Talk:Harry Potter

JK Rowling wants it to be canon. She thinks it is canon. She’s the author, she thinks it can be in the HP books. So add it, please. Hamdaan Abid (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The problem is that it is not a novel. wound theology◈ 20:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It kinda is because it has a script type of book. It can be counted as a semi-novel maybe. Hamdaan Abid (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it can't. wound theology◈ 22:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Could cursed child be added to a different page to satisfy @Hamdaan Abid 's tastes? Yooniiik (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No? wound theology◈ 15:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

oh ok sorry for bothering you. Yooniiik (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, settled. No Cursed Child in Novels list. Hamdaan Abid (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This statement is factually incorrect, and the only source is a book celebrating the Harry Potter Franchise. I intend to correct it, but would like to hear other opinions first. Which 1970s books are we thinking were realistic? The Lord of the Rings? The Wizard of Earthsea series? James and the Giant Peach? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? On the contrary, fantastical books were very hot sellers. Ditto TV series (HR Puffenstuff, The Adams Family, The Banana Splits, I Dream of Jeanie, Lost in Space, Star Trek) and movies (Willy Wonka, Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang).Msalt (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The only mention I can find is sentence 2 in the Harry Potter#Influence on literature section, which reads: In the 1970s, children's books were generally realistic as opposed to fantastic and is sourced. What you stated above may be true, but it's also WP:OR. Perhaps if you find a more reliable source (or more recent than 2002) that says otherwise, we could figure out if or how to include it. Right now, what you wrote above seems a bit Strawman-y, listing several works which are adult or young adult, but very much not children's. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I changed the title of the new section to match the quote that you correctly identified, thank you.

And I would love to hear more about the distinction between children's books and young adult books that you are making. I take your point on the Lord of the Rings, but I am not clear how one might consider James and the Giant Peach, or the Wizard of Earthsea series -- also about a boy at a school for wizards -- to be "adult or young adult, but very much not children's", as opposed to the Harry Potter series.Msalt (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Re Children's books I typically think of as books for children (which I think of as ~3-12) while Young Adult is for people aged 12-17, but that's pretty approximate. Upon looking at our article Children's books, I see that Wikipedia considers YA to be a subset of Children's Books, so perhaps my definition oughtn't be used.

I don't know about the Wizard of Earthsea, but James and the Giant peach does seem like Children's to me. Start Trek and I Dream of Jeanie less so. The thing is, our opinion doesn't matter, because our opinions are WP:OR.

For what it's worth, the way I interpret the above quote is less about whether fantasy elements exist, but more like whether the world itself is fantastical. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has some bizarre stuff inside, but the world it's set in is by assumption mundane. Ditto James and the Giant Peach; the fantastical happens only to the subjects of the story. Harry Potter, by contrast, has magic implied to be everywhere in the world (with muggles just blind to it). That's my interpretation, but that also would be WP:OR to put into the article, as it's not a bald, straightforward reading of what WP:RS say, which is what we DO put into the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about the prevalence of fantasy and speculative fiction in the 1970s, but several works which you mention are not part of the decade. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954-1955, though it was completed c. 1949. The original Earthsea novel was published in 1968, and only two of its sequels were published in the 1970s. James and the Giant Peach was published in 1961. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was published in 1964. H.R. Pufnstuf only run for a few months in 1969. The original television series The Addams Family only lasted from 1964 until 1966. Hanna-Barbera's animated adaptation lasted for a few months in 1973. Lost in Space only lasted from 1965 until 1968. Star Trek: The Original Series only lasted from 1966 until 1969. Filmation's animated adaptation lasted from 1973 until 1974. Mary Poppins was released in 1964. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I just love reading Harry Potter it makes me believe that anything is possible Nickoleky monkey (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

ç

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2026-29953-4 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Done wound theology◈ 16:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thought it might be worth including that Nintendo originally placed a bid for exclusive adaptation rights for the Harry Potter series. However, I wasn't sure where in the article it would make sense to include. Maybe somewhere under Adaptations?

Here's some links to use a source for this info: Business Insider, Collider, IGN YoureAGhostBaby (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that's good information, and appreciate the sources, but I also think it's a better fit for Wizarding World; those articles appear to be about the franchise, not the novels specifically, so the franchise article would be a better fit, I think. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, i noticed that the section "cast" in the "Adaptations" paragraph, is presented as a regular bulet list, i think it's more appropriate for a good article and one of such notability to have a table instead of a plain list. It would be a good addition to this article. Im good with tables, and if everyone agrees to this change i'll be happy to fix it. Have a lovely weekend 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that extensive list belongs in this article. It may be better to make a new article about the full cast audiobook and link there.

If we do keep the list here, I think the current format is preferable, though we might switch from {{columns-list}} to {{cast listing}}, taking inspiration from MOS:FILMCAST. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like two topics, and maybe this should be in a different article, I guess it's another discussion. But according to the MOS:FILMCAST a table is appropriate here. 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by your statement re: FILMCAST. Could you quote the relevant passage? The ones I'm looking at are, If there are many of the cast worth identifying, either list the names in two or three columns, or group the names in prose. may be used for listing in columns. and . Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles (and are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast, in a Japanese animated film.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your repl :)

seems like we're referring to the same sentence. The part of MOS:FILMCAST I had in mind is the sentence that says that tables “are most appropriate for developed, stable articles (and are also recommended to display different casts…)”.

As I see it, considering how extensive this cast list is and how notable the article is, a table would make the information look more aesthetic and easier to read than a long plain list. That said, I agree that a table is not a “must have” or required here by MOS, it was only a suggestion for improving the layout, and it’s fine if consensus prefers to keep a list formation. Happypenguins82 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fair; I think there's room for different interpretations of that MOS. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. Either way, thank you for both being willing to do the work to improve the article, and for opening up a talk discussion first. Both those skills are invaluable to Wikipedia and the exact right way to approach things! :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You're very kind, thank you. There's no rush, we'll wait :) Happypenguins82 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In early 2026, HBO confirmed that principal photography for the first season of the Harry Potter television series is ongoing at Warner Bros. Studios Leavesden, with a scheduled premiere window for early 2027. The cast features newcomers Dominic McLaughlin as Harry Potter, Arabella Stanton as Hermione Granger, and Alastair Stout as Ron Weasley. They are joined by veteran actors including John Lithgow as Albus Dumbledore, Janet McTeer as Minerva McGonagall, and Paapa Essiedu as Severus Snape. In February 2026, actor Lox Pratt (Draco Malfoy) noted that the series will offer a more layered portrayal of the Malfoy family life beyond the original films. https://www.aninews.in/news/entertainment/hollywood/harry-potter-tv-series-sets-early-2026-premiere-date20260202004201/ ~2026-10531-07 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)