found Rowling's sales figures in newspaper archives (googling things like "Rowling" and "sales," then poking around a bit). The Forbes estimates are just that -- estimates -- so take them with some skepticism. That said, which writer gets wealthy from writing isn't necessarily an indicator of the artistic value of the writing; it's more a measure of a match between the writing and a market for the writing. King writes in the horror genre; like the mystery genre, that's a reliable niche but not necessarily one that will propel him into billionaire status. Rowling's books are for a potentially much larger audience: children (say 8 - 14 years as a generalization), and the parents/relatives/well-wishers of such children. That's also a market that renews itself every six or eight years (an entire new crop of 8- to 14-year-olds), a characteristic that companies like Disney have capitalized on for generations. (For whatever it's worth, www.horrorking.com, a King fan site, claims on a page dated July 2006 that he has "over 100 million copies" in print.) I suppose you might also try checking press releases on a publisher's site, to see if they were bragging about the sales of one of their writers. — OtherDave 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation

I translated the german wikipedia article and it can be found HERE. It's somewhat informative (but probably riddled with spellling errors) but I'm not sure if it will really actully help at all. I wouldn't have made it a featured artcle. Dark jedi requiem 09:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles in other languages are held to a lower standard. That article's actually a lot better now than it was when it was first featured, and it seems to have been "de-featured" since then. I read it in Google translation, and it seemed to draw a lot of its information from an unauthorised biography by a British tabloid journalist named Sean Smith. (not that it cited any of its sources) Luckily a lot of that "info" was taken out, yet it still, rather infuriatingly, claims that Rowling came up with the idea for Harry Potter after reading Neil Gaiman's "Books of Magic", which Rowling denies and even Gaiman has claimed was unlikely. I'd appreciate it if someone with a better grasp of German grammar could take that down.Serendipodous 09:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've deleted that clause. The german article is currently marked as "worth reading" which is less than "excellent". The article here is clearly much better, in particular because of the references. --80.129.111.115 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Religion

Shouldn't there be something in here about the religion contraversy? It is a big part of Harry Potter and J.K.'s effect on the world. And what about J.K.'s own Religion?

DISCUSS!

No. Religion is dealt with in the Harry Potter article. Rowling's personal religious views have nothing to do with the manufactured controversy. She has remained very closed about her religious beliefs and any discussion of them in this article would be speculation. Serendipodous 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I wasn't able to personally discover much about her religion. Nothing that I can back up with fact. but from what I have read she went to Church while she was growing up. and the Harry Potter books certainly share some very strong themes with Christianity.

Ghost writer accusation

Film director sparks debate over origins of 'Harry Potter' Silly, too much beer? Yes. But's it's a verifyable source. Where in the article could this be mentioned? Under the Hary Potter books? --GunnarRene 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it's complete lunacy, I doubt it really has a place anywhere. As Rowling says in her debunking of the rumour on her webpage, anyone who thinks this could possibly be true has never heard of the British tabloid press. If they haven't found it out, it's not worth knowing. Serendipodous 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's verifiable lunacy though. Perhaps the best "debunk" is to note that Rowling has an OBE, and that only real people can receive an OBE? --GunnarRene 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But where would you put it? It would need to have its own section, and that section wouldn't really have a purpose, except to tell this story. It has no reason to be on the page. Serendipodous 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha! I didn't know about this one. Crazy! But what if? She kind of looks like an actress in her photo here in the article. Moonwalkerwiz 03:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rowling's ethnicity

I'm reposting this from the article to here, as it has become a discussion.

Note to those wish to describe her as English, rather than British: Rowling lives in Scotland, but was English-born, therefore "British" is arguably a better term, since it covers every ambiguity. Serendipodous 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: in actual fact, her living in Scotland leads many to believe that she is Scottish, whereas she is English and living in Scotland has no effect on that.
Living in Scotland doesn't make you Scottish? Then what does? Obviously not citizenship; she can't get a Scottish passport. And obviously not birth; Tony Blair was born in Scotland and I don't see anyone calling him a Scot. Serendipodous 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I define nationality in terms of what our parents were. As Rowling was born in England and had (as far as I'm aware), English parents, she is English. I live in Scotland, but there is no way in hell I would refer to myself as Scottish! I'm English Jamandell (d69) 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So where does that leave me then? My father's half-Scottish, half-English; my mother's half-American, half-Swedish, I was born in America, but live in London and have a British passport.Serendipodous 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the article on Ethnicity - Serendipodus is one quarter Scottish, one-quarter English, one quarter Swedish, and one quarter American - if you're talking about ethnicity. I'm one quarter Austrian - because my father's father is Austrian. But my parents and I were all born in America - and thus I'm American. My ethnicity isn't American - I'm an American-born citizen. My nationality is American - as Rowling's nationality is English (it's more specific than British). Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, her nationality is British, just like everyone in Scotland, not to mention England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Scotland were to declare independence, than that would be a different story, but until then it is Rowling's ethnicity that is under discussion here, not her nationality. Serendipodous 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all countries of the world recognize the british military occupation of Northern Ireland. Some recognize the territorial unity of Irish Island and hold the free republic as its sole legal owner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Fixed


"American" is not an ethnicity. 216.114.203.113 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

South Gloucestershire, Avon or Gloucestershire?

This article lists Rowling as being born in South Gloucestershire, however, that didn't exist until 1996 when the County of Avon was abolished on 1 April 1996. Avon itself was only formed in 1974. I'm not entirely sure what came before Avon as Rowling is generally believed to have been born in the Yate/Chipping Sodbury area - that may have just been in the County of Gloucestershire in 1965 - someone will have to confirm. But as her place of birth is now in South Gloucestershire should we list her as being born there or in whatever county existed in 1965? I looked at the Mikhail Gorbachev page for some inspiration and that has him listed as being born in the former Soviet Union not the present-day Russian Federation - any thoughts?

My feeling is that, as Wikipedia is a reference guide, you would want to give as accurate a picture as possible of where someone was born. Someone looking up the birthplace of JK Rowling might want to visit it, and it would be better to give accurate directions. I suppose it might be more historically accurate to say "Gloucestershire", but I think the modern county name should be listed as well. Serendipodous 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Her name

The Winterbourne page now references a published list of primary school starters in 1970, which gives her name as Joanne Kathleen - not just Joanne. Ghmyrtle 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to this (RTF file): It is a file in Rich Text Format, which didn't exist in 1970, and probably the admissions were not stored with a computer then. Moreover, the name "Joanne Kathleen Rowling" is printed red (as well as "Potter" three times). It appears that it is not quite an unaltered copy of the original list. More importantly, Mrs Rowling stated clearly several times that she chose the name "Kathleen" later (interview on darkmark.com [3], biography on jkrowling.com [4]). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the admission register simply didn't withstand the extraordinary pressure to insert this name... --80.129.108.245 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now would be a very good time to get ahold of Jo's birth certificate. It would not only settle this but also put to rest those rumours about her fudging on where she was born.Serendipodous 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't... ;-) --80.129.86.173 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

this needs to tell when it was published? . . .okay?. . .okay from ....... =]

Rowling Gate

Indeed there is a housing development near Bristol called "Rowling Gate", but can anyone actually find an authoritative source claiming it was named in her honour? Because I can't.Serendipodous 13:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The mysterious biography in references

The (current) number 5 reference, with the tag name "rowling-bio", is cited eight times in the whole article, but has no real reference and shows up empty in the References section. I checked about twenty recent edits and didn't find any related changes. Has this reference ever existed? If yes, it should be restored (probably after checking all eight citations are correct). If no (or nobody can find it), we should change those citations and reference other sources. — Ming Hua 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the footnote was removed by User:Baileyrand on August 7. The mysterious biography is the one on Rowlings website. Probably an accident. I have reinserted it without thinking it necessary to recheck the citations (though, however, checking is always a good thing). --80.129.104.160 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this missing footnote! I've now checked all the eight citations, and with one exception they all match Rowling's biography on her own site. The only part I am skeptical is that the article claims Rowling and her first husband had one child, Jessica Isabel, before divorcing in 1993. But the biography only mentioned the child's name as Jessica, not her middle name, and definitely nothing about the date of the divorce. I may be missing something, though, can someone double check? — Ming Hua 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can vouch that that info was added later, and is unsourced. Serendipodous 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good to know. I found the divorce date in the article from about.com, and added a citation to that. I also removed the middle name of Jessica. — Ming Hua 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

J.K. or J. K.?

I know it's a bit silly to ask, but on all the covers of the British editions there's no space between the initials, neither there is on J.K. Rowling's official site, so maybe the article should be moved to J.K. Rowling instead. Sorry about the nitpicking :). --Lividore 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You might as well ask about the font size of the letters J and K, too. Moonwalkerwiz 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfectly legitimate question, and it's too bad there was a sarcastic to it. I believe there's a space -- imagine if her name were real full names. You'd put a space. I don't think it should be any different with initials, though I can't find the convention for that right now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick googling of "space between initials" showed that it is around 50-50 between space and no space in the various style guides. The Wikipedia style guide is to use the form of the name which she is known under, so Lividore is right, there should be no space in this case.--Per Abrahamsen 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with english name shortcuts - I do not see any difference between J. K. and J.K. Is any ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh, yes. The space between the initials is larger in the first case.--Per Abrahamsen 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear...

Both Rowling and Murray were divorced when they married, though Murray had not yet divorced his wife when they met. They had, however, been separated for a year. Not that it's anyone's business. [5] Serendipodous 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms"

Should this article not be included in the category "Female authors who wrote under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms"? I thought that Rowling adopted the 'K' initial so that the name would be gender-neutral and appeal to a male audience. 82.26.30.32 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.175.34.218 (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Don't see it. By the way - feel free to fix any vandalism yourself, next time you see any. John Broughton | Talk 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


It's not appropriate to repeat the exact words of blatant vandalism on this page. Revert/delete vandalism and move on.


Origin of the Harry Potter Character

I added a section in regard to the origin of the Harry Potter character. There was already a character named Harry Potter in the film Troll very much like Rowling's. This was in 1986. It brings into question of just "Who is" Harry Potter. When asked where she got the idea from, she claims she has no idea. Her response should raise eyebrows.

"Harry Potter first appeared as a ordinary kid that discovered magic in the 1986 film 'Troll.' In this film the dark haired boy learns about magic and fights a troll. In an interview with Stories on the Web, Rowling was asked where she got the idea for Harry Potter from, and she answered 'Where the idea for Harry Potter actually came from I really couldn't tell you.' This brings up the legal question: Who owns Harry Potter, makers of the movie Troll, Rowling, or the public domain?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clydeman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

There are many books, films and comics with similarities to the Harry Potter universe. To draw attention to "Troll" as one, when there are so many others that share far more in common is just silly. Apart from the names of the characters and the common fantasy genre, the two works have nothing in common. Suspicions could justifiably be raised if the two characters were named "Tetrabellius Smellings" but both "Harry" and "Potter" are common names and really there's no more reason to suspect plagarism than if the two characters were called "Jason Smith." People tend to forget that JK Rowling lives in England. That she would have drawn inspiration from a trashy mid-eighties American kiddie horror flick at a time when it took up to a year for US releases to even be screened in the UK seems highly unlikely. Regardless, the contention raised by that website is nonsensical. Yemets never claimed his book wasn't inspired by Rowling's works: he tried to hide under the shield of parody, but his books were judged not to be parodies. Even so, two main characters sharing the same name in two different works is not illegal; only if it is clear that the creator is attempting to pass the character off as the same or similar to another is it considered plagarism. If "Troll" had been called "Harry Potter and the House of Trolls," for instance, the filmmakers may have a case against Rowling. There is no law, nor has there ever been, in creating a work that has similar themes, storylines and characters to another's work, unless the similarities are judged to have been the result of plagarism. So far, despite the many similarities between Harry Potter and, say, The Worst Witch, no judge has declared that Rowling's works are plagaristic. Serendipodous 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)