Talk:Wizarding World

Draft for Fantastic Beasts (film series)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Fantastic Beasts (film series) at Draft:Fantastic Beasts (film series) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Brojam (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Cursed Child is part of J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World

@Lemaroto: The Cursed Child is part of the franchise. [1] Also, you can see the "J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World" stamp on the bottom of the play's official website [2], like shown on the other medias of the franchise: Pottermore [3], Fantastic Beasts [4] and Harry Potter movies [5] and attractions [6]. - Brojam (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is solely dedicated to the film franchise.... Cursed Child is not a film, nor does it share continuity with the films. It's a follow-up/sequel to the novels. I think this needs to be re-reviewed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No one has still responded to my statement. The play has nothing to do with the feature films. Either this article needs to be revised to include Novels/Play "continuity" and the films' continuity, or it needs to clarify that it is only connected to the books. I may make the edit per WP:BOLD.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this article is about "The Wizarding World" Franchise, and the play is on wizardingworld.com, I think we can safely assume that it is in the appropriate location, and the article is not strictly about the films. CreativeNightPainter (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Linking to book series

This article caught my eye in the GAN queue and I checked it out to see what it was. I'm... bemused and a little bewildered to note that literally nowhere in the lead of this article, which appears to cover all of the films/plays set in this world, does it even once mention that those films/plays are based on the world of (and 8 directly on) the Harry Potter book series. It, one single time in sentence 1, mentions that there is a book series, but doesn't link it or refer to it by name, e.g. Harry Potter. Similarly, the Harry Potter article doesn't mention that the film/play series has an article by this or any title, actually at any point, and the split navboxes don't make it clear what's going on either- the "Works by J. K. Rowling" one shoves this article in a "see also" section as if it's not the lead article for the 10+ film/play article series, and the "J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World" navbox doesn't link to the book series/franchise article at all. (It also puts Cursed Child as a "see also" link, even though it's a whole main section of this article).

I recognize the need to split out the film/play series from the overall franchise article, especially as the franchise keeps growing, (though maybe this overlaps just a bit with the Harry Potter (film series) article?) but right now the two top-level articles pretend the other doesn't exist, instead of this new article getting integrated into the existing set of articles. Should probably get fixed before the GAN review gets here. --PresN 03:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Colin Farrell's Grindewald

Colin Farrell did not portray the "real" Percival Graves in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - in fact, it is not mentioned whether there was ever a real Percival Graves. He portrayed a disguised Grindewald, therefore, I intend to place the name "Percival Graves" as an alias under Grindewald, unless there is a good reason not to. - HarrisonSteam (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Farrell portrayed Percival Graves, real or not. Only Depp portrayed Gellert Grindelwald. It is not appropriate to mix plot details in the cast list. We are not going to list all the characters that he disguises himself as. - Brojam (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

He only disguises himself as one person. - HarrisonSteam (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with this, saying that he played Percival Graves is just nonsense, the character was still Grindewald the whole time.★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, re-adding Farrell. - HarrisonSteam (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brojam: Why exactly do you keep deleting Farrell? - HarrisonSteam (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because you had changed formats to the article and added false content such as a play that is not part of the franchise, in addition to not providing a source for Farrell being disguised as Grindelwald. I have since added Farrell's portrayal with proper sources. - Brojam (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This topic is interesting. Farrell clearly plays Grindelwald's disguise-character. Wouldn't it be more effective to list this at the end of Grindelwald's character description? Rowling has not clarified whether Graves was/is an actual character or not in her Wizarding World. I will try and find some information on this...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer (yet) from J.K. Rowling... perhaps eventually she will clarify in one way or another. As-is, I argue that it would make the most sense to simply state that Farrell portrays Grindelwald when he is taking on the guise/false identity of Percival Graves.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Video Games U.S. Release Dates?

I was just wondering why this article uses the original release dates in the U.S, when the series is a UK original series? I understand the games companies that produce these games are often US companies, but it seems weird that the article isn't consistent with the release date information. Any ideas Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this just a content fork?

"Wizarding World" is just another name for the Fictional universe of Harry Potter. It predates whatever marketing company decided to make it "official". Serendi^podous 16:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all. This article is clearly about the "shared universe" of several film series and other media. Not at all about the structure, culture and other of the "fictional universe" that they take place in.★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter's universe is called "The Wizarding World" in the same way that Tolkien's fictional universe is called "Middle Earth". It was called that years ago and so the term should not be specifically applied to a series of films. Serendi^podous 22:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No one cares what you personally thinks. This is the official name of the franchise.★Trekker (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not what I personally think. It's a fact. You want proof? Here are references to the term "wizarding world" from 1997 to 2001. Serendi^podous 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My point is that I doubt anyone except you gives a shit. It's not a thing that really matters. What is it that you even want to be done about the "problem" no matter how you look at it this article is still not a "fork" like you called it, these two articles are still about two separate subjects.★Trekker (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you're getting so defensive. All I've done is what talk pages are for; raise a point about an article's factual accuracy. "Wizarding World" is a term for the Harry Potter universe itself, not merely for this film franchise. It's that simple. If you think no one else will care, well there's a very simple way to test that. Just leave this up and see if anyone posts about it. Serendi^podous 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not going to prevent anyone else from commenting on this, but still I don't know what exactly it is that you would like to be done? So it's been a name used to refer to the "fictional universe" as well in the past, so do you want this article moved to Wizarding World (franchise) and have Wizarding World redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter or something? If there is a problem there should be a a solution, and again, no matter how you look at it this article really isn't a fork.★Trekker (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest either that both the articles be merged, since they are effectively talking about the same thing, or that a qualifier like "(franchise)" be added to this page. Serendi^podous 09:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

These two pages are not remotely talking about the same subject, how could you even conceivably think that? Have you even tried to read both articles? They cover completely separate subject. I don't want to be rude but this is getting seriously frustrating. Even an attempt at a merger would be laughable.★Trekker (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker:, @Serendipodous:  Comment: I partially Agree with both you. I am sure that there is no content fork that happened here. Having said that Wizarding World is not just a media franchise which includes Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts films, it includes the the book series and other theme parks as well. Wizarding World is indeed the the fictional universe of Harry Potter. It was started by Warner Bros and Pottermore to create a home for Harry Potter universe, this is FYI Wizarding World. If you Google Wizarding World, you would get kind of a tag line saying Official home of Harry Potter. I would not agree that it is shared universe as Fantastic Beasts happens before the Harry Potter series, acts like a prequel. Hence, I would suggest that Wizarding World be the lead article for Harry Potter fictional universe and we should have other articles like the book series, the Harry Potter film series, Fantastic Beasts play and film series linked to this article. SaiP (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wizarding World TFD

Template: Wizarding World is being considered for deletion. You may help reach a consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_29#Template:Wizarding_World. --Bsherr (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Postrak

I think these films might actually have enough Postrak ratings for it to be worth include them in the article. -- 109.77.231.46 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Add table of Harry Potter books to this page

I think the 1st section of this page should be on the original Harry Potter books. At the very minimum this would include the original 7 books and companion books written by Rowling and include a link to Harry Potter. We should also keep the current books section (7.5) as a table of official movie tie-in/spin off books (which is what it is now). Sivany29 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is about the Wizarding World media franchise, it's not about the books but about everything that came off it. This isn't the place for a table that includes all Harry Potter-related books written by Rowling. A link to Harry Potter is already included in the very first sentence of the lead section of the article. —El Millo (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If we look at other similar multimedia franchises such as Star Wars (Star Wars) they still write about their original medium, the movies in their respective page. As well as also provide links to their separate pages dedicated to the movies only (like this page currently does). Also Percy Jackson (Percy Jackson & the Olympians) includes content about their original medium, the books as well as other things that have come from the books (the movies, games, etc). However, some franchises also organised their page as you have stated e.g. How to Train Your Dragon however I feel this is because the other medias (like movies, TV shows) are all loosely based on the books and mostly from the movies. Can the same be said for the Wizarding World? Sivany29 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

None of those articles are equivalent to this one. Star Wars started with films, they're not based on any previous works nor are they adaptations from any other medium, that's the main page about it. Percy Jackson & the Olympians doesn't just include content about the original medium, it is about the original medium. You already said why How to Train Your Dragon isn't an equivalent to this article, because they are loose adaptations of works. They're all different because the main article isn't Wizarding World here, the main article is Harry Potter, which is a direct equivalent to Percy Jackson & the Olympians. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The Percy Jackson page isn't just about the books. Percy Jackson started off as a series of books (similar to Wizarding World) and also spawned different types of content. For example there is a section on the Percy Jackson movies, a section on the TV show and video games all within that one page (look under "In other media". Why shouldn't this be the case for Wizarding World? Star Wars also has a dedicated page to the film series but their main franchise page talks about movies, video games and everything else associated with the franchise.

Like we both agree How to train your dragon isn't an equivalent however How to train is your dragon is the only franchise I could find where it is organised as you state with no section on their original medium. Sivany29 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the "In other media" section is always for derivate projects, projects that came after and that are based on whatever is the main topic of the article, it's never for media that came before or originally. You should really check out Harry Potter, the main page on this subjects and see how that's structured the same way that Percy Jackson & the Olympians is. Wizarding World is a derivate work of the Harry Potter film series, which is a derivate work of the original Harry Potter book series. —El Millo (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)