Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 →

Contents

How real is this "book scan?

<snipped>

Real or fake spoliers, obviously :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.232.167 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to go with fake. The writing was pretty sloppy and smacked of fanfic.Phoenix1304 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Even I could have done a better job than that. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If that's a real image, then whoever took it must have very steady hands: the text is in perfectly straight horizontal lines. If it was fixed up in Photoshop afterwards to straighten the lines, you'd think they'd have the professional courtesy of sharpening the text at the same time. It's a fake. Daggoth | Talk 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think it's a real page ... just not from a real Harry Potter book.Phoenix1304 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did I have a funny feeling, as I scrolled back through the history, that it was going to be an anon who posted the question in the first place? *wishes Wikipedia had a rolling-eye smily* --NetherlandishYankee 13:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Fake, as all My HP books (BritBook) they don't have the chapter number at the top of the page, but it has the chapter name on the right page and Harry Potter on the left page, the font for the title is wrong, they only use one ' not " for speech. And the have page number on one side and not dots. --AxG @ ►talk 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
My copy of HPB (American) has the Chapter number on the top, with the three stars in the corners, and it uses double quotes as does the scanned page. Looks real to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.233.197 (talk • contribs)
I don't think it's real. The grammer and sentance structure is very poor. I don't want to break up the party, but I don't think that this talk page is the right place to discuss all of the so called "spoilers." I mean, we can't put them in the article, so why bother talking about them here? This talk page isn't really supposed to be a forum. But I might be really off track, I'm sort of new to all this. Tynedanu 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It might not have been appropriate to bring up (there are other places to discuss that), but once it is brought up, it's considered rude to ignore it. Or paranoid. Either way, bad form.Phoenix1304 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
People said the same thing about the Dumbledore death. Harry Potter is poorly written anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.97.87 (talk • contribs)
Will you just let it go? Phoenix1304 07:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty real to me. It has the same format, font, and layout of a Harry Potter book. Give it a rest, fans, it's over. We won. OfficerPhil 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let it go man, let it go. It won't be over until the Fat Lady sings. (Wow - I was disproportionately proud of myself just now). And unless you run a bootleg Harry Potter counterfeiting ring, "we" means absolutely nothing. You are very, very close to being blocked, so knock off the crybaby routine. Seriously. Phoenix1304 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
'We' means a group that does exist, that I shall not mention for our rules. I believe most expericnced wikipedos are well aware of us.
That's not the same font-- the font in the US editions is Adobe Garamond, and this looks to be Times New Roman. Plus, the margains look too small. SeanMD80talk | contribs 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that it is the worst grammar I have ever seen. --AnneliseW 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think visually if it is a fake it's pretty well done. The text was layed out with professional software. The kerning and the leading are pretty spot on. You can't do that with a program like word.AngielaJ 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's fake. Notice how the spell "Reparo" is not italicized... Dan 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone add that on Friday night with Jonathan Ross, Jo stated that more characters die than the two she originally didn't intend to, and joked that it was "a bloodbath".

There's a website with many scans, including a full scan of the Epilogue (which Rowling said there would be one). It's probably real. The Frederick 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Word on Spoilers

Due to the popularity of the Harry Potter books, if nothing else, it is expected that there will be rumors popping up and seeping everywhere prior to the release fo the last book. However, spoilers themselves are of no concern whatsoever to an encyclopedia. I suggest that as far as this article is concerned, we simply ignore them. A spoiler, no matter how valid or how shocking, simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Why do we keep discussing in this section our opinions on the validity of various rumors that appear? Rumor discussion belongs in another forum. The only reason we even would dicuss spoilers in this article would be just to mention them as historical fact. Its time to stop considering each and every litte irrevelent thing. Twump 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Twump

Absolutely Agree, but for the most part that implied, but thanks for clarifying for new users and IPs.
Though I hope in the future people don't a have to tell people to use common sense.→041744 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, some people are new to Wikipedia and have no idea about the "no-spoiler" policy, and the Talk Page is a much better place to bring it up and be told of the policy than the article itself. Not saying it should be discussed, just saying that sometimes it can't be avoided. Phoenix1304 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's the 'Spoiler' tags in all the pages that contain plot summeries for films, series, plays, games and other works of fiction, but I didn't realise there WAS a policy on spoilers? I appreciate that it's impossible to put information about a leaked book because how can you have a bone fide reference for an illegal leak? But I was under the impression the second the book was released and a plot summery is written somewhere else (For No-OR reasons) the plot would be summerised here, essentially 'spoiling' it for people who haven't read it yet- hence the Spoiler tags to warn people that want to be surprised. If I've missed something in all my years here on Wikipedia, could you point me at this "No-Spoiler" policy please? Simondrake 23:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Spoilers AFTER it comes out: OK. BEFORE: Not so much. Phoenix1304 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of spoilers, when the book comes out, when are the spoilers going to be released? I mean we just can't let someone from Great Britain spoil the whole book even before the book is released in the United States. We need to allow a certain time period after midnight on July 21 to release the spoilers out on Wikipedia. It could be 24 hours, 48 hours, or even a week.Spongefan 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes we CAN put spoilers an the page immediately after the book is released, but people who haven't read the book yet don't HAVE to read them if they don't want. I think that spoilers on the plot should be included After it is released, with no probation period at all. Besides spoilers will be all over the internet even before the book is released in America no matter what we put on wikipedia.→041744 00:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 041744, if you're going to go around looking for spoilers, you deserve them. IMHO. Phoenix1304 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wanting not to be spoiled who comes to this page in between the book being released and buying their own copy has only themself to blame. I fully want to be spoiled, so I am greatly hoping that correct plot ending details will be released here within seconds of the book's publication. Especially since I am not able to buy the book immediately, and it will irritate me not knowing the ending when other people do. Istara 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
New users/IPs having no idea about the "No-Spoiler" policy? Very top of the talk page, it says This is not a forum for general discussion of unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the improvement of the article. Oh, and lets not forget the little bit underneath as well: Any such messages will be deleted. Potential spoilers and leaks shouldn't even be discussed on this talk page at the moment unless a genuine leak has been discovered by the publishers, and reported by a reputable source. MelicansMatkin 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was strange - somehow I managed to post a comment without any remembrance of doing it, and without being anywhere near a computer yesterday. It's OK, though - I kind of agree with my vandal - you can tell someone not to do it, but that doesn't mean they won't. And hey, as long as I'm not the one posting it, I might as well throw in my two cents. I've said it before and I'll say it again: what should happen and what will happen are two very different things. Phoenix1304 12:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First Impressions

To more established and regular editors than I:

This page is about to become VERY popular. It is the top ranked Google result for the following terms and many more:

  • harry potter and the deathly hollows
  • harry potter and the deathly hallows
  • 7th harry potter book

Therefore, we have a responsibility to make sure this page is the very best we as editors can provide. I have three suggestions that I think will improve the article and the experience of those who come here to read it.

  1. Looking at the top part of the article, I see two big template boxes that take up valuable space. The first is necessary, but I think the second hurts the article more than it helps. Thoughts? I would at least like to see fewer lines of text in it, like: This article contains information regarding an expected book. The content may change dramatically as the book release approaches, though I doubt any box is really needed.
  2. The signed statement by Rowling doesn't seem important enough for the lead.
  3. The article needs to have a strong warning at the beginning of the editing text to warn against vandals.

How do these sound?

\/\/slack (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're about to get flamed, a lot. Remain calm and try not to escallate the arguments that are about to come from the self-riteous harry potter fanboys.

I agree that the banners at the top are a bit big, but thats part of wikipedia's mentality. For some reason promoting the fact anyone can edit it seems to come before content... Like the fact it's official policy not to semi-protect pages unless it's strictless neccesary. I think removing the Upcoming Books banner would be done in the first couple of days of major edits when the book comes out anyway. It's sort of neccesary to explain the mess that's bound to happen for a few days, by the time the mess is over it'll probably get removed in the changes anyway.

There's not much that can be done about the Vandalism warning, the talk page is covered with them and the main page has the most prominant warning known to wikipedia.

So I doubt you're going to get much luck with your requests, I'm afraid. But thanks for your suggestions.

Oops, I missed one, lol, I'm going to have a look at the page again about the Signed comment thing then reply again...Simondrake 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about her signing the statue doesn't seem important enough for the top section of a wikipedia page. However, this isn't just a wikipedia page, this is a harry potter page and, of course, harry potter is held to different standards. If it wasn't, she would have been fined and or arrested for vandalising her hotel room, but as it is she's applauded and ends up richer than the Queen. Anyway, yes, I think the fact that it's about the end of the series the moment she finally stopped writing was the beginning of the end, it's a time the fans will want remembered. Especially since she cleverly remembered to make a news report about it so everyone would know when it ended.Simondrake 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That second box is necessary, as well; It lets people know that they need to take everything they read about the plot of the book with a grain of salt. "Taking up space" isn't really an issue with an online encyclopedia. The content of the article is always changing and up for debate, which is what this page is for. If you feel like something is unimportant, start up a discussion. If no-one discusses it, be brave and do the edit; someone will respond on the talk page (or sometimes start an edit war, which is a no-no) if they don't like it. A strong warning against vandals is the blocking that will follow very shortly - that's Wikipedia policy, not just the article. Phoenix1304 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert copy

How did stephen colbert get an advanced copy of harry potter and the deathly hallows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.192.68 (talk • contribs)

He didn't, I am fairly sure. --Pyreforge 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He used a marketing demo prop - basically a "real" cover wrapped around another book. This is pretty common trick. Gosh even Harry did something similar with his Advanced Potions textbook in HBP. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

couldnt he be sued for this?

No, there are exceptions to copyright laws and the like that apply to satire. Phoenix1304 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Parody rather. Satire isn't covered under fair use. Oneoverzero 06:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to the WikiProject Harry Potter Section at the Top?

I was just wondering where it went, because i was going to check if the article was still considered to be "b" status. I just made some changes to the text, and i was wondering if i could do anything to bring it up to "A" status. (On a side note- is it a possibility that the article was not considered to be "A" status because of the length of the Information from Rowling and Unresolved Plot Elements from Previous Books sections?) Anyway, i personally think it would be just wonderful if in the future this article could honestly be considered to be a lead article.

its still there. you may have to click a button on the one-line box to make it appear. It is quite possible the A requirements don't like lists, but given the nature of the information, I don't see how it could sensibly be turned into prose. The sections themselves are already highlights and by no means exhaustive. Sandpiper 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

HP and the mid life crisis

Does anyone know when this was first said? the article currently says it was on her website. I think she did say it on the richard and Judy interview, and Barnes and Noble think she told it to the telegraph. Has she said it a lot, or where did it originate? Sandpiper 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just one of those things she's had ready for some time to fire off when someone asked her about an eighth book. She may have been saying it for years ... but why does it matter to the article? Phoenix1304 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just an issue of whether we have it sourced correctly. Sandpiper 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's sourced correctly, no worries. She definitely said it during that interview. I just don't see the point of finding its origins. Phoenix1304 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Book length

The values of 784 pages US and 608 pages UK are not consistent. A 784-page US edition makes Deathly Hallows the second longest book in the series after Order of the Phoenix. However, 608 pages UK is the exact same length as Half-Blood Prince, which has only 652 pages in the US edition and is significantly shorter than Goblet of Fire. I suggest the UK value is incorrect. The only primary source I've seen for the 608-page value is Amazon.com, and it seems possible they mixed it up with the 6th book. -Akwdb 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OR, they're using a different font size...--ŴôôD ẼĿF 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd bet you're right, I don't see why the books would be that different in length. Speaking of font size...(*whispers* WoodElf:Your sig is too big). -- John Reaves (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case we have some "reliable" sources, for better or worse (the booksellers, and in the case of the US editions the publisher), which quote the page numbers for the various editions. We have no reliable sources to dispute those numbers, only some speculation that it doesn't "seem right" based on obscur and debatable assumptions. Since the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia is verifiability with reliable sources, and not the "truth" or some "estimates" worked out as someone's original research, then we have to stick with the reliable sources until they are proven wrong. But fear not - at some point in time in the next 3 weeks, either a revised page count will be announced, or the page count will be indisputably verified by anyone with a copy. Then we can post the correction(s), along with the plot summary and everything else that will be transformed on July 21. If there is a problem with the page count, it will be solved in due time. In the mean time, it is the Wikipedia's duty to state what can be verified, and to provide verifiable sourced references, should some "blame" need need to be attributed. And in the mean time we should continue to seek further validation from quality sources. See also: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_13#What.27s_wrong_with --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed before. That is why the word "expected" is used for the UK release. It was intended to weaken down the rather firm statement that it WILL be 608 pages. Indeed, there is no primary source for that information and all we have at the moment is the secondary info from booksellers such as Amazon, and fansites such as Leaky Cauldron who claim to have checked the pagecount with Bloomsbury. The wording in the article is fine as it is. AberforthD 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.jpg

Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.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 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, betabot. But I really don't see anything in the Wiki rules that prohibits using a book cover on an article for a book... Samir Patel 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jo did NOT state the mirror would return, but hinted that it might.

The article says, "Sirius Black's flying motorbike and the two-way mirror he gave Harry will return," but if you click on the reference link (53) this is what was said:

Kelpie_8: Will the two way mirror Sirius gave Harry ever show up again? JK Rowling replies -> Ooooo good question. There's your answer.

In a different Q&A session, Rowling claimed that the mirror "would help more than you think" which strongly implies it will be in the book. While the reference is not in the perfect place, the information is correct and it seems nitpicky to move the citation into the middle of the sentence. If anyone disagrees, it is a minor edit and one that does not require further discussion. →Bobby← 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Good. Let's stick to what Rowling actually said, the exact quotes please, and keep it simple. Leave out the possible interpretations and what some folks might think she meant by it. Good work. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It was stated in the book that Harry felt helpless after realizing that Sirius didn't have the other mirror with him. The only reason why I can see the mirrors being useful is that it would be used for communication. But knowing Jo and her statement, it will probably be much more.209.91.61.251 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's Message

I was on Leaky Cauldron and it had a sound clip of Stephen Fry(The audiobook narrator for the UK).He says that "Never tickle a sleeping dragon" has something to do with book 7. Does anybody have any theories on what this means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediyoda426 (talk • contribs)

Personally, I've always followed that advice when approaching a sleeping dragon. I think it means if you do, it eats you. Sandpiper 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it means Wikipedia isn't the place for discussing theories, google has plenty of forums for you- use them rather than wikipedia or your posts will be deleted....as it says at the top.Simondrake 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all he does not say that, you simply inferred it. He says here (hover the pointer over the Rowling and Fry image) that he "can't tell (us) anything about the story of course", but he'll "leave (us) with this..." and then quotes the Hogwarts Motto. You cannot go from that to claim that he says " 'Never tickle a sleeping dragon' has something to do with book 7". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'd have to agree with Simondrake on this one. Unless this somehow relates to the article, I don't see why you would be motivated to post this here. Phoenix1304 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

I have added the correct rationale template for the image specified by Betacommandbot (Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.jpg) above. All that is missing is the source - if whoever uploaded the image could add that information, the template will be complete. MelicansMatkin 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler posted at Hot Dog eating contest July 4th, 2007

Tim Janus, also known as Eater X, held a sign when being introduced that said on one side "On the 7th day, God created Hartford" and on the other side it said "Hermione dies". Is this possible a leak due to him having an advanced copy or is it him just tryig to start rumors?

--Slayergenxxx 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No person (except possibly JK herself) has an advanced copy - this is just somebody trying to add more fuel to the fire. MelicansMatkin 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. But it's good to inform people about what to watch out for when people re-edit of the entry before the book comes out.

--Slayergenxxx 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The rumour that Hermione dies has been kicked around for the last couple of months ... It is or may be as good or bad as any of the innumerable other HP7 rumours out there. I could start a rumour right now that Ron and Hermione end up married and name their newborn twins Harry and Ginny, and that Harry and Ginny also have twins named Ron and Hermione. Let's see if we can get something to that effect to appear on a sign at Wimbledon or the U-20 World Cup soccer tournament, before July 21... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It's longer than that ... I'm pretty sure that the whole "Hermione dies" thing is a meme that originated (and is still active) from SA, in the lead-up to Order of the Phoenix's release. AICN posted an incorrect preview of the book stating that Hermione dies, some people got upset at the spoiler, and they ran with it from there. It doesn't surprise me that people are still keeping it going! Daggoth | Talk 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that the spoilers are real. There was a Time article recently about the amount security surrounding the book within the publishing companies. Few people other than Jo have copies of the book/ know the plot, and those people are all at the upper echelon of Bloomsbury (that's the publisher, right?), so it's very unlikely that a competitive hotdog eater would have that kind of information. The same goes for a hacker going by the name "Gabriel" who claimed to have uncovered he entire book by using a simple trojan email virus on a Bloomsbury employee, I highly doubt they even have the book on their computers there, incase someone does attempt something along those lines. Even if they did, you'd probably need to do some real fancy hacking to steal the book; I'm sure there's all sorts of encryptions on it. Moral of the story: competitive hotdog eaters probably don't have access to the kind of information known to only a few executives of the publishing company.Beep Beep Honk Honk 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My view is to keep the stuff out, as there is no way to verify it, and it is morally and legally questionable. But people only have to notice the numbers of soldiers who get killed by 'friendly fire' to realise that things go wrong despite the best efforts of people to keep a lid on them. There is a paradox here, trying to keep hidden something which also has to be massively distributed very quickly. Sandpiper 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember this...it's apparently a fake. jj137Talk 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned on this guys wiki article and he's quoted as saying he doesn't know the ending and only goes to see the movies so I wouldn't worry about it.

AngielaJ 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had heard the same rumors on other sites about the ending, as always happens before a release, but a lot of pictures were posted seemingly photocopied from a book, but I don't really think that anything has been leaked, I think Rowling or Bloomsbury would have made the leak public in order to keep fans on their toes. Sandbrgcatholic2728 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been tons of rumors about each of the three dying, there are only a few people, like Rowling and her editors, artists, etc, who have an advanced copy, why the heck would he have it?-Mbatman72 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

looking ahead

Just looking ahead, once the book is released on July 21, there are a couple of sections that are going to look out of place - What is known about the plot and After Deathly Hallows. I suggest that someone create a seperate article where these 2 sections can go and add a summary and link in this page. that way, neither the content nor the relevance will be lost after the release of book 7. --Kalyan 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After the release, both are history, most likely. At the very least, After Deathly Hallows will be renamed and heavily edited. There will no reason to keep them anywhere in there current forms, honestly. Phoenix1304 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens to them, I think it will be a question of coming back here and picking up the pieces from the record as it exists pre-publication, and turning them into a new section, or whatever, depending on what is still relevant, as phoenix says. I don't see any point in creating a special article for them with just two weeks to go.Sandpiper 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think in the days and weeks after July 21, the Deathly Hallows article will be largely re-written to conform to the same basic format as the other 6 books, with a plot summary, sales figures, cultural impact, maybe some stuff about the fan mania and bookstore hysteria, unexpected deaths (in the book - hopefully not in the bookstores) and plot spoilers, etc. Or perhaps we will come up with a whole new format for the entire series, since the speculation will largely be irrelevant, and we can view the entire series as a whole, rather than as enigmatic fragments. Much of the existing material in this article, such as the Series Background, plot elements, hints from JKR, and the Granger and Langford material, may well melt into obscurity and disappear into the dust bin, in terms of relevance to this article. There will be a temptation to preserve some of the pre-release material in a separate article, but branches or forks of this nature would not likely withstand the AfD process under notability and "original research" policies - because frankly who cares what so-and-so thought was going to happen in Deathly Hallows after the fact, within the context of the book. However I think there would be good cause to consider developing and migrating the David Langford and John Granger predictions and analyses to the respective articles on those authors (eg: who got what right and who got what wrong); and those theories that were published and analyzed and critiqued online by Mugglenet, HPANA, and Leaky Cauldron etc., could conceivably be posted in those articles to document the "before and after". The justification of this would be to document in an encyclopedic manner what exactly was predicted by whom, and what "came true", for posterity, since this book is likely to prove to be arguably one of the most phenomenally notable book releases since The Bible and Gone with the Wind. We could make brief mention that the Granger and Mugglenet (etc.) predictive material exists within this article, with helpful links to the respective articles, but keep the details to a minimum within the main article here. The key thing to consider is, we will spend much of the rest of the summer and well into the fall (in the northern hemisphere) building and developing the related articles, and we all must be very patient and think long term about what is good for the sake of the Wikipedia, to document for future generations, and what non-notable trivia can be binned into the archives. There will be a lot of eyes on what we do here in documenting what may be one of the biggest cultural events of the decade (or perhaps more correctly, the series of events from the perspective of the HP phenomenon as a whole). It is difficult to imagine that anyone will achieve what Rowling has with the Harry Potter series, any time in the foreseeable future, and we are obligated to make it right here and now. That said, I am sure there will be a virtual feeding frenzy of angry editing with newbies and and trolling and vandalizing and reverting and disagreements on what this or that meant. We'll deal with it as it comes. For the record, I'll most likely be on a Wikibreak so I can carefully read through the Deathly Hallows book at leisure 2 or 3 times as needed, in order to intensely study and gather up all the details and obscure references and loose ends; and I expect I'll even have to go back and re-read through some of the previous books again to pick up the missed hints there. Ah well. Frankly I am much more concerned about what the HP Project articles will say on August 21 and on September 21, than 5 minutes after midnight on July 21. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
But T-Dot will not be the only one on wiki-break. I suppose all of the core editors of this article will be on a break for at least 24 hours after release. Has somebody already volunteered to police the article from vandalism during that period? I don't think so. I am a favour of a complete lock on the article during the first 24 hours after release, but not longer. Some speed-readers will be able to put a first synthesis of the book here. Further fine-tuning will happen in the days-weeks-months following that. AberforthD 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Aber above me, I think we should put like a super-protection on this article for at least 24 hours after the book is released, if not 48 to combat speed readers and trolls. I agree with T-Dot that it's more important what happens in the long run as far as editing and such, but why let an article that so many have worked hard to clean up and keep vandalism free go to hell in a handbasket a minute after midnight on July 20th? If we're not going to bother upkeeping the article, and the various related articles that will inevitably be changed by the book's release right after the book is released why should we bother upkeeping it now, or at all? Well, that's really all my thoughts on why we should put a lock on the entire article after the book's release, not saying that we're not doing enough to keep the article all nice and neat or anything like that, I just think that we should heighten the amount of restrictions on the article shortly after the release, or at least keep the restrictions we have now.Beep Beep Honk Honk 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty with locking the article is the issue of truth: it will no longer be a good article, because there will exist a whole raft of new information about it, the minute the book is published. Never mind speed reading, some bright spark is sure to go straight to the last chapter. The thing is, it is not really reasonable to preclude that person from updating the article in a sensible way, because they would be improving the article if they are editing sensibly. Having said that, the issue of staggered book releases does mean we really ought to keep the article in its more or less current state until after the last time zone has the book released. Can't say what the rest of the internet will be doing, which just might mean that this high-minded discussion is rather irrelevant. Anyone with any sense who does not want to find out the ending will absolutely not be looking up anything about HP on the internet after publication. Never mind avoiding the national news, and the neighbours. And then on the third hand, it is going to be volunteers policing this article against vandalism who probably will not know details of the new story, and if they are here at all, not people who have followed the series. It will be admittedly difficult to decide whether something added is true or false unless it is grossly outrageous. I'm just glad I shall be reading it in English. Having to avoid news for months while waiting for it to be published in a foreign language will be very trying. Sandpiper 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: I wonder if we could start to assemble, right now, in a sandbox page or subpage the basic structure of a post-release article? This "boilerplate" article would contain the basic introduction more or less as is (updated to reflect that the book "has been" released) and keep some or all of the current images and Background of the Series type info, and then several "standard HP book format" TOC-style sections that would be largely empty today through July 20. At midnight on July 20/21 the agreed-to sandbox edition would be dropped in wholesale on top of the current article. The empty sections would then be filled in by the intrepid early/speed readers who get their first copies in their respective time zones. It seems to me this sort of pre-planned and structured "wartime strategy" would reduce the random chaos to a minimum, and keep things "corralled" into appropriate sections. This would also assist the "monitors" in keeping order and minimizing the trolling. It would also answer concerns about improperly blocking the good-faith edits by registered and established editors in the first few hours and days after release. Based on recent history though, it would probably be a good battle plan to maintain the current protection against anonymous editing at least for a few days after release, just to cut down on the random anonymous vandalizing and trolling. Of course registered editors would still be "free" to troll and vandalize away, but only at their own peril of being blocked by whatever Wiki-administrators we can muster to the cause. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea! Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Even so, we could/should have a vote or something like that to decide what to do about the article, be it super-protection, a bare bones "boilerplate" article, or something completely different. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that fancy looking "vote section" thing with all the collums and such either. Also we should find like a wikigenius who knows how to make all sorts fancy stuff, such as the boilerplate article we might be making, in case we do.Beep Beep Honk Honk 02:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know this was possible on Wikipedia, but it sounds like a good idea. But I am still in favour of a complete lock for the first few hours after release, say 24 hours. It is better to have a slightly outdated article than a vandalised article. Remember this is not a news medium. AberforthD 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
During the day of release, I'm 99% positive there will be a link to this page on the front page of wikipedia. What this'll mean is there will be lots more people looking , both positive and negatively. If anyone goes looking on the page, well, they'll just have to deal with any spoilers. Also, with time zone changes and speed readers, nothing more than a semi-protection should be required, and even that might be a bit of an overkill. As to the site as it is now, well, I've been in favor of archiving the entry for future use, it is quite interesting. We should have some kind of a name in place, however... Tuvas 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we are confusing two different things here: Placing spoilers or vandalising the article. Spoilers are allowed as far as I am concerned from the minute the book is released in the UK (i.e. even before the USA starts releasing it). Indeed anybody who looks up the page after release should be expecting spoilers, but they should also expect it to be formatted between SPOILER templates. That requires a bit of supervision which I don't expect to be around at that time. I am more concerned about real vandalism. The casual reader who wants to know what all this Harry Potter hype is all about should not be confronted with a page that opens with "Harry Potter sucks. He will burn in hell". Let's just keep the page as it was just before release in the UK (01:01 UTC) plug in the agreed upon "after-release template" as proposed by T-Dot" and give it free for editing (by registered users) 24 hours thereafter. AberforthD 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think what some have been referring to as "placing spoilers" is the trolling art of running around slapping sensational things like XXXXX KILLS YYYYY!!!! and ZZZZZ DIES!!!! prominently at the top of (or buried in them somewhere) articles which may or may not be directly related to that particular spoiler, as was commonly done in the days and weeks after HBP was released. We'll still have to quietly deal with such trolling vandalism (remembering not to feed them though). The guidelines about spoilers within literary articles has shifted hard to the left in the last few weeks, to the extent that most of the spoiler warning templates have been banned and removed, with the reasoning that no reader would come to look at a just-released book article and not expect to see something that spoils the plot. What we do have to do is provide a sensitive way of presenting those plot spoilers in a way that those not looking for them won't be shocked as soon as they open, for example, the Main page on the day of (or the days after) the release, should it be decided that this article is "front page material". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It definetly needs a lockdown, tons of people are going to rush here after midnight and rewright the page with the big spoilers, I agree with T-dot, if that is possible.-Mbatman72 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Word Changed

A change may be necessary to the bit about the final word of the book - according to Rowling herself in an interview on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross (July 6th), the final word in the book is no longer "scar". Asked by Ross to reveal the new final word, she refused. I'd edit it myself on this page, but being newly-registered, I can't.

Also, in the same interview, she confirmed that more than two characters die, and described it as a "bloodbath" before correcting herself. Oxide2 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Actually the reference to "scar" as the last word was deleted yesterday. If you want something posted regarding Rowling changing the last word, then could you please get us a link to a reliable online source to confirm it? Verifiability is required for posting such information, and we'll need a bulletproof reference before we post it. This is an example of why the article is protected - to avoid edit wars and reversions over unconfirmed information. Thanks again. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember seeing the story as a headline on Yahoo! but it's not there anymore. I did a search however, and an article came up. I don't know how to cite it (or anything for that matter), but I hope this helps. Beep Beep Honk Honk 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A suitable source has been found that covers both the original notion that "scar" was to be the last word ("ages ago"), and that it is no longer the case, in this BBCreport. Thanks to Antilochus for providing it and updating the article appropriately. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • From Antilochus - I saw the old edit from someone with no sources yesterday on the main page, and thought it would be deleted soon, which is why I made a new one with the reference. Glad I could offer the help. User Andrij Kursetsky was kind enough to adjust the entry and include proper formatting for the footnote that referenced the BBC article at the bottom of the page.

Oddity

Is it odd that this article has more information than any other Harry Potter book article, and this book hasn't even been released yet? jj137Talk 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This is more or less what the other books' articles looked like in the weeks leading up to their respective release dates. It will be concentrated after July 21, I'm sure. Phoenix1304 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Never Say never?

A statement according to J.K. Rowling suggests that she isn't confirming or denying a 8th harry Potter Book? Any suggestions whether this statement is legit to be placed into the article? [[1]] Empty2005 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Otherwise you could have a statement in every article about every book speculating on a sequel. All she's doing here is making sure she doesn't look stupid if she ultimately decides to return to the universe. Remember Steve Redgrave's "shoot me if I ever go near a boat again" comment? --Dave. 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, chances are she won't write an 8th Harry Potter book. jj137Talk 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Snape's allegiance

This article explains the two differing sides and the marketing campaign exploiting Snape's unknown allegiance: whether he is a friend or foe. However, it fails to mention that it may not be as black and white as that. It is entirely possible (and to me very likely) that Snape works for one person and one person only: himself! He is keeping his options open so he can align himself with either side conveniently, so that whoever wins, he will too. SeanMD80talk | contribs 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, possibly you could change it? --munkee_madness talk 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll do my best. SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold on there Sean - just remember that personal theories and beliefs (even if it is "very likely" to you) about Snape and other fictional characters probably constitutes speculation and original research, and do not belong in an encyclopedia such as this. Such material is properly discussed at a fan forum or perhaps on your blog page. Posting disallowed material will most likely be quickly deleted. Even if it turns out that you are "correct", it is still not allowed - the criteria for allowance is verifiability from reliable sources - not what may or may not be the "truth" or likely from your point of view. About all we can say about Snape is what Rowling has said; in her books, and interviews, and her web site. If you do not have a quote, then chances are it will not be sustained. Fair warning. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Update - trying a compromise rewrite:
  • The true loyalty of Severus Snape remains unclear through the first six novels. Although Albus Dumbledore repeatedly endorses Snape's loyalty since Snape renounced Voldemort and left the Death Eaters, Snape apparently kills Dumbledore in the Half-Blood Prince, using the Avada Kedavra curse. While Snape treats Harry Potter with open contempt at Hogwarts, he has also saved Harry's life at least twice.[1] Fan theories range widely from proclaiming Snape as ultimately loyal to Dumbledore (the "right" side), to Voldemort (the "dark" side), or ultimately to himself alone, aligning with whichever "side" wins the conflict between good and evil.
--T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand the policy concerning fan theories and research. Believe me, I was not trying to use Wikipedia as a forum or publish Original Research, I just thought that the article focused on two theories but was leaving out (what seemed to me to be) a distinct other possibility. I am completely happy with the rewording. If it still seems to you that I am trying to endorse fan theories than I am sorry. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't OR and all that, it would be very impractical to write up all other possibilities, as there are an infinite number of possibilities between him being not-a-Death Eater or a Death Eater. Although we don't know exactly where he falls between the two, we do know the extremes, similar to how there is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but there is only one 1 and one 2. He could be slighty good and slightly bad, slightly good and very bad, slightly bad and very good, or anything really. However, we do know the two extremes; Snape is all good, or like James Brown, he's superbad.Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Under 'Snapes allegiance' or at least under unresolved plots shouldn't it be mentioned that Dumbledore has stated that he has a "very good reason to trust Snape," but that reason has not yet been revealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.168.125 (talk • contribs) -Ali 15:08, 13 July 2007

It has been revealed; it was that as soon as Snape learned Lily was endangered by Voldemort learning the prophecy, he came to Dumbledore and, showing remorse, he came to the "good" side. Of course, he never actually left the "dark" side, but that's another story... SeanMD80talk | contribs 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved Plot Elements

In the "Unresolved plot elements from previous books" section there is no mention of the Felix Felicis potion Harry recievs in HBP. The potion grants luck in all endevours for twelve hours following use, thus making it a potential "weapon" for Harry against Voldemort. Does anyone think this should go in "unresolved plot elements"?--Drekadair 05:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Harry used some to get the proper memory on horcruxes from Slughorn. He gave the rest to Ron and Hermoine before he and Dumbledore set off for what turned out to be the fake horcrux, telling them to share itshould anything happen while he and Dumbledore are gone. I believe he adds they should share it with Ginny as well. So since Hogwarts was attacked by the Death Eaters that night, all the Felix Felicis Harry had been given was used up.
However, there does seem to be a question concerning Godric's Hollow. The article mentions the fact that it's unclear how Harry will be able to find his parents house as Pettigrew was their secret-keeper. Good point, but how did Sirius and Hagrid find it that very night? Dumbledore wasn't supposed to be able to tell Hagrid how to find the house as he wasn't the secret-keeper. In fact until he learned the truth, he seemed to believe with the rest of the wizarding world that Sirius had been Lily and James secret-keeper. But Sirius was so afraid Voldemort might capture him and try to get it out of him that he asked them not to make him their's. Since only the secret-keeper can speak or give out the name and address of the place, then Even if Pettigrew told Sirius where it was, he couldn't have told anyone else.
Harry was given a slip of paper and told to memorize the address on it. That being #12 Grimmauld Place. Dumbledore became the secret-keeper for Sirius's home as it was being used as the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix. Only he could divulge that information, so he had written the address on the paper Harry was given. Unless Pettigrew did the same thing for Hagrid, there's no way he should have been able to find the house unless the Fidelius Charm becomes null and void with the destruction of the place the secret-keeper is keeping the secret of. Yet both Hagrid and Sirius are able to find the house that very night and we don't know if Pettigrew let them know (he could tell Sirius who knew he was Lily and James's secret-keeper but would have had to have it written for Hagrid who didn't know who was the secret-keeper) or not. -annonymous 7/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.136.47 (talk • contribs)
Regarding Harry and Godric's Hollow: All this article should be allowed to state, at least until the book comes out, is simply that Harry intends to visit his Parent's home at Godric's Hollow. That is all we can say at this time, and that this is what Harry told Ron and Hermione that he intends to do. Speculating on why's and how's constitutes forbidden Original Research and must be avoided. Leave it to the fan sites and blog pages to speculate on whether he will need assistance to find the place. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of speculation, rumours, and gossip. Please resist the urge to post more than exactly what Rowling has said in her books, or in interviews, or at her web site. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you annonymous, I had forgotten that the potion has already been used. As for the Hagrid and Sirius being able to find the Potters' home, I feel it would be safe to assume the Fidelus charm had at that point become void.--Drekadair 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the archway behinf which Sirius Black disappears : it has not been solved yet and the last words of Luna Lovegood in the Potter V movie let me think that Sirius may come back ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.248.19 (talk • contribs)

What about it? Wiki policy forbids engaging in and posting speculation and original research. We can only post neutral, verifiable facts derived from reliable sources. This is not a fan speculation site or blog page. This is an encyclopedia, anything that cannot be proven will be speedily deleted. So what is it you wanted to post? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! Speculation or no, I think the arch certainly qualifies as an unresolved plot element, especially since JKR has implied some of those who seem to be dead may not be.--Drekadair 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK fine - and the question remains "What is it that we wish to post?". If you try to argue that A: The archway where Sirius vanished is an unexplained enigma, and B: Rowling implied (just exactly where?) that some who died may come back, therefore C: Sirius Black may come back in Book 7, then you have created a textbook case of Synthesis of an Argument to make a Point, which is forbidden under the No Original Research policy. Please forgive me if I sounded short or rude, that was certainly not the intent, but the question remains: what do you want to post?. If it is not in compliance with Wiki policy, then it will not stand. Of course all this is moot and will be gone in about a week you know... --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol! Very true :) We should probably just sit on it then, since we can't post anything anyway. The bit about perhaps some people not being dead comes from an interview (I can't remember which one). JKR was asked which five characters she would invite to dinner. She stopped after naming only three people, saying she wasn't sure if she was allowed to invite dead people, and said something to the effect of, "This is really frustrating, because I know who's dead and who isn't ." But I can't remember which interview that was....--Drekadair 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah - Ok - I think you misconstrued what Rowling was saying. It was during a book reading and interview with Stephen King [2].
  • Question: If you were to have dinner with any five characters from any of your books, who would you invite, and why would they be on your list?
  • Stephen King: Any five characters, from any of my books? Honey, I'm eating alone. [...] I would eat with Harry, Hermione and Ron. [...] I can think of other people's characters I'd eat with.
  • J K Rowling: I'd take Harry to apologize to him... Um, I'd have to take Harry, Ron and Hermione [King: sure]. I would... this is... [King: Hagrid, take Hagrid]. See, I know who's actually dead. [King: Pretend you can take anyone.] Pretend I can take anyone? Well then I would definitely take Dumbledore... I'd take Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione... and... [audience shouts out suggestions] um, Hagrid. I'd take Hagrid, yeah.
Rowling was working from an assumption or concern that perhaps she could not have dinner with characters who she had killed off (or planned to kill off from the beginning). She simply hesitated on inviting Dumbledore, knowing he was or would be dead as of the end of Book 6. King politely eliminated that limitation, so Dumbledore was allowed in. Last was Hagrid. She said absolutely nothing about Sirius or any of the other "dead" characters. I think you assumed that since she said she "know[s] who's actually dead", that there may be characters who we think are dead that are not "actually" dead. This is incorrect. She has repeatedly said that yes, both Sirius and Dumbledore are most definitely dead, even going so far as to point out that she had become deeply distressed about it when she completed writing those parts. If she had planned to bring those characters back as alive, she would have no reason to feel so terrible about killing off main characters who were generally liked. That said, we know that the previous headmasters appear as if they are "alive" in their portraits in the Headmaster's office (Dumbledore was last seen snoozing there), and there may still be means for Harry to communicate to Sirius, perhaps through the mirror, or otherwise. Remember Sirius was also hit with his cousin Belletrix's Avada Kedavra, before falling through the Veil of Death; so he is most definitely dead and gone. But Rowling's dead wizards have a history of reappearing in other forms, so - well guess what - we'll all know the truth in a week. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks!--Drekadair 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but Sirius wasn't hit by an avada kedavra, otherwise Harry would have known he was dead before he fell through the veil. It says something like jinx in the book. (I know this is a theory, but people have also stated theories about Harry going beyond the veil, so he could meet the dead a last time? This is based on Rowling saying that Dumbledore was giving her trouble and the US book cover). Also people are always saying it, but it was never clearly stated in HBP, are Ron and Hermione going to Privet Drive, or just meeting Harry at the Burrow? Graham1991 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, well lets see... In the book, Sirius and Belletrix were engaged in a duel. "Harry saw Sirius duck Belletrix's jet of red light", and "was laughing at her". Then "The second jet of light hit him squarely in the chest", and then "his eyes widened in shock", and he fell backwards through the archway. The latter is a fairly typical description in the books of the result of an Avada Kedavra. Now the Avada Kedavra is normally described as producing a green jet of light, not red. The book does not specify the color of the second jet, only the first from Belletrix was specifically red. In the film however, it is a green jet that hits Sirius, implying the Avada Kedavra was used. So ... maybe. On the other matters - I agree: If cannot be quoted exactly from her books, or her web site, or a documented interview, or perhaps from the films, then it probably does not belong in the article; and in particular we cannot draw our own conclusions based upon or carried beyond what Rowling specifically said. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was sure it was something like that, but didn't have the book handy to check. Also, Rowling stted in an interview that there was noreturning from the dead, due to the boundaries she had to set on magical ability. So if they are both dead then they are not coming back. She also said that in book 7 we would see how close a person could get to returning. Also, as I was saying previously we cannot rule out the possibility of Harry seeing the dead again, by going through the veil. However unless this can be proven it is obviously theory/original research so cannot be included in the article. However, if there isn't anything on the veil already, it needs stated this is an unresolved plot element as well as the love room. Graham1991 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In "Order of the Phoenix", while Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Ginny are cleaning out the Black house, they find a locket "that none of them could open". Should this be added under the "R.A.B." section as possible proof to the theory that it refers to Regulus Black? 71.251.227.61 05:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)