Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 21

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 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 →

Contents

Not a big deal, but...

What happened to the picture for one of the back covers? It had a picture of what looked like a huge ice fortress. It kinda looked like Hogwarts as it was next to a dark forest; only it looked like it was frozen. Just curious as to why it got removed.-Darknessofheart

It's possible that it was removed because it's too trivial. The article is currently bogged down with a lot of information, and will probably require a lot of editing over the next few weeks to keep it at a reasonable length, so I think maybe someone decided that front covers are good enough for now. Front and back covers are readily available at various fan sites (and thankfully most of them are legal), including a nice international archive at The Leaky Cauldron. I believe this is the one you're referring to. - Ugliness Man 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. This is one of the more interesting pictures in my opinion.-Darknessofheart

Food for thought

For those of you who have been adamently making sure no spoilers are put in this page have you been bothering to check the other related wiki pages. NO I SEE NOT. If you had bothered to look at the other related pages (Horacrux, NAGINI, and such) you would notice that there are spoilers there too, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.102.33 (talk • contribs)

Removed spoilers on horcurx, now watching it for changes. I didn't find any at Nagini, but I'll watch over that one too. Please sign your posts with four tildes, like these (but more) --> ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Its out, I read the ebook personally.

Several facts need to be put up Namely: << Spoilers clipped >> Many others. Just read the damn book.

CloudStrife433 10:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the comments of a newly-registered Wikipedian. That's the best source I've seen all week! ~~ THE DARK LORD' TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch the sarcasm, there. See WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that stuff is real, but I'm taking it down, even in here. I'm new, but this isn't the place for spoilers, accurate or not. RiftDoggy 11:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry... tired of destroying vandalism... stopped thinking there for a minute ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection Status

I'm not exactly clear on this article's protection status. Is it semi-protected, or full-protected? The discussion on this page states full-protection, but it is tagged at the bottom as "semi=protected". 69.138.114.229 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is (or should be) semi-protected at this time to prevent vandalism by anonymous users and and new sockpuppets. About 12 hours ago it was unexpectedly put on full protection by an administrator, but that was retracted back to semi-protection after a consensus discussion of the alternatives. I believe the protection is set to expire in a week, but it may be reinstated and extended longer if random anonymous vandalism resumes. The only reason to place it on full protection would be if a massive edit and reversion war breaks out and disrupts others from providing quality edits. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck

Resolved.

I understand why this page was fully protected but frankly considering there is tons of new information to be added within the next 24 hours this seems like the most limiting and counter-productive thing possible. Anyone agree? Joshdboz 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wait until the official release time. Then we can put everything up in 5 minutes or so, considering the number of wikipedians interested in this.
Yeah, and we'll have plenty of time after. Most people, me included, will be too busy reading the book on Saturday to check the article. They'd have no reason to. Just wait for it. RiftDoggy 11:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. There's plenty of new information (unrelated to plot) that will need to be added today. Joshdboz 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need added the instant it's released. Mañana, Mañana. There is no deadline! :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Like, info on new leaks, statements by Rowling, and any more reviews that come out? I get what you mean on that, sorry for the slip. Obviously I'll have no impact on any decisions made here for a LONG time, but...I can see why they protected the page. I mean, it's going to be pretty crazy here for the next few days. I don't know... RiftDoggy 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree about 90%, Josh. Full protection was applied for *gasp* 7 days(!) ... until July 27 (!). I would have recommended no more than 12 hours or whatever, just to get us to midnight GMT or BST or UTC or whatever when the official release happens. This short-circuits the consensus view that the "early acquisitioners" (those who were lucky enough to get a book on Tuesday or Wednesday) could carefully compose an orderly, high quality plot summary offline, and post it at precisely midnight British time, which would seem to be the best alternative. Protecting the article for a week seems very counter-productive. But it is the decision of the administrator, and for now it stands. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that's what will and should happen with the plot upload, but this article is not only the first google hit when searching its title, but this will also likely be on the front page Current Events box, so this is basically going to get the coverage of a Main page FA, and there is a general guideline to not fully protect FA, as that sets a bad example for wikipedia. As long as there is semi-protection and a few editors here at all times, I don't think there should be too great of a problem. Joshdboz 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way - as a diversion, and for your entertainment and enjoyment in the mean time, please read the essay: The Wrong Version. Funny Stuff. The Cabal of the Admin Rouge strikes again! -T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good, this page isn't the wrong version yet, but certainly will be 7 days later! For what it's worth, I have requested reversion back to semi-protection [1] and left a message on the admin's talk page User_talk:Alkivar#Potter. Joshdboz 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: full protection was revoked, and semi-protection was restored at about 12:35 UTC - see Semiprotected section below. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Can't help but imagine a few editors drooling like mad over this and related articles ^_^. I for one will stay away from this particular page for days until much of the dust settles down. BTW, wouldn't it be neater when the edits begin this discussion page be archived so we can have a clean deck? Chinfo 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, the talk page should be archived at release, to allow for the ensuing edits. I'd volunteer to stay up and do it, but I've got a book to read that night ......!Pedro |  Chat  12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a 'bot' programmed to execute a periodic archiving of older discussions here when the talk page gets overlarge (100k+ I think), and I have also been archiving daily so far this week. I would estimate the next archive action (#20) will occur in about 7 hours (about 20:00 UTC), depending on the page size. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the archiving bot instructions were changed a few moments ago to every 12 hours or at 70k. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already started it and halved the archive time, though the bot hasn;t actually done ANY archiving yet. (at least, in the last 500 edits). I think it should be set to archive at about 60k rather than 100k. RHB - Talk 13:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes - MiszaBot executed an archive to /Archive 19 (about 30k worth) at 20:38 yesterday [2]. I added another 30k or so about 12 hours later to bring it to just under 64k total. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

replacing tags

Now that the book is being released in parts of Asia, the {{future book}} should be replaced with {{current fiction}}. --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but just for the record, I believe it is not being released until 12:00 am UK time, regardless of local time in Asia. Joshdboz 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Brisbane (Australia), which is a fair bit further west than many parts of asia, isn't seeing the book until 9am (local AEST) on Saturday morning. NZ isn't getting the book until 11am local time, so it doesn't matter what the time in that country is, the release is worldwide according to UK time. dr.alf 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The book is scheduled to be released globally in English-speaking countries at a minute past midnight (00:01), British Summer Time, on 21 July 2007 (23.00 UTC 20 July). In the United States and Canada, it is to be released for sale within each separate time zone at 00:01 local time, a few hours after other English-speaking countries.. Basically readers in North America will get 'screwed' relative to the rest of the world, being behind "British Summer Time" by 4 to 7+ hours or whatever. Ah well. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The time lag ranges from 3½ hours (for the island of Newfoundland, and parts of Labrador that use Newfoundland Time) to 11 hours for Hawaiʻi. If American Samoa is on the US release schedule, then the lag becomes 12 hours. — Dale Arnett 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the tag with {{current fiction}}, seeing as it has now "officially" been released. Nazgul533 talk contribs 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
rv'd - not for another 50 minutes ... --AlisonW 22:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected

The article is once again semi-protected, as it should be. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks. There shouldn't be anything too unhandleable (if that's a word) until it actually gets released. Joshdboz 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this decision, but wheel warring won't help anything... ugen64 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that it should be fully protected till everyone gets a chance to buy the book, which would be 24 hours after the initial British release, but that's just me. KeineLust90 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone will get to buy the book within 12 hours of the British release, that is, at 1100 UTC on July 21st, since in Britain is available at midnight (BSt) which is an hour ahead of UTC.Izzystradlin 01:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article from Will Collier on DeepDiscount, eBay and early shippin' books.

This article was brought to my attention this morning. Not sure how/if it needs to be incorperated into the article, but it is an interesting read.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTYxYmE5Y2UzNDMyNWQ2YzFmYTk3NzY1MTkxZGFhNzI=

72.69.129.226 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the info. Joshdboz 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Traces to the person who leaked the photos of Deathly Hallows

It seems, that the pictures leaked on the internet help the investigators, because metadata saved in the pictures reveal more information. Also other aspects can help to identify the person. See this article: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece (88.73.97.226 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

This could be getting to the point where there should be a separate article entirely that traces the story of this particular Harry Potter leak, considering it has led to sustained press coverage and lawsuits. As this seems to be the only full leak of the entire book, negating the need for disambig, perhaps it should simply be entitled Leak of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Joshdboz 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Try not to get ensnared in recentism. While there is still a ton of documentation, there isn't an enormous amount of unique information. We should wait a bit, see if it can't be condensed, and then consider a split.-Wafulz 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that. Only if it gets to the point where further legal action is taken or if this person's identity is discovered. Joshdboz 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is enough information, this would be an interesting article, but it should report the story of the leak from the beginning to the ending - if there will be one ;) - and background information. It would also shorten the hole article Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows there should be a section where a few sentences describe what happened and then above "Main Article: Leak of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". But I agree with Wafulz, that we should wait. --88.73.97.226 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with inevitable spoilers

We need a hideable section template. That way people can post the plot details, but have them hidden by default so people don't have to read them if they don't want to. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, you don't want to get involved in this type of spoiler discussion. It has resulted in months of arguments on Wikipedia:Spoiler, several Requests for comment, and a requested arbitration case.-Wafulz 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think, plot details shouldn't be revealed before the book is officialy released. Wikipedia shouldn't spread illegaly gotten information. --88.73.97.226 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering that some people have quite legally obtained the book before its "official" release, not all the "spoilers" are "illegally gotten infomation". Perhaps you should put a bit more thought into your comments before you make a blanket statment implying that a large amount of your fellow Wiki editors are criminals. 72.69.129.226 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No one is advocating that. Leebo T/C 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This might be an idea you could pursue as a broader guideline if you really felt strongly about it but I don't think it should be used in this setting because all of the other Harry Potter book articles simply have a first section titled "Plot overview". By the way, wouldn't it be assumed that a comprehensive encyclopedia article would include a plot summary? I don't think WP should make excessive steps to hide information that is perfectly acceptable. Joshdboz 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that spoiler warning need to be placed on the plot overview. I myself came on to check some of the information that Rowling has said and not paying attention I started to read the plot.
So pay attention. There is general consensus that spoiler tags are not necessary when the section title makes it clear there are plot details within. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

  • Should it all be there?
  • Fan sites et all.
  • Remove it?

Universal Hero 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them should be axed. We should examine them individually after the book is out- we don't need links about speculation or news stories after the release. If people want fansites, they can look up the articles there.-Wafulz 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They seem to be from the big name sites, so I don't think reliability is a reason for deletion. However, it is a bit excessive and as removing extensive links isn't exactly vandalism, it could be trimmed. Joshdboz 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What to do after release

After this book is released it is to be expected that a large plot summary will be quickly added to this article. I'm wondering what people think should be done with the then somewhat outdated info, such as the entire "What is known about the plot." Obviously this is still a useful record of information, but perhaps a bit too extensive for this article. Should there be a sub article about the hype/info/everything else leading up to this release? It would be a shame to simply see it all deleted. Joshdboz 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the article will change after the book is released. The "hype" will become less important and should be given less weight in the article than critical reception. Leebo T/C 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, that's why I'm wondering if this info should be moved instead of just being trimmed/deleted. I wouldn't bring this up with any other book or movie, but the fact is this is probably the most anticipated book ever, so a history of the "anticipation" might be appropriate. I know this falls victim to recentism, but after all, this isn't just the 5000th Animorphs book. Joshdboz 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've highlighted a good reason why we shouldn't worry about it right now. Wait a while and see how it goes... I think the urge will wear off after the book is out. Leebo T/C 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the solution is that, post-release, there should be a new article titled something like Pre-release publicity about Harry Potter 7. While you're waiting, you could copy the relevant "leaks" section into a sandbox and then move it to this new article which would focus on what was known about the book prior to release. This article (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) would be the main article and have just a short paragraph or two about the pre-release hype and publicity including a few sentences about the leaks. Then there would be a link to the Pre-release publicity about Harry Potter 7 article. That way, this article has only the plot summary while the Pre-release publicity about Harry Potter 7 article provides the pre-release history. --Richard 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Leak Verification via SHA1/MD5 hash

Folks have asked how a pre-release plot summary could be verified by a wikipedia editor, since it is difficult to know what the summary is based on. Even though e.g. the New York Times has vouched for the page pictures with the book laid out on a beige red-and-green-flecked looped carpet, someone else could edit such pictures and repost them, etc.

One robust way to enhance verifiability would be for a valid source (e.g. a respected newspaper) to publish the SHA1 or MD5 cryptographic hash function of the leaked download that they vouch for. Such a hash is easy to reproduce, just 16 or 20 bytes long. People could then search for and download their own copies, and if the hash matches, they could be very confident that they were looking at the same thing, and that they could contribute to the plot summary in a verifiable way.

Disclaimer: I know of no reputable organizations who have vouched for a Deathly Hallows hash in this way, and I take no position here on whether Wikipedia would want to allow pre-release summaries using this sort of verification mechanism. I'm just a geek pointing out what is possible. --NealMcB 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be quicker to just wait 11 hours.-Wafulz 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
To be pedantic, MD5 is broken for anything other than trivial uses. However, that would also seem as if Wikipedia condoned copyright violation, which the media would have a field day with. Not to mention that the book comes out in less than 6 hours here. 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Posting a plot summary is not a copyright violation (yet) even if it was posted two months ago from someone who read it at the presses. All the ballyhoo is over contracts with distrubutors, which wikipedia has not entered into. Stop giving power to copyright rackets. --Nodekeeper 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The break does not affect the use I describe very much. It would be possible for the original poster to post a version of the book which could be spoofed, but they would be unlikely to do so. --NealMcB 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hashing wont work, not with compressed images. Even if a single byte changes, the hash will change. Since JPEG compression does not preserve data byte-for-byte losing a byte does not sound implausible to me. The only way this can work is to use the digest of the text, and reliable sources publishing it. And the text cannot even have a single word error. I would happily wait ten hours to doing that. --soum talk 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hashing works fine over either the pictures or a text version. You just have to transfer the files reliably, and even one bit errors are rare in Internet protocols, by design. But yeah, I'm happy to wait 5 more hours.... --NealMcB 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

This is the first time I have ever posted on Wikipedia. News and information should never be censored in this manner. 1200+ people know the result of this book, their knowledge should be our knowledge. It is clear that many people here are restraining information from the public. When do we accept information? When there are 5 sources? 10? 100? 12 million? Censorship is occurring on this page, and all involved should be ashamed. Whatever silly Wikipedia bylaws people respond with is irrelevant, this is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

It's been discussed to death. Wait for the book's release.-Wafulz 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "silly bylaw", it's a key policy (Verifiability - we can't verify it for another six hours) Will (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean you can't verify it. Other people can. 99% of the information on wikipedia is verified by an outside article with only one source, often a non-mainstream source. We have thousands of people who have read the book. This is censorship. You guys are babysitting this page because you don't want it to be spoiled, you are not babysitting because you want to protect the content of the information. Censorship.
Read this archive and this archive.-Wafulz 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
...And this archive. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship? Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Go post your insider info on your geocities site... — Scientizzle 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I compare if the plot should be spoiled now or if it should be spoiled after the official release, my decision is absolutely clear: Wait for spoiling until the final official release. It is just a few hours until the official release, so waiting until then isn't too hard. J.K. Rowling wants the fans and people to keep information for themselves until the official release. And, as people are able to find the plot and the hole book on the internet on other sources (no question that it is illegal in some cases), Wikipedia should be serious and not publish information on the plot which is taken out of the leak. Also, people who didn't know something about the plot wouldn't expect detailed information on Wikipedia now. After the release they should expect and it is their decision if read plot details or not. (Unfortunately, some information is spoiled in the article now. See Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Press review revelations) --88.73.97.226 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with spoilers; it has everything to do with verifiability and accessibility, as discussed at length here. Based on the notion that only .01% of the books were distributed early, then 99.99% of editors would not have access to the book before midnight BST, therefore plot summaries posted before then would be unverifiable by 99.99% of editors. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When this book is released this page will be vandalised

someone will post Snape dies! (I don't know if he does) etc near the top of the page, or something similar. Call me a pessimist but I think it's probably quite likely to happen. Can't you make it fully protected for the first week of release etc?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.194.189 (talk • contribs)

I agree, people will just try to spoil it (for example, by revealing not that Snape dies, since he doesn't, but that Harry himself bites it at the end). I say two weeks.
No, the article will not be fully protected for a week. I expect it will have plot details in an appropriate section very quickly. Inappropriately placed text of all sorts will be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was fully protected earlier this morning, but the consensus discussion above (and wiki-policy) suggested that semi-protection from anonymous and new-sockpuppet edits was appropriate, so this is what we have. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However, the protection period has been reduced progressively over the past few days from Aug 17 to Aug 3 to July 27. I propose that we reduce it further to expire shortly (like minutes) after the release time. If the anon IP vandalism spikes, we can protect it for short periods of time. However, this is a great opportunity to advertise the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" feature to a very wide audience. Semi-protection defeats that objective. --Richard 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that sentiment, but I think it would be better to manually turn it off at release time (5 hours from now) so that we can leave move protection turned on. If the protection is set to expire, the move protection will also expire. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
See this. It also discusses this topic and I think the result was to semi-protect the page.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism on the page has been pretty limited thanks to semi-protection. There's been almost an equal amount of vandalism on this talk page.-Wafulz 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the earlier conversation on the admin boards was about full protection, since the article was already semiprotected. I don't think it would hurt to unprotect the article for IP editors too, since as it is vandalism is reverted very quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keeping the semi-protection for a week or two after release is reasonable - the page is going to remain in extremely high visibility and will remain at high risk for vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I say we lock this page and choose 3 people to edit it during the time iot is locked, I think it should stay locked for at least 2 weeks.--Jareth shadow 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Just 2 weeks? Most people will take unleast a month to read that book (since most readers are children) and those can vandalize the article.--Midasminus 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Locking is not an option for dealing with vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

When this is released, will be marked for the first week at least as {{current event}}...? Simply south 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it'll be marked using {{current fiction}}. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor spoilers in book cover image descriptions

The book cover image pages contain minor spoilers. I'm sure spoiler policy has been discussed to death, so I will leave addressing the issue to someone who knows the policy.

Sorry, to clarify: The spoilers are in the text descriptions of the images, on the image pages.

If anyone is desperate to add a few more spoilers in the last hours before the release, the French daily Le Parisien has supposedly published a summary of the epilogue, making it fair game for Wikipedia (properly sourced, of course). I'd do it myself, but my French needs a little work. 24.121.174.22 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The book covers have many spoilers; For example, the one who shows Harry, Ron and Hermione riding a dragon, which may mean that Ron's brother Charlie appears again (probably for Bill's wedding) and helps them. User:Midasminus

Plot Summary

I had written most of this several days ago, but was told not to post it; however, the book is now out in half the world, and is released in the UK in about 5 minutes. I felt it was appropriate to post the (unfinished) plot summary now; I'll finish writing the rest of it this evening if no one else beats me to it. Titanium Dragon 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's already started. Joshdboz 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the plot summary being added. However, is there anyway of allowing it to be hidden to only be shown if the reader wants to read it? Jvsett 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Titanium - Thank you. Looking forward to seeing your work, and thank you especially for your patience in going along with the consensus, in spite of your deepest wishes. I guess we were all hoping that you would have finished it by now, since you started it several days ago, so that it would be complete and high quality from the get-go. I guess we have to take what we are going to get. But thanks again for enduring to the end. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No real practical way to hide info, and I don't think many people would agree with such a thing. Joshdboz 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, someone's going to have to post page numbers for the UK or US edition for this and future summaries. Joshdboz 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Great job, though slightly long. I'm working on trimming it down a bit. Wikipedian06 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How is there a plot summary, the books released tommorow. Killswitch Engage 23:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone lives in the United States and not everybody lives in the same time zone as you. It's past midnight in the UK. Betterlucknexttime 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I never meant to insult you, I just didn't know it was after midnight in the U.K. yet. My aplogies. And for future refeence, I'm in Canada. Killswitch Engage 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ****137.82.146.217 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC). Take off the plot summary right now. You are ruining the whole book for the whole of the americas.

Er, then why come to this wiki page if you don't want to see plot spoliers? geez... 90.199.93.224 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

People don't always come to wikipedia to see plot spoilers. ~~axemblue4

I do, i dont want to read the whole book, so i just look it up here, anyway, you could highlight the text, and make both the text and highlight color the same?--dd3000

I disagree that the plot summary is overly long. Maybe some of the details given are not that important, but relatively complete plot summaries are one of the best things about Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places to go for literary criticism.

I actually would like some elaboration on why Snape killed Dumbledore at the end of the previous book (if at Dumbledore's request, why did Dumbledore want to die?)D40 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)D40

This is ArmoredPersonel 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC) . I personaly think that whoever posted the spoilers on there is out of their f***ing mind. Its ruining the hopes of people. I now know who dies. You shouldn't have posted the summary. If I knew who posted that I would kick the s**t out of you. TAKE IT OFF NOW!!!!!

The book released here about an hour back, and I have it. The plot summary does follow the one in the book. The book is hardly a few hours old, and i guess therefore qualifies as very recent. posting the plot summary would involve copyright infringement. I have removed the plot summary for now, if anybody feels otherwise, they can revert the changes. Saurabh Rahurkar 04:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find someone already has. This might be useless, but, although I can't edit this article, I'd like to add my voice to the throng who support the plot summary on the page. It's really not the responsibility of a site that deals in information to pander to people who don't want the story spoiled. Having said that, although it's not standard practice, I'd suggest restoring the spoiler tag? Under the circumstances, I don't think it would do any harm, and would probably satisfy at least some of the detractors. 196.210.88.91 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't support spoilers for recently published books. This article falls in that category. With regards to the consensus, I think it makes more sense to leave out the spoiler until a consensus is reached to post it.Saurabh Rahurkar 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does "Wikipedia doesn't support spolers [sic] for recently published books." come from? There is no statute of limitations on plot summaries. They're up when they're up, as long as they're verified. Love the Internet tough-guy act by ArmoredPersonel. ' 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks people who took the time to write and post this long digest of the plot. I myself am not a Potter-ite -- couldn't make it even halfway through the original book -- but in the case of the worldwide phenomenon of this final book, it was really great to be able to read the synopsis of the whole book and find out how it all ended and "who dies." So, thank you so much. Softlavender 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Methinks the people who think the spoiler shouldn't be removed are people who are too cheap to buy the book. People who are riding the IT wave, which shows no respect for the artist's work. If at all there are typographic errors in this post, the next person who quotes them with the sicut in brackets is the biggest douche of them all.Saurabh Rahurkar 15:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since people will have to scroll past the entire plot to get to the articles at the bottom of the page, why not write the summary on another page like this: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Plot Summary), and just link to it from here. Tuwile 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The plot is boring and predictable

Is the information released what happens in the book? Earlier reports said "some" of the material was genuine in the leaks, but that leaves me with a feeling that not all. Could someone verify it with the currently released book? Simply south 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard copy and can verify that the main leak (759 pages) is indeed genuine. Wikipedian06 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The book isnt 759 pages, its 607 pages. I am holding the copy in my hand. Saurabh Rahurkar 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

American version of the book is 759 pages, British version is 607 pages.


Sorry, don't know where else to put it: in the plot summary here it says:

As the train is pulling away, Harry sees Lord Voldemort in one of the windows. He runs after the rain, but he can't catch up with it, and he begins to hear the sound of his children screaming from the train. His scar burns painfully, and he hears Lord Voldemort's laughter just before passing out.

But - at least - my book doesn't end like this. They wave their kids good-bye, and "all was well...". Thought I'd just say this. Great book, anyway. And who hasn't finished reading but does not want to know the end shouldn't go searching the net for it in my opinion;) --22:47 MEST 21 July 2007--

wow, just saw it's already been corrected. thx;)

PLOT?

Someone please remove the plot the book has not reached the Western Hemisphere yet. So can someone in the Wikipedia board please remove the plot. Everyone in the United States wants to buy the book first not look it up on Wikipedia and ruin the ending. So the idiot that posted the plot ruined the entire story for everyone in the Americas.So mods if you are listing to this statement check the Article history and please place a tempoary ban on the "user" that ruined a plot for a new book release that has been entirely released World-Wide yet.

Just don't read it. The book has been released now so the plot summary can be here. I don't want to be spoiled about the plot either so I'm not going to read it, but there's no point in taking it down.Crazybizi 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored; we should not remove valuable content for the sake of making things less objectionable. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[2x EDIT CONFLICT, now redundant] (Contact details removed, for your sake: the spam-bots will happily pick up e-mail addresses posted like that, and in any case it's unlikely that anyone will reply to your e-mail address) I'm afraid the reason the plot was previously not included was that it was not verifiable. Wikipedia does not have a policy against 'spoilers'. If you don't want the story spoilt, simply don't look at the page (or even just simply not the headered 'plot' section) until you've finished the book. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That said, the current plot is far, far, far too long. Ick. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. The book is now available world-wide except for north America (ie not the whole of the "western hemisphere") and, like your television, your computer (and WP) has an 'off' button. --AlisonW 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It should be removed until the book has been released everywhere. Someone could accidentally read it. ~~axemblue4 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting everybody to agree with that, you'll need it. As far as Wikipedia's rules go it is allowed to be up, and Wikipedia doesn't censor itself for its readers. If something is allowed to be up, and somebody puts it up, nobody has the right to take it down.Crazybizi 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah, and what if somebody `accidentally' reads it AFTER the book has been released everywhere? Are you going to hold off on posting the plot summary until everyone in the world has read it? If you don't like the summary, stay away from this page!137.82.146.217 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, 90% of the UK and Ireland are west of Greenwich. Besides, Wikipedia does not discriminate on countries - how do you think us Brits feel when you post the plots for TV episodes? Will (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally comment on the issues involved, just on the editorial policy. But while I quite enjoy the Harry Potter books, if the whole point of the book is that you don't know how it ends, then to be honest...is it really all that, um... (will let that thought lie). I don't actually think that's the whole point of the books, but I would suggest that Wikipedia only post a synopsis after, say, 24 hours, which is easily enough time for the outcome of the plot to have become - at least potentially - common knowledge. Any bright kid can read the damn book in a day, they're on their school holidays right now anyway. It's not good for Wikipedia to be the place you go to to get potential spoiler information ahead of it being generally available; we are supposed to be the place where verifiable information is sorted and presented in an accessible form. (In case you're wondering, it so happens that I have already read all the post-release spoiler stuff for Deathly Hallows and know how it supposedly ends.) Lexo 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What's more is that the plot section of this article is false. I won't say where, but someone who knows needs to correct it or remove it all together

If you know where it is false please edit! We need page numbers as well. Joshdboz 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Wikipedia has no obligation to withhold factual information for the sake of "spoilers." Wikipedian06 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. The plot summary is kept inside a clearly marked section and nobody is forced to read it. Those who do want to read it can do so. Last I checked we did have a clear notice at the top of the article saying that the plot summary might show up on the article.
It isn't (or shouldn't be) a problem for you that other people now have access to information that you don't want to have. Close your eyes or something. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If everybody had their way about withholding plot summaries, Wikipedia would really suck. That's all I have to say. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I Just ask... I see a bunch of you defending yourselves with the argument that nothing says you cannot post the plot. What would have been the harm in waiting until the west coast release? Explain to me why it was so urgent that it just had to be up immediately? Are we really that impatient? Brianopp 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. That includes putting up a plot section as soon as possible. ' 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Put another way: information which is notable and verifiable should not be censored, regardless of promotional hype. Girolamo Savonarola 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
<sarcasm>The Grey's Anatomy season finale hasn't broadcast in New Zealand yet. I demand the plot summary be removed from Wikipedia. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm obviously a bit late here, but keep the plot. If it's false, well, we'll have to fix it. So what if it's not released in N.A. yet, there's a reason we have power buttons on our computers. (Why am I suddenly reminded of Tyra Banks' So What? campaign?) Øřêōş 03:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there are some people who may not want to read the books but still want to know what happens anyway. I see no reason why any information should ever be withheld just because the source material is not yet universally available. Personally, I was quite pleasantly suprised that a synopsis had already been released to the Wikipedia. 67.162.11.94 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This is all absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, no one is holding your head towards the screen forcing you to read the 'plot' section. It clearly states it's the plot, so if you want to wait to read the book, just don't read the plot!!! Secondly, why should Europeans and the far east suffer lack of information just because some Americans don't have it yet?! The plot is valid information, and we have a right, if not an obligation to post in on wikipedia. 80.229.151.52 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Other articles

I have not read the book yet nor have read the full plot, but for those who have, it might be wise to update related articles for particular characters. Joshdboz 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, that might make real spoilers. Someone looking for the history of a character might see it accidentally. -- bemusedoutsider

Merge of afterwards

I know the main Harry Potter series page is very large as it is. I am suggesting this merge as this article is likely to get bigger etc etc etc; it seems appropriate that the future of the series should be mentioned there or maybe split off into a separate article? If not then mention in both. Simply south 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think given this is stated to be the final book, the Afterwards section is appropriate for this article and would be appropriate in Harry Potter too. Gotyear 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing ASDA and Sabbath sections from controversy

Sorry, but I just don't think these two are nearly noteworthy enough.

There were thousands of news articles on the leak, but only a few on these other two topics. Wikipedian06 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Hello. I just added a spoiler warning ({{spoiler}}), but it was just removed for being redundant. However, I would disagree because obviously there is a plot section, BUT, most other books' plot sections have these as well. I suggest, with consensus of course, that the spoiler notice be used for what it was designed for-- Warning the reader that a spoiler follows! Regards, and happy reading/editing to all Harry fans/Wikipedians, respectively. —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only a handful of articles have spoiler tags, and none of those is about a book. There was a recent shift in practice about the tags. The general consensus that has developed is that the tags are redundant when they are used on plot sections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is, however, a spoiler warning at the very top of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks-- I just remembered seeing them in the past on some articles (I was thinking books, but maybe they were TV shows-- whoops!). Cheers, —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler is way too far up, I can see half the thing when I go to the page. It's a good thing I've already read the book.

Deathly Hallows - suggested edits

Well, aside from some spelling mistakes and minor errors, the following two statements are sufficiently inaccurate that they really ought to be corrected.

->"Harry finds Ravenclaw's Diadem in the room of requirement and Hermione destroys it." Actually, Hermione stabbed the Hufflepuff Cup with the basilisk fang. Ravenclaw's Diadem was destroyed in Crabbe's Fiendfyre.

->"Harry kills Voldemort with the elder wand". I would argue that Voldemort killed himself, when his curse rebounded. And Voldemort had the elder wand; Harry had Draco's.

->And since the offspring of Harry/Ginny and Draco are mentioned, it only seems fair to identify Ron/Hermione's as Rose & Hugo.

->I've also noticed a typo in the sentence "The trio barely escape from the wizards sent to fetch them, but Harry is emboldened and believes that they need to collect all the Deathly Hallows, these artefacts given by Death, to defeat Voldemort." "artefacts" should be spelled "artifacts". Nothing major, but I thought I'd point it out.

I've also noticed a typo in the sentence "The trio barely escape from the wizards sent to fetch them, but Harry is emboldened and believes that they need to collect all the Deathly Hallows, these artefacts given by Death, to defeat Voldemort."

"artefacts" should be spelled "artifacts". Nothing major, but I thought I'd point it out.

WalkingKnowledge 00:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Release Time

Please fix the box. Not all places was the book released at 00:01 - I note New Zealand where it came out at 11:01 am today and in Australia it came out at 9:01 am on the east coast. Please fix!!! - News Link of Harry Potter release in NZ confirming time!58.108.2.17 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The times in those markets correspond, I believe, too 2300GMT. Only in the North Amercan markets is there a later chronological release time. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remove "English speaking" country. The book was also released here in Belgium 1 minute after midnight - and to my knowledge Belgium (and most of Europe) is not an English speaking country.

Here in Argentina was released yesterday.JDeus01 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to add to plot

In the plot summary, it says that Harry sacrifices himself to Voldemort, but does not die. Could somebody elaborate on this a bit more? Piggins 01:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort's Avada Kedavra kills the piece of Voldemort's soul that is in Harry, but Harry is protected by his mothers love, which also runs in Voldemort, and pretends to be dead when Voldemort has Harry's body inspected. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's right. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Marriage (potentially flammable ...)

>In the story's epilogue, taking place 19 years after the Battle of Hogwarts (presumably 2017), Harry has married Ginny Weasley and has three children named James, Albus Severus, and Lily. Ron has married Hermione and they have two children named Rose and Hugo. Draco has a child named Scorpius. They all meet at King's Cross, about to send their children to Hogwarts at the beginning of term. It is revealed that Harry's scar has not hurt since the Dark Lord's defeat, and there, the story ends.

Not to sound like a complete tool here, but ... where does it say in the epilogue that they got married? It can be easily implied that they got married, but I went looking for the word, and ... as far as I know it's not mentioned. Daggoth | Talk 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Resolved, see below. Daggoth | Talk 12:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed the plot to reflect that. Sid 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how long it stays like that! Daggoth | Talk 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, but in all reality, I think it's quite safe to assume that they are married. For some reason, I don't think that Rowling would end this story with the tale of Ginny and Harry's illegitimate children. 68.238.249.130
Speculation is irrelevant. --FireV 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by speculation? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It means that since it can't be confirmed in the books that they are married, the phrase "I don't think that Rowling ... etc" is just that: speculation, unconfirmed information. It has no place the article. (Hence my statement above ... it's such a minor thing) Daggoth | Talk 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"illegitimate children" *rolling eyes* We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. 217.95.15.24 19:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It could just as easily be argued that if they were not formally married, and had children highschool age and were still together that they have a Common-law marriage. So saying that they were married would indeed be factual. Nodekeeper 07:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The current version is fine. The implication is there, and we aren't saying it outright. ' 07:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely they are married though, Ginny is now "Ginny Potter" anyway. Rebelius 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, because being married would never result in a double-barreled name or the woman keeping her original surname...09:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You have that exactly backwards-- Rebelius was saying that her surname change was evidence of her marriage according to law; it's not a counterargument to say that marriage according to law often doesn't result in a surname change. A counterargument would be showing evidence that people often change their surnames without getting married according to law. Marnanel 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It says...'The FIVE potters approached the barrier' in nineteen years later, page 1. So unless there are four POTTER chilren,we CAN say Ginny is a Potter now.If any of you want to argue about marriage not being said directly, then you might as well say Mr and Mrs Weasly are not married.121.6.20.57 10:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)ray

I'm adding back in the lines of Ginny being a Potter. 121.6.20.57 10:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)ray

Sorry, I missed that detail. Five Potters implies that they're married. My bad. Daggoth | Talk 12:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag

I think that there should be a spoiler tag somewhere in this article as this book is very very new and has not even been released in the US yet. --Shanedidona 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the problem is people are doing stuff just because the rules say they can. They are selfishly acting with blatant disrespect to the Author and readers of the book. I am aware that Wikipedia does not have to withhold information just because the author does not want it out? But why can't it? Brianopp 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Brianopp, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The book has been released already, and there is no information that JKR wants to be withheld, it's all out there in the hands of the readers already. We waited until the book was out and now there is a spoiler warning at the top of the article. JKR and Harry Potter fans are being treated with no disrespect. This article isn't meant to spoiler, it clearly warns that there is a plot summary. --70.210.48.57 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I love how people are apparently incapable of practicing self-control and simply not read the article. Warning people that Wikipedia contains information is not our job, and all the hissy fits in the world will not change that. It's also quite arrogant to use the United States as a determiner to whether the article needs the spoiler tag. Many works of fiction come out in the United States long before any countries. We don't spoiler tag them, and rightfully so. ' 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a spoiler tag at the very top. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like the hide box used so that persons who want to navigate around the details of the book without reading the plot can do so. --Tbeatty 06:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what the table of contents is for. 08:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)