List of Harry Potter translations was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 23, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Fantasy / Harry Potter Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fantasy task force. This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Children's literature Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit Translation studies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Media franchises Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Lathey, Gillian (April 2005). "The Travels of Harry: International Marketing and the Translation of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter Books". The Lion and the Unicorn. 29 (2). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISSN 1080-6563. Pleyer, Monika (January 2019). Impoliteness in Children’s Fiction: Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Aspects (Thesis). Universität Koblenz-Landau.

Further to the comment below i find it incorrect to list the international english version as a translation, this is americocentric nonsense. Obviously the international version (i.e. the non-american version) is the origonal and I know for a fact that changes other than the title were made to the content of the book (see:http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/strictly_british1.html)(actually mentioned in body of article) to aid the understanding of american readers. will changing this bring me undue criticism or a revert? (82.46.12.240 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Can anyone comment on the differences between the American English and the U.K. English versions? (Ideally at a deeper level than that the title of the first volume is different!) Johnh 23:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely a matter of changing words that would be confusing to Americans. For instance, Mrs. Weasley knits jumpers in the British version, and sweaters in the American version. The meaning is the same, but in American English the word "jumper" refers to a pinafore dress so it would be very strange to American readers to imagine Harry and Ron wearing jumpers! For the same reason, football is changed to soccer in the American versions.

There are some other small differences that are not due to words meaning different things. In the American version, for example, the number on Sirius Black's vault at Gringotts is mentioned. In the British version, it is omitted. I don't know why the non-language-related changes like this were made. --Icarus 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really significant to provide how the name of characters or places is translated into languages other than English? -- Taku 20:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)

It's trivia. It's not significant, it's interesting. Why, for example would the cat's name be changed or Professors Snape's? Or Mme Sprout's? The changes reflect that the characters names are meant to imply certain things about them, and the name changes are interesting in that they reflect decisions made with permission of the author. Where else would one discover that the French equivalent of "Hufflepuff" is "Poufsouffle"? -- Someone else 20:49 30 May 2003 (UTC)

It's also useful when you're reading a translation and wonder who "Mr Rusard" equates to. (It's Filch, BTW.) But Harry Potter in translation isn't the best title. How about List of translations of Harry Potter terms, in keeping with other List of x names? Geoffrey 03:46 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is not a dictionary. Imagine we will be putting names also in Arabic, Korean and Japanese languages. Wikipedia is all about our knowledge not about linguistic information such as translation words. If we allow this, then what about how to call universities, United States, for instance in Japanese language. I know there are a lot of this kind of lists already, but it doesn't mean they are consistent with our policies. -- Taku 15:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

While I agree in general that wikipedia shouldn't have translation information, Harry Potter is a special case as JK Rowling naming of characters/objects/places has a depth unusual in fiction (except in Tolkien's LotR) and translation may effect that. For instance in book 3 the character Remus Lupin, if you think about his name you'ld notice his last name is derived from the latin Lupus for wolf and his first is shared with the roman mythological character Remus (as in Romulus and Remus). For more information see http://www.verbatimmag.com/26_2.pdf and http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ --Imran 23:44 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Then I guess this is fine. At least this article hurts nothing. -- Taku 19:15 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Should we add terms that are mere literal translations of common nouns, e.g., broomstick = French balai and magic wand = baguette magique? These aren't specific to the Harry Potter series itself, but they were there and untranslated, so I put the literal translation (which is, of course, used in the book). Geoffrey 02:06 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think we probably need keep only those in which there's a witty, amusing or elucidative change in some language (like Choixpeau<G>), but we won't know which those are until we have more languages added. -- Someone else 02:10 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Geoffrey, Do you know what the French equivalent is to the English difference in pronunciation that takes Harry to the wrong place when he says "diagonally" instead of "Diagon Alley" when using the floo powder to go shopping with the Weasleys? (book 2 I think) -- Someone else 03:46 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, what's Knockturn Alley in French? I haven't read Chambre des secrets yet...another website claims it "Allée des Embrumes" which sounds nothing like "Chemin de Traverse". Not everything translates perfectly - but when I read the second book I'll see what happens. Possibly they change the entire mispronunciation scene there because they can't translate it. And Diagon Alley is supposed to be "diagonally". Knockturn Alley is "nocturnally". Both are (supposedly) eponymous. Geoffrey 20:02 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this page does not belong in Wikipedia.

The page has virtually no content. A page about Harry Potter in translation should at least collate or summarise material concerning the current state of Harry Potter in translation. What the author does instead is send out a message under the auspices of Wikipedia asking visitors to complete his/her project! In other words, whoever started this page is simply hitching a ride with Wikipedia in order to do his/her own personal project.

Yes, the way Harry Potter is translated is interesting, but the author of this page should go and create his/her own web site instead of taking up space at Wikipedia.

Other people have put a lot of effort into similar pages without acting under the cloak of another project.

In particular, I refer you to:

http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/index.html

Information about Harry Potter in Oriental languages can also be found at:

http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter

I would be interested to know why the creator of the Wikipedia page didn't bother to find out what was available on the web before deciding to go ahead with this pet project. Why are there no links to these pages?

I reiterate: This is a hobby page that is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia. The author should take his hobby elsewhere and create his own web page or website.

You are absolutely correct. This article doesn't belong to wikipedia. But remember wikipedia is also a place to hung out, have fun for some people. Unfortunately we don't have enough force to drive this kind of thing out from here. -- Taku 16:56, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this article, now series of articles, does belong here on Wikipedia. In fact, I think it needs expanding -- it's just as valid, and probably more academic, that the various lists of people, pornstars (!), bands, albums, singles, songs (some people are attempting to catalogue every song ever recorded!), movies, etc -- but I do agree that this particular page needs a few changes. There needs to be more on the actual translations and the lists moved to appropriate pages. I have already done some of that, moving the list of book names to another page for one, but there's a lot more to do. I started by creating a main index page (Harry Potter in translation series which will act as a central link for the various pages, and will attempt to write something here when I have time and can think of something. Exploding Boy 11:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add an "FAQ" to this page? I am new to Wikipedia, and an FAQ doesn't seem to be a very Wiki thing. However, I am also a Harry Potter translator, and I could create an FAQ that I think would be relevant to this page, answering questions such as: How are Harry Potter Translators picked? To what degree is J.K.Rowling involved in the translation process? Why does it take so long to translate the books? etc. --Woggly 08:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't add a FAQ, but that information sounds good, and you can add it as part of the article. Exploding Boy 09:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an excellent page to have on Wikipedia; I'm not a major contributor, but I like languages, and this article seemed perfect for me. I say you should keep it. Also, I'd like to see more information emerge about specific puns and hard-to-translate enigmata.

I don't understand the point of having three seperate lists (languages, translators, publishers/countries) that need to be maintained seperately. I think what is interesting and relevant to this page is just how many different languages and dialects the book has been translated into - that's what I'd like to be able to easily count. The information about translators, publishers and countries is only important because it serves to substantiate and elucidate the list of languages, but I reckon this information should somehow be integrated into one list, with language as the important factor.

What I'd like to see, in other words, is one, unified list that goes something like this:

1. Afrikaans, South Africa: Human & Rousseau (pty) Ltd.,translated by Janie Oosthuysen [1]
2. Albanian, Albania: Publishing House Dituria, translated by Amik Kasoruho
3. Arabic, Egypt: Nahdet Misr
4. Bahasa Indonesia, Indonesia: Penerbit PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama
5. Basque, Spain, translated by Iñaki Mendiguren
6. Bulgarian, Bulgaria: Egmont Bulgaria, translated by Mariana Melnishka
7. Castilian, Spain: Ediciones Salamandra
8. Catalan, Spain: Editorial Empuries, translated by Laura Escorihuela
9. Chinese, People's Republic of China (Simplified Characters): People's Literature Publishing House, translated by Ma Ainong, et al
10. Chinese, Taiwan (Complex Chinese Characters): Crown Publishing Company Ltd, translated by Peng Chien-Wen

I'm bringing this up on the talk page because I know the list used to be more like this suggested format, and Exploding Boy put some effort into breaking it up. Why? I don't see what was gained. --Woggly 08:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm not totally certain that you can combine everything into one list because of possible duplication. My personal preference would be to group information by language with a section for each language, showing who does the translation, and then a list of countries publishing in that language along with the appropriate publisher:

==Afrikaans==
Translated by: Janie Oosthuysen [2]
;South Africa : Human & Rousseau (pty) Ltd.
.
.
.
==Chinese==
===Simplified===
Translated by Ma Ainong, et al
;People's Republic of China : People's Literature Publishing House
===Complex===
Translated by Peng Chien-Wen
;Taiwan : Crown Publishing Company Ltd

etc. Which actually seems to work, despite my worries :-) --Phil | Talk 09:57, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I split the page the way you think I did... I did make a lot of changes and created some new pages, but it was a long time ago... At any rate, I support changing the format of this page to whatever would work better, which is always my intention. Exploding Boy 10:10, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good! I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, Exploding Boy- I just didn't want to make any drastic changes without considering possible objections, which for some reason I thought you might have. I know you care about this article, that's why I left the note on your talk.

As for the format suggested by Phil: we'd lose the automatic count that way, wouldn't we? Here's what I propose: I'll create an integrated list according to the format I suggested, which could then with relative ease be converted to subheadings the way Phil suggested. Once the integrated list is a part of the history of the article, we can play around with the format and see what looks best, and if necessary revert to our favorite format. --Woggly 11:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite and see if I can twist my idea to fit your requirements ...

1. Afrikaans

   Translated by: Janie Oosthuysen [3]

   South Africa

   Human & Rousseau (pty) Ltd.

2. Chinese (Simplified)

   Translated by Ma Ainong, et al

   People's Republic of China

   People's Literature Publishing House

3. Chinese (Complex)

   Translated by Peng Chien-Wen

   Taiwan

   Crown Publishing Company Ltd

That should work: keeps your automatic numbering and groups stuff together by language. --Phil | Talk 11:21, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I won't apply it now because my arm hurts. --Woggly 12:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence: Suprisingly, the pirate Czech translation of the Order of Phoenix quickly became extemely popular, and was actually used as the official translation. I'd like to see a reference for this. While I don't actually know it to be false, I have been in correspondence with one of the Medek brothers, and to the best of my knowledge they were not replaced by other translators, nor were their translations ever "pirate' translations. --Woggly 10:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not list the Title in each language as well? This would not be frivolous at all in my opinion, especially if you were trying to find a copy of that book. But giving the author's name in that language might be perhaps (i.e. the Chinese). By the way, for anyone who thinks this list is silly, look at it this way; - I've seen maybe one Harry Potter movie, but never read one of the books in the series (even though my parents were teachers and have the whole series). However; I was thinking about reading (or trying to read!) something relatively familiar at an intermediate level in Hindi or Urdu, languages I'm learning. In that sense, knowing that the "Philosopher's Stone" is translated as "Pāras Patthar" (पारस पत्थर)[4] in Hindi, or the Prisoner of Azkaban is "Azkabān ka Qaidi" (ازكبان كا قيدى) in Urdu[5] is crucial information, and not "pet-project" material. And by that token, perhaps there is a nuance to Chinese I am ignorant of and it is necessary to write the name in Chinese. In my experience with other languages though, names are the one and only constant. It is fairly obvious to me that Sudhir Dixit is सुधिर दीक्षित without having to write it in Hindi, though I might be mistaken on the length of a vowel or two. In other words, transliterate all author's names into their respective foreign scripts, or don't do it at all, doesn't really matter to me though - just thought I'd add my observation. Khirad^talk 07:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu; though some sources refer to translations "from Arabic to Zulu", the books in fact have never officially been translated into Zulu.

Why is this listed if it has not been shown to exist? This is contradictory. --Dforest 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this line in the article?

English: Australia, Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd (Distributor); Canada, Bloomsbury/Raincoast; South Africa, Jonathan Ball Publishers (Distributors); USA: Scholastic

This is a list of translations, and as far as I know, for the Australian, Canadian and South-African editions nothing has been translated. They're just regional editions of the same book. MrTroy 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct of course, technically, but I like the list the way it is. It's the most complete list of Harry Potter publishers available anywhere. One could start another article about "Harry Potter publishers" in order to preserve that; personally, I'd rather have these superfluous publishers listed here than create yet another almost identical list on a separate article. I don't see what harm can be done by keeping the English language publishers listed here. --woggly 06:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an inclusionist I agree with your wish for completeness. However, including the English editions that are not translations may be misleading, because it can lead people to think they are translated. For now, I've included a note that they're not translations to avoid confusion. Furthermore I have removed USA because American English has its own entry in the list. MrTroy 08:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. --woggly 08:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is no name listed as the books' American "translator". Is one person responsible or is this decided by committee? Serendipodous 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add the title names of the books to this article. This content once existed as a separate article, which was deleted per AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages (2nd nomination). The decision was to delete these lists, not to merge them. Please respect that. --woggly 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Turkish translation of Pensieve, the author notes that it is a portmanteau of "Düsünmek", to think, and "sel" which is not defined. I had a look on a Turkish dictionary and apparently, "sel" means a flood of water. I'll add that info in if no one has any objections. Serendipodous 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoewrqr1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a section of translations of names, objects and places might be fun. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be much more material about the "translation" from British English to American English. And we should be told which version English speakers in other countries are reading. Canada gets the British version? There are many hundreds of changes, mostly minor vocabulary translations. They are listed here[6] and even more thoroughly here.[7] In addition, that second site also lists minor changes that are being made in the newer editions, to make them more consistent. -69.87.201.47 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section, feel free to edit or expand. --woggly 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this table was a lot of work, and it looks good, so thank you. I do however have a few minor issues with it. Firstly, we have lost the automatic count; secondly, some of the entries for Spain look odd now. As far as I understood, Catalan and Valencian are different names for the same dialect; ditto Spanish and Castillian. This should be made clearer on the table (perhaps by putting the alternative name in parenthesis). --woggly 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe move "West Frisian" under F for "Frisian". I'm afraid to mess up the table if I do it. --woggly 10:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for no response, I forget to watch talk pages. Glad you like the table. :) Speaking of automatic numeration, indeed, and I have no idea how to restore the functionality of ordered lists. There is a server-side software extension which I reckon would help us, but unfortunately it’s not installed on Wikipedia, so I repaired the indices manually. If you think it doesn’t matter that much, we could live with manual counting until the developers extend the wikimarkup enough. About the languages, you’re right, but I see they are fixed already. About the West Frisian language – changed! viny.tell // 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --woggly 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no problem. I felt so guilty for messing up the number system, I wrote a bookmarklet. Paste it into the address bar while you have the edit window of the article opened, and it will re-calculate the rows in the textarea. Tested in MSIE 6, Opera 9 and Firefox 2.

javascript:(function(e,x){e.value=e.value.replace(/(\| )(\d+)(\. <th>)/g,function(a,b,c,d){return b+(x++)+d})})(document.getElementById('wpTextbox1'), 1);

Well, I’m off now. :) viny.tell // 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the images in this article legal under fair use? I could provide scans of more than 20 different editions of the first Harry Potter book, but I'm not going to go to effort of scanning them if they'll just get deleted. --woggly 10:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. American English is "the English language as spoken in the U.S.." (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, emphasis added.) Therefore, a British book edited by an American does NOT qualify as "American English." It's just, duh, British English edited by an American. Note that some of J.K. Rowling's "Briticisms" were actually left in.

2. While Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, etc. are languages, American English is not. British and American English are two (sets of) dialects of the same language: English.

So please don't list "American English" as a language.

3. Sorcerer's stone vs. Philosopher's stone has nothing to do with American vs. British English. It was just a (dismal) choice of the American publisher. The French publisher too wiped the philosopher's stone out of the title.

3.1 Anybody who doesn't know what the philosopher's stone is has severe mental retardation.

;-) Jack(Lumber) 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is a British book translated into Arabic still British English? There's no clear line between dialect and language, and both can clearly be changed by translation.

And calling everyone who doesn't know a fact that you know severely mentally retarded is being an asshole.--Prosfilaes 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. woggly 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no. When you translate a book, for example, from French into Arabic, you actually have to *rewrite* it. The Harry Potter books were neither rewritten nor translated, just adapted---the entire text was virtually unchanged, except for a few edits. And American English can only be written by an American---by definition. An American may use different words, different constructions, different patterns, different word order, and so on. The American changes were quite superficial in this respect---and a lot of the "American" variants are actually perfectly good (if not better) British English (e.g. good for you for good on you, on either side for either side). Not to mention that several Briticisms were left in. If an American and an Englishman decide to write a book together, what "language" are they going to use? When it comes to British and American English, the line is clear enough---much clearer than the one between "functional illiterate" and "imbecile." My comment was supposed to be humorous, as the ";-)" implied. Jack^(Lumber) 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about something that is formally defined, like the meter, you might win by saying "by definition". But a dictionary is merely a tool to explain a word and frequently sacrifices precision for clarity and brevity. Even given that, the definition you give said that American English is English "as" spoken in the US, not "that is" spoken in the US. That is, anyone can write American English as long as they are doing it "as" it is spoken in the US.

Frankly, I don't care about the precise definitions here. There were changes in this edition to bring the book towards proper American English. To produce a list of all the different language versions in the world and leave this one out for pedantry is stupid.

I caught that your statement was meant to be humorous. Why is that my retort didn't have you rolling in the isles? Perhaps it's because insult usually is only funny to the insulter? Perhaps because one of the oldest tricks in the book is to try and escape blame for rude, insulting and out-of-line remarks by claiming they were meant to be humorous?

(Does using an adjective where an adverb is called for qualify as functionally illiterate?) Calling the functionally illiterate imbeciles is attacking a group of people who are relatively powerless, unrespected, with low self-esteem and whose chances for the future are limited. Why not attack cripples while you're at it? What about the deaf, the blind? I guess you're right; those people aren't as completely powerless as the functionally illiterate, so let's stay kicking those who have no chance to defend themselves.--Prosfilaes 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does mistaking a *noun* used as a word for an adjective qualify as functionally illiterate? I think not. I'm just gonna drop the 'tude. I may drink tequila, eat enchiladas, and wear a sombrero, but that ain't gonna make me a Mexican. Just because a text is written in what *formally* looks like proper American English doesn't mean it is actual American English. Disjuncts, predeterminers, tag questions, modal auxiliaries, and the words please and sorry are all less common in American than British. A bit is three times as common in British as in American. I guess is ten times as common in American as in British. These are the kinds of things that distinguish different dialects of the same language. Therefore, if British is red and American is blue, the U.S. editions of the Harry Potter books are red streaked with blue. But language is dynamic; it evolves; it can't be compartmentalized. Suppose I'm moving to England, and suppose I'm going to live there for the rest of my life. What will my English look like five years from now? British? American? Neither. Some shade of purple. The line is more blurred than you might think. No one is going to leave out the American edition. Just don't call it "American English," or else you're gonna have to call the original edition "British English," which would be just as terrible. And the U.S. editions ain't "American English" anyways. Jack^(Lumber) 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Bloomsbury publishes for both the UK and Ireland and if the English editions for Australia, South Africa and Canada are listed than Ireland should be too. And if Ireland is listed than the UK should be. Also, I'm assuming that Allan and Unwin publish in New Zealand as well as Australia, yes? Serendi^podous 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, but five minutes later a new pedant will come along and remove it again, scoffing at our ignorance. My personal preference is for an inclusive list that contains comprehensive information about as many as possible different editions worldwide, even if one of them is the original and some of them are not strictly speaking translations, or not authorised translations. (For instance, when and why did someone erase one of the two Farsi editions that had been listed? To the best of my knowledge, there was more than one edition of book one produced in Iran.) However I'm not going to engage in revert scuffles over this.--woggly 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Farsi ref at all on that list, which is odd. Surely at least one should be there. Maybe someone's making a political statement? Serendi^podous 08:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Oh, it's under "Persian". Farsi is probably better, but I can live with Persian. Serendi^podous 07:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the new format I've introduced to the table, I don't think you'll have a problem including a separate Farsi translation. Serendi^podous 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the publisher of the books for Ukraine really called "A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MA-HA"? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 05:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds odd, but yes, it really really is. I own a copy of the first book in Ukrainian. --woggly 06:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. In Ukrainian it sounds like А-БА-БА-ГА-ЛА-МА-ГА (English translation is just a transcription). --Yarko 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I saw plenty of covers of HP books I can say that Ukraininan version is one of the best. May be it could be presented here?
Here are a list of covers:
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter7.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter6.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter5.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter4.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter3.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter2.jpg
http://www.mo-productions.com/images/potter.jpg
--Yarko 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give a clearer idea of the number of languages into which Harry Potter has been translated (and also to stop edit wars over separate translations being considered separate languages). Including "American", there are sixty on the list. If we include the two unofficial translations and the ditched translation into Scots Gaelic, that makes 63. Most media sources however say that Harry Potter has been translated into 65 languages. So either they're wrong or we're missing a few. I'm currently inclined to go either way. Serendi^podous 08:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to wager that media sources that quote the number 65 relied on this Wikipedia article, or a mirror or fork of this article. Journalists, like many people, are often lazy, and Wikipedia is a great resource for lazy people. I'm pretty sure the following news article also relied heavily on this Wikipedia article as a source:[8] --woggly 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting a proper reorganisation of this article, but it's confusing work, with so many different aspects to address. I still feel strongly that the table should contain unauthorised published translations as well as the authorised translations: basically, anything that can be purchased in a bookstore and set upon a shelf. Otherwise the list does not add much to that which is already available on J.K.Rowling's official website. The idea is to show the variety: how many different languages the books have been translated into; issues of copyright infringement can and are discussed separately. Anyway, I need to take a break now and get on with my real work, but I plan to come back and continue the rewrite. --woggly 08:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me, apart from nationalism, is there anything separating Sperbian and Croatian? Is Ukrainian a language or is is a dialect of Russian? Is Afrikaans a language or a dialect of Dutch? Are Gallician and Catalan languages or Spanish dialects? Serendi^podous 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that they are all distinct languages, though of course there are similarities. You can enter the Wikipedia articles relating to these languages to read more about them and what distinguishes them from related languages.--woggly 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a rule of thumb: As not unlike to the differentiation of animal races, dialects are thought of as separate languages if speakers are not able to establish a working (two-way, verbal) communication. That certainly leaves room for interpretation, but that's what makes it a rule of thumb instead of a law of nature ;) --78.52.201.97 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've erased Bosnian because I haven't been able to verify independently that such an edition exists. The point of this table is to document different editions: not to document linguistic disputes. For example: it is not our business to decide if Serbian and Croatian are one language or two: for purposes of this list, there are two different editions, with two different publishers, and different translators - hence the separate entries are justified. I don't know what the case is for Bosnian, but I need a reference. If you can show me that a Bosnian publisher hired an additional translator to prepare an independent translation, I'll support adding the Bosnian edition to the list; linking to a sales site from which the names of the publisher and translator are absent is not enough. --woggly (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Potter6-Czech.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Serendi^podous 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation that although 'Tom the bartender' in the text is linked through to the page on minor characters, there does not seem to any longer be an entry for him. The implication of this article seems to be that there is some significance to tom riddle and he sharing the same first name. Is there some justification for this? Sandpiper (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the link and clarified the name significance. Graymornings_(talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to improve the section of anagrams in this article, however I speak hungarian and czech very well (and sorry for my bad English)!
Pro primo: I think in czech "Já, Lord Voldemort" it means "Me, Lord Voldemort" sooner than "Yes," (like affirmative is "Ja" in German, I think the editor thought this).
Pro secundo: the hungarian "Nevem Voldemort" means "My name is Voldemort".
I hope this help you. I don´t want change the article (only help to explain some terms), please do it instead of me.
Thank you:
--91.127.77.61 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the Dutch book cover is a bit misleading. The equivalent expression for ‘Philosopher's stone’ in Dutch is ‘Steen der wijzen’. A word-for-word translation of the latter would give ‘Stone of the Wisemen’ in English, but as an idiomatic translation this would be completely false. The caption suggest however that the meaning of the Dutch title is in fact different from the English one – which is not true, both denote the same object known from alchemy. I've tried to clarify this succinctly. Berteun (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the stone of the wise is a real expression that is an alternative in English to the philosopher's stone; although, admittedly, mostly in English Alchemical literature. Perhaps it may have been translated by English-speaking alchemists who saw it printed in Dutch books on Alchemy printed in the 1600s.

Nuttyskin (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite astonished that there's no swahili version.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I have the second volume (Dvorana tajni) on my bookshelf, and it is a translation by mother and son Roganović, not by Ana Vukomanović. You can also read in a newspaper that all seven volumes have been translated by the Roganović family: [9] I know that the Vukomanović translation did exist, but nowadays you can only find the Roganović translations on the book market. Does anyone know what happened? Why were there two Serbian translations of the second volume (and possibly also of the first one)? --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After one month of silence I’ll change the information in the article now. If anyone should know more about this, please contact me at my German WP talk page. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I collected 8 books published in cyrillic by Politika. The first 6 in the collection were numbered 1-6 but the Order of the Phoenix was split into two "books" thence the discrepency with the numbers with volume II of OotP being "book VI" in the collection. The 7th & 8th books in this Politika series were the first four books of a Series of Unfortunate Events...84.115.59.242 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new subsection for rhymes, anagrams, and abbreviations that caused issues with translation. I put in info about the various songs and poems that come up in the series as well as the riddle of the sphinx in Goblet of Fire, which caused particular problems. I also moved the "Tom Riddle" anagramm info to this section. We might also want to add info on the translation of dialects and non-standard English, like Hagrid's Cockney accent or Krum's Bulgarian accent. There's some info on that here: http://www.swedishbookreview.com/old/2002s-gedin.html This doesn't contain any info other than the Swedish translation of dialect, but nothing about other languages, so I'll wait until I or someone else finds more info. Graymornings (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition! :-) Serendi^podous 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter in translation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Fake translations

   Whereas "pirate translations" are unauthorised translations of true Harry Potter books, "fake translations" have also appeared, which are published pastiches or fanfics that a foreign publisher has tried to pass off as the translation of the real book by Rowling. There have been several such books, the most famous of which is probably Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon which was written and published in China in 2002, prior to the release of the fifth book in Rowling's series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. - nothing there is cited.

   In Bengali, Harry Potter in Calcutta (Harry Potter Kolkataye), written by Uttam Ghosh, has appeared. - that one needs citing too.

   Rhymes, anagrams, and acronyms

   In other translations, the riddle is changed to provide different words that can be put together to make up the translated version of "spider." - a couple of cites are needed because of the plural usage here.

   Another issue was the translation of "The Mirror of Erised." In German, it is called Der Spiegel Nerhegeb. The words were created by reading the word desire and the German Begehren backwards. - cite

   Areas in which anagrams are present do not make the transition easily into other languages. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the name "Tom Marvolo Riddle" is rearranged to spell "I am Lord Voldemort." This has required translators to alter Riddle's name to make the anagram work. Sometimes translators manage to alter only one part of the name: Tom Riddle's middle name of Marvolo was changed to "Vandrolo" in the Hebrew edition, to "Marvoldo" in Turkish, to "Vorlost" in German, to "Sorvolo" in Spanish, to "Marvoloso" in Slovak, and to "Orvoloson" in Italian. In other languages, translators replaced the name entirely for the sake of preserving the anagram. In French, Riddle's full name becomes "Tom Elvis Jedusor" an anagram of "Je suis Voldemort." In Norwegian, his name is Tom Dredolo Venster, an anagram of "Voldemort den store," which means "Voldemort the Great." In Dutch, his name is "Marten Asmodom Vilijn," an anagram of "Mijn naam is Voldemort," or "My name is Voldemort." In Swedish, his name is "Tom Gus Mervolo Dolder," an anagram of "Ego sum Lord Voldemort," where "ego sum" is Latin, not Swedish, for "I am." In Hungarian, his name is "Tom Rowle Denem," which is an anagram of "Nevem Voldemort"; the "w" in the name becomes two "v"s (this caused a name collision with the character Thorfinn Rowle, who first appears in the seventh book and is not related to Voldemort; thus in the Hungarian translation his family name was altered to Rovel). These changes to the name created problems in later books; in the English edition, a line of dialogue mentions that Tom Riddle shares his given name with the bartender of the Leaky Cauldron, but this is not the case in all translations. - not 1 cite for this whole paragraph. Possible original research here as well.

   Invented words, proper nouns, and names

   there is 1 reference marked here and it's unclear if it's refering to the last paragraph or the entire section. If it is meant to reference the entire section, put it after each paragraph. If not, you need to cite the first 2 paragraphs.

   Plot points

   first 2 paragraphs are not covered by the cite

   C. No original research:

   "Rhymes, anagrams, and acronyms", first paragraph of "Fake translations" and the first 2 paragraphs of "Plot points" clearly has some OR statements. "Invented words, proper nouns, and names" may also contain some.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It lacks any commentary about the translations reception except for American changes. Also it fails to mention anywhere that the name "Harry Potter" was contractually not allowed to be changed.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Given the worldwide nature of Harry Potter, I think a book cover from a country outside Europe, preferably with a non-Latin-based language cover would be good here. Right now I'd have to say that the 2 covers present a more Euro-centric point, however I'm not willing to fail you on this particular point.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Harry Potter en de Steen der Wijzen Uitgeverij De Harmonie 2001 edition.jpg

   First image needs a reason why it can't be replaced (consider probably updating to the new standard format that Potter6-Czech.jpg uses)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Deathly Hollows has a lot of talk about it's name, but doesn't make an appearance. Possibly an image if you can get it of one of those "fake" books as well would be nice.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Even with me being bold and corrections some MoS and cite problems, this article still can't make it to a GA class right now.じんない 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a list of official translations, the Slovene official translations are:

Publisher: Epta (I-V), translator Jakob J. Kenda Publisher: Mladinska knjiga (I-V rerelease of Jakob J. Kenda translations for Epta); (VI-VII), translator Jakob J. Kenda

The translation of book VI by Branko Gradišnik should be deemed unofficial due to readers' public outrage about it's quality, which led JKR to look for a new Slovene publisher (Mladinska knjiga), which concurred with her wish to publish a new translation of book VI (and VII) by a previous translator, Jakob J. Kenda.

For details see Slovene HP-fandom homepage www.hpslo.com.

HPfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljff2 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this German site ([[10]]) that gives translations of Harry Potter's characters. Among the others, there are references to Sorbian, Scottish Gaelic and Swahili, that aren't listed in the article. I've also found this Spanish site ([[11]]) stating that an Asturian, not listed in this page, does exist. It's also stated in the Asturian Wikipedia (Los seis primeros llibros tienen vendío más de 325 millones de copies en total y traduciéronlos a 64 llingües, incluyendo l'asturianu.). It would be amazing if anyone could verify this. --151.51.59.84 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started on the Scottish Gaelic translation. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.119.135 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a listing for the Asturian edition. It seems that it may have been published only very recently. Fragesteller (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article notes that Voldemort is French for "wave of death". This is not correct - it actually translates literally as "flight of death". Redcore4 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is complicated. "Vol" has two meanings in French. Wave is not one of them - it means either "flight" or "theft". Either could apply and I'm pretty sure both do. (And if it's flight, it's flight "from" rather than "of") Sadie_F 15:21, 30 July 2009 (EST)

There's a rather interesting piece of information currently missing from the article. The name of the third book was initially mistranslated into Romanian as "HP - prizonier la Azkaban" (meaning "HP, prisoner at Azkaban"!), and was changed to the current form as of the 2nd edition, but i haven't yet found a verifiable source for this. All i could come up with was a harrypotter.wikia article that mentioned the same thing... Hopefully someone else might be luckier than i was? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers in general can vary from country to country because of different tasts of the market. Book-assecoires such as paper-houses and other toys belonging to children's books/stories also vary...--Siebzehnwolkenfrei (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no citation given, I'd like to object/add that, while [denk] is probably pretty unarguably an allomorph of "denken" (to think), "-arium" cannot as surely be attributed to one word. For example "Terrarium" (terrarium), maybe "Atrium" (inside courtyard). Also an aquarium is not merely a container of fluids (which would match both items), but it is designed to contain fish (or the like...). Thus there is no semantic reference to a Pensieve, so that I argue other considerations like lack of well-sounding alternatives (think of "Denk-üssel" (-> Schüssel (bowl) or "Denk-ale" (Schale (bowl) etc.)By a feeling I'd even argue "-arium" to be a morpheme (like "-tion" (Eng and Ger)) for "room for/of". Maybe other natives can confirm/back up that. So what I'm saying is, that I don't like the strong reference being made to fish, when saying "Denkarium" partly consists of "aquarium". Also neither I nor any of the handful of friends I asked did share that connotative intuition.--78.52.201.97 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time for the opening sentences of this article to be more precise and, at the same time, more accurate.

I propose the following new wording for the second sentence:

In May 2008 worldwide sales of Harry Potter books were estimated to be over 400 million copies, and the books have been translated from the original English into at least 64 other languages. If one includes an additional translation into Brazilian Portuguese and one into Chinese using Simplified Chinese characters, authorized editions of the books have been published in at least 67 distinct language versions [1] (This does not include the separate American English edition.)

I will wait several weeks for comments before changing the text. Fragesteller (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, maybe its due to my ignorance but im a little confused. I bought a harry potter book when i was in belgrade, i assume its serbian (it says belgrade as the place it was published). I assumed (dueto this article mostly) that the serbian translation would be cyrillic. The shop assisstant insisted there was no cyrillic version. So this one i have is called Harry Potter i kamen mudrosti. This site claims its a "serbo-croat" translation http://www.worldlanguage.com/Products/Harry-Potter-in-Croatian-Serbian-I-Hari-Poter-kamen-mudrosti-SerbianHarry-I-Serbi-101946.htm

But this article cites a croatian translation as well (Harry Potter i Kamen mudraca, a quick google found no solid reference) Does this mean there are 3 versions, serbian (the one i have), croatian, and serbian cyrillic?? Thanks --109.125.9.97 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems to be "Yes." The currently available Serbian editions are all in the Latin alphabet. However, Cyrillic versions of books I-V (at least) were published, as shown by photographs available on the web. It seems that these Cyrillic versions are no longer in print. I have added the relevant information and references to the main article. Fragesteller (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to the Valencian adaptations of the Catalan editions of Books I-II. The translation of these Valencian versions is credited to Laura Escorihuela, who is the translator of the original Catalan editions. Therefore, the publisher does not consider these to be new translations, but merely "adaptations" of a previous translation. In that sense the Valencian and Catalan editions seem to be less distinct than the separate translations into Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese (which have different translators). Nonetheless it could be argued that the Valencian and Catalan editions should be listed separately under two different language headings, so futher comments on this issue are welcome. Fragesteller (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited "The Translator’s ‘Magic’ Wand: Harry Potter’s Journey from English into French" for misleading translations. There is more content that could be added under #Issues_in_translation. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

the rowgroups should look thus:

This way, it would be possible to compare data of particular parts.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040507013135/http://www.ybook.co.il:80/proza/potter/potter.asp to http://www.ybook.co.il/proza/potter/potter.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051117132424/http://www.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040104a1.htm to http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040104a1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060113003033/http://www.pelangibooks.com:80/module/series/series.aspx?seriesid=SBSHPM53 to http://www.pelangibooks.com/module/series/series.aspx?seriesid=SBSHPM53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217110602/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=3 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=3&id=1804362006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709042259/http://www.sayzansha.com/en/books_harrypotter.html to http://www.sayzansha.com/en/books_harrypotter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese translator seems be not able to use Japanese and understand English correctly. To do a perfect job that everyone loves is nearly impossible but it's possible to write a normal translation with one's native language for 1 year a book. But there is 1 or 2 mistakes a page. For example, Sirius NAMED Harry but he's not a godfather in Japanese edition somehow. Is it possible add new section here or make another topic in English? I also cannot use English perfectly and if I wrote the text myself, you won't get the meaning. So I need someone's help.もっつぁれらちーず (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone has added chamber of secrets and prisoner of azkaban to the Irish section, but only the first one has been translated. Welsh also. I didnt check others, the changes happened 31 May by user 90.200.218.196. not sure why, Harry Potter agus an Cumann Lucht Rúin is also quite a bad translation.93.82.61.172 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is said on 6.3. that "In French, Riddle's full name becomes Tom Elvis Jedusor (i.e. phonetically "game of fate" for the French "Jeu du sort"; but there is a playword: "Jedusor" is phonetically pronounced in French as "Jet du sort" which means "Casting spell")..." In fact, in french we pronounce "Jé-du-zor", /ʒedyzɔr/. It can't be /ʒø/ with this spelling, or the sound /ʒɛ/ if there is no accent on the e (è) or 2 consonants after the e (ex : "j'appelle" is pronounced /ʒɑpɜl/ because of the "ll". And an "s" is always (or nearly) pronounced /z/ between 2 vowels. So maybe there is a visual effect but we don't hear "jet du sort" or "Jeu du sort" but Jéduzor ! :)

Voila that's all, I hope you understood ^^ Anais21P (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QgAT01tH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fharrypotter.allenandunwin.com%2F to http://harrypotter.allenandunwin.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mediarodzina.com.pl/nowa/harry_potter/artykul/301/harry-potter-deathly-hallows-siodmy-tom-ostatni-czesc-insygnia-smierci.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent announcement of Scots, the first new language in quite a while, it is tempting to add the language to this list. I think we should wait until it has *actually* been published. There have been more than one instance of translations being announced that have never come to pass: Scottish Gaelic and Kazakh for example.

For a long time, it has been clear that he mandate of the list on this page is to only include *authorized* translations, not pirate translations, fan translations, fake translations or announced translations. (although commentary on them has been welcome in the body text). We shouldn't be in the position of having to monitor and *remove* entries based on whether or not a book has been published; only add once they are. It increases the risk that the list becomes inaccurate over time.

Shaav (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harrypotter.bloomsbury.com/uk/harry-potter-20/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930171135/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=29054 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=29054
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://harrypotter.allenandunwin.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040104a1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319041313/http://www15.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html to http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130107000602/http://cle.ens-lsh.fr/61048728/0/fiche___pagelibre/ to http://cle.ens-lsh.fr/61048728/0/fiche___pagelibre/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040408132244/http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html to http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205082053/http://home.online.no/~bjaas/potter/ to http://home.online.no/~bjaas/potter/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harry-auf-deutsch.de/HaD/lexikon.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040804164531/http://www2.rosenet.ne.jp/~chatnoir/harry/terms/1_3_a.htm to http://www2.rosenet.ne.jp/~chatnoir/harry/terms/1_3_a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306025320/http://www.globalbydesign.com/resources/articles/translating_harry_potter_part1.html to http://www.globalbydesign.com/resources/articles/translating_harry_potter_part1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812235141/http://buybook.ba/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=17&product_id=1147&Itemid=26&option=com_virtuemart&lang=ba&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26 to http://buybook.ba/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=17&product_id=1147&Itemid=26&option=com_virtuemart&lang=ba&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812235257/http://buybook.ba/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=17&product_id=1148Itemid%3D0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&lang=ba&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26 to http://buybook.ba/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=17&product_id=1148Itemid%3D0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26&lang=ba&vmcchk=1&Itemid=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610224329/http://www.coop-breizh.fr/livres-3/livres-3/paraitre-evenement-335/harry-potter-ha-maen-ar-furien-volume-4648/zoom-fr.htm?recherche to http://www.coop-breizh.fr/livres-3/livres-3/paraitre-evenement-335/harry-potter-ha-maen-ar-furien-volume-4648/zoom-fr.htm?recherche
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.albatros.cz/phprs_harry/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217020140/http://www.harrypotter.nl/index_flash.html to http://www.harrypotter.nl/index_flash.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221215948/http://harrypotter.psichogios.gr/new/newbook.asp to http://harrypotter.psichogios.gr/new/newbook.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010302011713/http://www.atuakkiorfik.gl/ to http://www.atuakkiorfik.gl/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manjulindia.com/booksshow.asp?id=353
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927051331/http://www.manjulindia.com/booksshow.asp?id=321 to http://www.manjulindia.com/booksshow.asp?id=321
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223175329/http://www.salani.it/sal-2.htm to http://www.salani.it/sal-2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602133935/http://www.jumava.lv/en/about_us to http://www.jumava.lv/en/about_us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204131830/http://www.manjulindia.com/booksshow.asp?id=703 to http://www.manjulindia.com/booksshow.asp?id=703
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725213051/http://www.sunbird.org.np/HarryPotter.htm to http://www.sunbird.org.np/HarryPotter.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209161427/http://www.harrypotter.rocco.com.br/ to http://www.harrypotter.rocco.com.br/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831162537/http://www.evro-giunti.com/search/webinars to http://www.evro-giunti.com/search/webinars
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216155604/http://www.salamandra.info/harry/h.htm to http://www.salamandra.info/harry/h.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606231458/http://manjulindia.com/product_info.php?cPath=42_43&products_id=584&osCsid=mhh73l1gg53afe6s4avp2s3n80 to http://manjulindia.com/product_info.php?cPath=42_43&products_id=584&osCsid=mhh73l1gg53afe6s4avp2s3n80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321012930/http://tibetbook.cn/html/2010/7/62.htm to http://www.tibetbook.cn/html/2010/7/62.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231082332/http://www.highpeakspureearth.com/2008/10/harry-potter-goes-to-tibet.html to http://www.highpeakspureearth.com/2008/10/harry-potter-goes-to-tibet.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=-565136
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620024315/http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=1862492683&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=11 to http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=1862492683&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=11
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070721-091316-1672r
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812193118/http://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0304/PWR-Leifer.pdf to http://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0304/PWR-Leifer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419092822/http://www.iatis.org/newvoices/issues/2006/fernandes-paper-2006.pdf to http://www.iatis.org/newvoices/issues/2006/fernandes-paper-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Potter in translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504041532/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/09/content_6500798.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/09/content_6500798.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010051152/http://www.hp-esperanto.com/?lang=en to http://www.hp-esperanto.com/?lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010051152/http://www.hp-esperanto.com/?lang=en to http://www.hp-esperanto.com/?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the use of Potterglot.net as a source. It appears to be self-published and it's being used to support what is essentially an original research essay about the "true" number of translations. Red OR flags always go off whenever I see math like Thus: 88 − 1 English − 8 double-translations = 79 show up in article text. The preamble at the top of https://www.potterglot.net/the-list/ says "The excellent Wikipedia page, Harry Potter in Translation (which I regularly contribute to)", which suggests to me that the person who added the source is an editor here. User:Shaav, are you the webmaster for Potterglot.net? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium Yes I am the webmaster for potterglot.net and these are self-published references. Some of which I added myself yes. I don't believe any of them are problematic or constitute unreliable sources as I will discuss in detail.

• Subject matter: the information here is of interest to a limited selection of individuals; primarily hobbyists and non-professionals. For some relevant information there simply are no independent sources because the subject matter is neither important enough nor of general enough interest.
• Myself: I am an acknowledged authority on this subject matter. I have been interviewed by and published by other recognized authorities in this field—I won't bother to mention them as they are all also self-published because again, there are no non-self-published sources for this subject matter. I also wouldn't want to be accused self-selecting sources; if someone cares to dig into it, best to let them find their own references to me and my work. I am currently working on a book about Harry Potter Translations which will be published by The Rowling Library—as far as Wikipedia is concerned however, that book will also be self-published. The best that I can offer, I suppose, to someone who would like to vet my claim to authority is to google "Harry Potter translations", contact some of prominent individuals that come up and ask them their opinion.
• Original Research: I have difficulty understanding how an arithmetic summary of the extensively cited information on the same page can possibly constitute original research. 79 matches the list of languages on the page. If you count how many of those language entries have more than one translation listed, you will find 8. It is a list of translations so it does not include the original English. The sum of those is 88.
• References: With a possible exception, each reference to potterglot.net is justifiable and appropriate. I'll discuss each of the references in turn:
  1. 'The List' citations: there are currently 5 references to 'the List'. The first 4 are probably not necessary I guess and can be removed—they refer to the '79' languages number, which as noted above is simply the total that is at the bottom of the table. The last one is in reference to 'unauthorized translations'; the fact that unauthorized translations exist is hardly controversial, and uncontroversial—'The List' is merely the only existing attempt to aggregate their existence and so for someone interested in learning more about unauthorized translations it is the best starting point.
  2. 'Bloomsbury Provides a Number!': You'll note that the reference is backing up the the existence of a discussion about also cited independent sources. The section (and the arithmetic) exists only to reconcile the difference between vaguely worded, time-dependent and easily located authoritative, independent sources and up-to-date and more specific content on the page.
  3. 'Harry Potter and the Spanish Tykes': I didn't make these references and didn't realize they were there until just now. Nonetheless it is appropriate as this article is the first published acknowledgment that there exist different versions of the Spanish translations. The article itself is merely a compilation of observations anyone with more than one Spanish edition can make—easily verifiable and uncontroversial—and it has been extensively cited by other online sources including ones that would stand up to independence tests.
  4. 'Harry Potter and the Ukrainian Orphanage': I don't actually remember if I made this reference or not—probably. This article specifically refutes a false claim that was propagated through multiple independent sources; it is the only authoritative source for that refutation and does so through direct contact with the supposed original source of the claim. The content easily verifiable (by literally any native Ukrainian speaker) and again uncontroversial. Shaav (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for all information of all time. The standards for inclusion are notability and verifiability. If something is so niche as to have zero independent reliable sources about it, then that's probably an indication that it's not suitable for Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia's policies on self-published sources exist as a safeguard against the potential issues associated with them.

My issue is not with the arithmetic itself, but with the section as a whole, which appears to be original research you did and published on your website and then repeated here. Parts of this section are original synthesis of outside sources to support a claim that does not explicitly appear in any individual (non-SPS) source, namely that the official number of translations as published by Bloomsbury is wrong and you have discovered the correct number. The presence of arithmetic like this in article text is merely a common indicator in my experience that original research is likely to be happening on the page. Apologies if that was unclear.

It's generally agreed that even if a self-published source is determined to be acceptable to use on Wikipedia, the person who wrote it is not the one who can make that determination! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source, Potterglot, is Unreliable -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium @Roxy the dog I understand why you find these citations suspect and that's fine. Wikipedia policy and guidelines explicitly allow for everything here in the right circumstances—even the first line of your last line explicitly say: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason...including WP:SELFPUB". I've provided you with my justifications for why that meet those criteria that are clearly not satisfying to you; however, it is also apparent to me that you have have neither a familiarity nor interest in the subject matter of this page. You yourselves are in no position to make a determination about whether the references or content are appropriate. So by all means: get up to speed on the subject matter or find someone else with the expertise or willingness to put in the effort—I could recommend some people or readings but obviously those would be entirely suspect coming from me so I will not. I will leave your tags in place. Shaav (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your justifications are totally inadequate, and your "but I'm reliable" handwaving does not alter the fact that your blog is unreliable for our purposes, and should not be used. Any parts of this article sourced solely from this blog should be removed asap. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 17:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To @Axem Titanium, @Roxy the dog, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and others. As a user of the information on this page and a collector owning all of these translations, I thought that I might offer my opinion on the subject. As to why the number matters: 1) a definitive list is of primary concern to the collecting community, which numbers in the high hundreds, 2) this number is important to the placement of Harry Potter on the list of most translated books of all time.

To my comments:

First, this page is a landing site for almost all collectors who are just starting out collecting Harry Potter translations. The information held here is important to our community. As a community of collectors, the sections specifically addressing how many languages actually exist and the list of those languages are paramount to that collecting journey. In addition, I have had many journalists trying to understand my extensive collection, and I have continually pointed them to this article so that they might better understand the breadth of language diversity that has been published for Harry Potter.

Second, this is not a niche subject. There are of course independent citations of almost all individual published books on this list, most of which can be found with each publisher (should they still be active and not bankrupt). However, as each publisher cares very little about Harry Potter translations in other countries, there are currently no other sources besides potterglot.net that have attempted to collate this disparate information (information that can easily be verified). You may think that Bloomsbury, the original publisher, should know the current number of authorized translations, yet it is clear from their published verbiage (i.e. “translated into over 80 languages” on the cover of their recently published 25th anniversary edition of Philosopher’s Stone) that they leave it to others to keep track of an exact number. The “over x” numbers have been used extensively by publishers, and this is both useless to collectors and others wishing to know which languages exist. You may also consider that the Blair partnership, which manages contract agreements between J.K. Rowling and publishers around the world for printing rights, would be able to track these numbers as well. However, as a business and not an academic institution, they do not employ historians on their staff to track out-of-date or old agreements. In fact, the closest this collecting community has come to a verifiable list from the Blair group came more than a decade ago, was unpublished publicly (a private message), and only contained active contracts, which does not answer the question at hand. The closest published source of information on Harry Potter publications is a book (and updated edition) by Philip Errington, who extensively interviewed Rowling and Bloomsbury. Yet, this author only briefly covers translations completed by Bloomsbury itself, and all other content is related to English printings of the books. For that matter, I am unsure why Errington would be considered a reliable source if potterglot is not.

Third, as a secondary voice in your argument here, I will lend my full support behind @Shaav (aka potterglot) as the only authority in this field. As a collector and linguist himself who owns all the books discussed, I hardly think that the information provided is hand waving. Potterglot does not write his articles without concrete information as backup, whether that be a book in hand or verifiable images of the contents from other collectors. His sources are clearly indicated in his articles on his website and on this page. If you were to interview any of the hundreds of Harry Potter collectors, they would agree to his authenticity and accuracy. I absolutely do not agree that he is an “unreliable source”. That he cites his blog for the discussion of this number is simply so he does not have to cite the hundreds of publisher websites and other sources cited elsewhere in this article and on his blog. I do not agree that potterglot.net should be scrubbed from the references. SMcAllister 07:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcallis2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thank you for the essay but I think it misunderstands Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the content can be so easily verified by directly citing official sources, then that's what should be done. I have no problem adding Potterglot as an external link, but its status as a self-published source means it can't be used as a citation anywhere in the main article. Potterglot seems to have done some impressive original research on the topic of the true number of translations. As a nexus in the collector community, that information should be published on Potterglot where it will be accessible to all the high hundreds of collectors who are interested in it. It should not be published on Wikipedia as original research. Mr. Potterglot is considered reliable within this collector community but the website is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, regardless of how well-respected he is in the collector community, and so cannot be cited. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating "it can't be used as a citation anywhere in the main article", which directly contradicts [Wikipedia's own guidelines]—guidelines that you yourself cited—which say: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. The question is whether the citations are justifiable; I've provided my justification, @Mcallis2 has supported them. You have said that I am not able to make these judgements on my own and I accept that—that's why I have left your tags on the citations. However, having no familiarity with the subject matter and no history with this page, you are in no position to judge whether the content belongs on Wikipedia nor whether the citations are 'reasonable' according to Wikipedia's guidelines. In the mean time I have made some edits to the Number of Translations section to deemphasize my citations; I've added a conflict of interest statement here and on my User page (which I would have done before if I had known it was a thing) and it'll stay as is until the community comes to a consensus. Shaav (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the rest of the paragraph? "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." This is the discussion in which we (except you) determine whether your self-published source is suitable for inclusion. I have given my reasons for why I think it shouldn't be and others have agreed. Furthermore, it's being used to support a paragraph of original research, which is the bigger problem in my mind. I hate not to assume good faith like this but I must inform you that Wikipedia has strict rules about sockpuppetry, which undermines the consensus-based nature of Wikipedia discussions. What are the odds that a user that has been inactive for four years would randomly stumble upon this talk page (which averages less than 1 pageview a day)? If you are the user behind SMcAllister, please disclose that fact and voluntarily retire one of the accounts of your choosing. If you directly asked someone to comment here via off-wiki communication, please also disclose that fact. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not @Mcallis2. I did not ask @Mcallis2 to comment. I believe I do know who he is because we belong to a community of collectors and his username is distinctive enough for me to identify him. 'Randomly stumble upon this talk page'—that's a bit disingenuous: you've added flags on the main page which he explicitly says he uses. There's a pretty good chance a reader might investigate that.

There is not a consensus here—as I said—I will defer to "the community's" when it is clear. You don't represent the community any more than I do. So like I said, we are at an impasse until more people weight in—preferably someone that has contributed to this page before or has some degree of familiarity with the subject matter. Shaav (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my earlier replies here and here which still apply despite more handwaving and a newbie astonishingly finding this page. A wikipedia editors blog where they indulge in WP:OR is not a reliable source. There flaming well is a consensus, and WP:POLICY against your postition. - Roxy the mindfulness dog 21:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking some sort of WP:CANVASSING myself. Once is ok, people can't be expected to follow WP-guidance they don't know about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention that I am not Potterglot/Shaav, though you will likely not believe me anyway. I wish there was a way to prove it to you. I don't even usually participate in the talk pages of these sites, though your annotations on the main page caught my eye. I visit this page roughly once every two or three weeks, as a user of the content. Frankly, I don't believe that the amount of edits that you provide of your time makes your opinion more valid than mine. This is the beauty of wikipedia. And if you denegrade "newbies" regularly, your content seems to promote primarily an elitist attitude that wikipedia does not support itself. Agree to disagree on the potterglot source. SMcAllister 04:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcallis2 (talk • contribs)

Summary thus far

I feel the discussion is devolving and would benefit from a summary, both for the participants and for any future readers.

Participants: I will characterize 'my side' as the 'Status Quo Position' (SQP) and the 'other side' as the 'Concerned Position' (CP) in an effort to maintain neutrality and from this point will try and avoid using the first person or naming individuals except where context demands it. SQP has expertise in the subject matter and the only participant to have contributed to this page. CP participants were drawn here by an unrelated tfd. I will try to rely on quotes from the CP in order to not unintentionally misrepresent anything they say; however I feel comfortable somewhat paraphrasing the SQP. Despite one's best intentions a summary written by one side is likely exhibit some bias; readers should keep that in mind and the SQP is encouraged to provide their own or to clarify any points on which they feel misrepresented. It will be apparent that in terms of volume of text in this summary the SQP dominates: that is not necessarily a sign of bias and reflects the volume of text in the conversation itself. Anything introduced in this summary that was not already part of the discussion will be explicitly noted.

Concerns

Two concerns were initially raised:

1. one was the reliability of potterglot.net as a source;
2. the second, a question of whether the Number of official translations section constitutes original research.

Reliability

CP:

• "It's generally agreed that even if a self-published source is determined to be acceptable to use on Wikipedia, the person who wrote it is not the one who can make that determination!"
• "but (Potterglot)'s status as a self-published source means it can't be used as a citation anywhere in the main article."
• "the website is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, regardless of how well-respected he is in the collector community, and so cannot be cited."
• I believe it would be fair to summarize the CP's position as: potterglot.net is not a reliable source because it is self-published and self-cited.

SQP:

• SQP agrees that self-published and self-cited works can be, probably even usually are problematic for reliability.
• Wikipedia explicitly acknowledges that context matters.
• Wikipedia policy and guidelines; however, explicitly acknowledge that they have appropriate uses:
  • " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
    • Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert
    • SQP has claimed to be an expert in the area and CP has fairly responded that the declaration cannot be taken at face value—SQP admits that this has not been established.
    • SQP has offered approaches to verifying the claim that novice third-parties could easily attempt; CP appears to be unwilling to attempt to do so.
    • There is no getting around the fact that in order to pass judgement on this point—since WP lacks a structure for establishing expertise—one either needs to acquire some familiarity with the subject matter or rely on the testimony of other editors. The thoughts offered by one such editor were immediately dismissed.
    • Note: SQP does not maintain that they should 'win' this dispute based on expertise and there have been no attempts to remove the legitimate citation tags or to quell discussion based on that fact. The claims to expertise are used only to speak to reliability of sources.
  • " Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason" and " Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable""
    • it must be relevant
    • conforms to content policies
    • should be in the third person
    • should not place undue emphasis
• CP has not yet argued that the citations in question violate any of these established guidelines; only that the citations are SELFCITE and SELFPUB.
• Accepting that WP Policy and guidelines allow for SELFPUB and SELFCITE in some circumstances; the more salient question is whether these citations constitute reasonable use. SQP has made several arguments that they do. These have not been explicitly addressed in favour of CP erroneously reiterating the position all such citations on WP are prohibited.

Original Research

CP:

• "Parts of this section are original synthesis of outside sources to support a claim that does not explicitly appear in any individual (non-SPS) source"
• "A wikipedia editors blog where they indulge in WP:OR is not a reliable source"

SQP:

• The section in question is a summary of the following section (the list of languages) and merely provides context for the reader to understand the article content with respect to statements (examples cited) that they are very likely to come across elsewhere. It helps establish that the content of page is not obsolete.
• CP states that the section constitutes original synthesis; however has yet to elaborate on how that is the case beyond "The presence of arithmetic like this in article text is merely a common indicator in my experience that original research is likely to be happening on the page." which Wikipedia policy establishes as 'almost always permissible'.
• With respect specifically to the second CP statement quote above: by definition, an individual cannot engage in WP:OR outside of Wikipedia. The statement is nonsensical.
• Nonetheless, in response to the CP's feedback and in a good-faith attempt to compromise, SQP removed four superfluous potterglot.net citations and reworded in an attempt to make it clear that the numbers in question came directly from the article content itself.

Conduct

The content here is not yet part of the discussion but is relevant to my motivation in writing this summary.

CP:

• CP continues to insist on a black-and-white interpretation of WP policy and guidelines despite the policy and guidelines themselves
• CP casts suspicion on the SQP's motivations and character rather than addressed the points raised
  • "I hate not to assume good faith like this but I must inform you that Wikipedia has strict rules about sockpuppetry"
  • "What are the odds that a user that has been inactive for four years would randomly stumble upon this talk page"
  • "I was thinking some sort of WP:CANVASSING myself."
  • " More troubling is that it appears to be a form of WP:OWNership of the article."
• CP talks about 'consensus' without actually attempting to understand, compromise or establish consensus with the opposing viewpoint.
• CP has claims consensus has been achieved based on faulty reasoning and has made main-page edits.
• At least one CP participant has become quite disrespectful and dismissive:
  • "despite more handwaving and a newbie astonishingly finding this page. A wikipedia editors blog where they indulge in WP:OR is not a reliable source. There flaming well is a consensus, and WP:POLICY against your position." (emphasize mine).
• CPs conduct is, in my opinion, is (or is bordering) on uncivil and deliberately inflammatory

SQP:

• SQP has acknowledged the legitimacy of CP's concerns
• SQP has edited the section in good faith, including removing some of the questioned citations
• SQP has in good faith provided detailed arguments as to why these citations are justifiable.
• I have been completely open about my identity and responded promptly to questions of impropriety. Upon learning that conflict of interest statements exist, I added them to both this page and my user page.

In my opinion, consensus has not been established because CP has not made a case for why these citations are unreliable aside from insisting that SELFPUB and SELFCITE are prohibited on Wikipedia which directly contradicts Wikipedia's published guidelines. Despite acknowledging that this page does not receive a lot of traffic, they have declined to allow time for other editors to find and participate in the discussion before taking action.

Shaav (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I opened the discussion a week ago and three experienced editors are in agreement about the issue. That's a consensus. As a bit of friendly advice, I've not found that massively outposting your adversary in a debate is an effective tactic for convincing people, in Wikipedia discussions and in life. I still think you're not quite understanding the heart of the issue here. The part you're missing about including your self-published source is "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". No amount of ink spilled on this talk page by you or me will fulfill this requirement, no matter how much I study up to become a self-styled subject matter expert myself, nor how "reasonable" the source is to use.

The argument that original research cannot happen outside Wikipedia falls apart completely when the source in question is a self-citation. That you technically published it first on your blog before publicizing it on Wikipedia is a distinction without a difference. But while we're at it, I do think there's additional original research and synthesis on the page. Reliable sources simply do not engage with the topic of the "true" number of HP translations at all, official or otherwise. Any number claimed that is not explicitly written down in a reliable source is by definition a synthesis of multiple sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'The part you're missing about including your self-published source is "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".'

I'm not missing anything. My work does meet this criteria; if you actually looked you would discover that. I haven't tried to provide that to you because you've made it clear anything that I say or do is suspect—even what others say and do is suspect. And since you're unwilling to put any effort into the discussion that creates an impossible position.

The so called monosyllablic 'agreement' of 'experienced editors', on of whom can't even remain civil means nothing. But no matter—I've done everything to engage in a rational discussion and I'm no longer willing to waste my time. Shaav (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know your name so I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for independent reliable sources that verify your expertise. Are you published in any journals? What's your h-index? If you've been in academia this long, I should hope you'd have grown a thick enough skin by now. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I become uncivil, you will know about it. In the meantime, stop your astonishing handwaving and move on. I discovered that you too are a newbie, who obviously cannot recognise a consensus when it hits you. Also, note that I removed the potterglot citations and related content, in case nobody noticed. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "monosyllabic" was about me, my first post in this thread had two syllables. AT is right on what can make WP:SPS useable on WP, and WP:TEXTWALL is not the way to go (and Rtmd is right about his uncivility). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an unduly exhaustive list of examples from these sections, all of which were unreferenced. It is preserved below:

I think there's value in providing a few representative examples of the various strategies translators have used to tackle this problem creatively, as long as they're properly referenced. I kept the text here so it's easier to retrieve in case one of the above examples proves useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

then why are Portuguese and Chinese listed twice? Serendi^podous 09:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They probably shouldn't be? They were split without discussion in 2018. I removed the OR paragraph (last paragraph of edit) that asserted that regional adaptation is "not translation" though. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, English does not belong in a list of "translations," as it was not translated into English. But it would go in a list of languages, so two tables might make sense. SMcAllister 02:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcallis2 (talk • contribs)

I do not pretend to understand the point at which a regional adaptation becomes an actual translation. The point made in the discussion was that regional adaptations take a particular translation (in the case of Valencian and Catalan translation; in the case of Montenegrin the Serbian translation), and adapt it to their regional language variant. You would have to ask a linguist what the line is. Perhaps the nuance is not necessary here, and all the translations and adaptations should be listed, in which case you would include Valencian, Montenegrin, etc as separate entities in the list. Also, if your wish is to create first a list of languages, which does not exist yet on this page, and a separate list of translations, that would seem appropriate. As to languages that have multiple translations, Portuguese (European vs. Brazilian) and Chinese (Simplified vs. Traditional) were independently translated by different translators and published by different publishing companies (in different countries). They should be listed twice. Additionally, Macedonian, Korean, Russian, and some others (I can look them up if you like) were independently translated twice by different people (likely still referencing the original translation). In a true list of translations, with every line item a different translation, these would also be listed twice. It may be that the table needs to be modified to allow for these distinctions. SMcAllister 01:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcallis2 (talk • contribs)

I would suggest that the name of the page is returned to the original "Harry Potter in translation". I don't believe that "List of Harry Potter translations" is accurate, since that is only one of six sections on the page. SMcAllister 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcallis2 (talk • contribs)

By page length and character count, it's 3/4 of the page. By any reasonable definition, this is a list of translations with a bit of context and explanation on either end. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]