Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 22

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 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 →

Contents

Critical Reception editing

Seeing as the controversy surrounding the Times review deals with the leak, I feel that we should focus this section on what is actually said in the reviews. The part about getting a book early can go in the leak section, but it does not belong in the section dealing with book reviews.BornToRun86 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Upset

How come a Wikipedian has edited the plot of the book when it hasn't been released yet, should i ignore reading the plot summary or is true? Cuz i will be pissed off if i find out theat is the true outcome of the book. 216.93.76.244 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd be pissesd off, huh? Boo hoo. By the way, instead of reading Harry Potter, you may want to invest some time in English grammar - capitalize "I" and it's "Because" not "cuz". WTF?
The books were released in the UK. Not everyone who speaks English lives in the United States.--Chaser - T 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we are an encyclopedia, thus we must do this at the cost of making the book terrible for people who have not read it. Already it has ruined my expierence in the same way that it did with Final Fantasy IV and Atlas Shrugged. I must learn how to obey those spoiler warnings. (Note: Please do not put spoiler warnings here, for it is redundant) Marlith 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"[This article] may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." has been at the top of this page for most of the last five hours. I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do for you.--Chaser - T 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well then maybe you shouldn't read the sections in articles about books and games your are currently reading/playing that are clearly marked with SPOILERS. And Final Fantasy 4? what the hell? 01:00, 21 July 2007 (EST)

Some people still haven't played it yet. In the same vein, although having not played FF7, I know not to level up Aeris, but levelling her up is part of the magic of the game. Will (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but there really isn't too much that can be spoiled about FF IV, the plot is pretty generic. It shouldn't stop people of playing the game; I still play it pretty often 15 years later. The same goes for books- just because you know the storyline doesn't make a book less enjoyable, assuming it's a decent book to begin with.--Fersnachi 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It has a (weaker) storyline that was spoiled for me, that was not the main point of the post, I merely was stating the policy. Marlith 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are any number of plot twists that can be spoiled in FFIV - in the span of 10 seconds, I've already thought of at least a dozen. Granted, there's no "Aeris dies, Vader is Luke's father, he was dead the whole movie, Kaiser Soze, etc" massive spoiler that ruins the entire game in a single statement, but it can still be spoiled.
To address the original point, though, putting the plot of the book here is 100% acceptable. Wikipedia spoiled the entire final season of Stargate SG-1 for me, because the UK saw episodes in January that the US didn't get to see until April. Still, that's MY fault for reading the article in the first place, and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to hold my hand and hide detailed plot summaries from me to keep me from reading them and spoiling the experience. People in this day and age really need to start taking responsibility for their own damned actions. Hossenfeffer 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Protecting

Who locked the page and put the badly worded line about "please no telling before 12 AM everywhere?" The book has been released in the UK. The plot can therefore be told to all. Whoever locked it and put in that unencyclopedic line (assuming they're the same person) abused admin powers. 67.186.34.123 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was semi-protected to deal with vandalism. Please register an account. After four days, you will be able to edit semi-protected articles.--Chaser - T 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been fully locked, which is what I'm commenting on. The vandalism is the deletion of the plot summary that was legitimately entered and the unencyclopedic line in the intro that needs to be deleted. Also, I already have an account, I'm just not using it at the moment. 67.186.34.123 04:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. Vandalism has been dealt with. Thanks. 67.186.34.123 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hide Box

Why is a hide box not acceptable? It's not intrusive and it allows readers to navigate around the page without revealing the plot if they desire. --Tbeatty 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a ridiculous measure for idiots who have somehow lost the ability to use the table of contents or the inability to read. We're not here to coodle those people. ' 06:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not here to coddle children? Please. The hide/show feature is minimalistic. The problem isn't the inability to read, it's the fact that a lot of people can sight read large sections with a glance. If you want to read a follow on section, it's pretty hard to miss the one above it. --Tbeatty 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's calling "using the table of contents" or "scrolling past it". Or, better yet, not reading the article in the first place if you're so goddamned paranoid about the dreaded spoilers. The only reason you're doing this nonsense is because of your arbitrary interpretation that it's too recent and people should be protected from information. ' 07:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You're being unreasonable. I understand your concerns, but I think, under the circumstances, that this innovation is appropriate. It is perfectly conceivable that Wikipedia users will be viewing this page for some other reason than gleaning the plot for the entire novel -- and, in fact, for reasons that are defeated by the fact that they might inadvertently spoil the book by doing so. Furthermore, the section is labeled 'plot' - and I've seen vast inconsistencies across Wikipedia with regard to the amount of detail that typically falls under a section so headed. It's certainly possible (likely, even) that someone might begin reading the paragraph without fulling grasping its revelatory nature.
The only negative effect I see with the hide device is that it moves the text down to below the Harry Potter template on the right (in Firefox, anyway), but, frankly, the page isn't looking great right now anyway, and I can live with that. Either way, I think hiding the section should be a temporary measure for the next short while. Exactly when it should be removed, I don't know. But I'm definitely not advocating its permanent presence. Nor am I advocating that such devices be used to hide the plot details of all recently-released works of art. I think it can be broadly agreed that this is a very special case. 196.210.88.91 07:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary judgments aren't good enough. WP:SPOILER even expresses, "Other unacceptable approaches include concealing spoilers using codes such as ROT13, and setting the text and background colors to the same color using HTML." If spoiler warnings aren't used, why in the world would this pointless coding be? ' 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll quote the spoiler's recommendation page's header: 'This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.' I think there have been scarcely any more worthy exceptions. Both Tbeatty and I have provided common sense reasons. 196.210.88.91 07:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Every wikipedia user (okay, almost) knows articles contain plot details. Despite that knowledge, if they come here, I see no reason why they should be shielded. No one is forcing them here, they are coming on their own accord. --soum talk 07:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like the spoiler tag debate all over again. Wasn't the consensus change the warning to something friendlier and let people fool enough to read the plot summary ruin the book for themselves? And what happened to the 3-Revert-Rule? ([[WP:3RR) ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, to answer Apostrophe's question directly, I'd actually be much happier with a more prominent spoiler warning. Admittedly, the hide template is ugly. Secondly, Soumyasch's point about people coming here voluntarily just isn't relevant. Would someone please establish the relevance of this line of thought? It's been used again and again as a justification here. Just because people come here of their own accord, doesn't mean that we should diminish the usefulness of the article by preventing them from gathering the data they might need from the article by scaring them into thinking they might be inadvertently exposed to the data they really don't want to see.
Thirdly, we're using a device with exactly the same purpose as the spoiler tag, so yes: the same argument applies. My counterargument is that this is an exceptional situation. 196.210.88.91 07:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
We are not shoving it in their face. The lead is on-spoilerish. Then they have a TOC and section title to know that plot details are following. The TOC can be used to skip that section. Which means the usefulness of other sectios isn't diminished at all. --soum talk 07:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Common sense reasons"? No, you haven't. All your reasoning amounts to is, "This is... special! Because. Just because." It being more popular doesn't make it more worthy of a hide box. Spider-Man 3 had spoilers long before it was released into American theaters. People managed just fine. Utopia (Doctor Who) had a plot summary not long after it was broadcast. It's not going to be broadcast in America for a while. People manage just fine. The point of Wikipedia is to provide information. Not to make arbitrary judgments based on some concern for people who are somehow incapable of taking care of themselves. ' 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it an exceptional situation, exactly? What makes this different from The Sixth Sense or any other built-around-surprises media event? 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be on all works of fiction whose primary value is to entertain through a story. There is really no reason for wikipedia to have a plot on works of fiction but I understand that some people find it interesting to read versions even shorter than the Cliff notes. But regardless, there are people who can read well enough that simply having the plot on the same screen as the reviews will reveal both instantly. It isn't a matter of reading or not reading it as the screen doesn't allow one without the other. Hide box solves it. --Tbeatty 07:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has decided the opposite of your opinion. In all aspects. Take it to WP:SPOILER if you have further issues with it. ' 07:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
So why does no other article warrant this treatment? Even movies entirely built around twist endings like Sixth Sense don't have this, and Sixth Sense doesn't even have a spoiler tag, let alone some torturous special section-hiding function. There is absolutely no precident for what you're attempting here, and a lot against it. 07:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think my argument hinges on why this is exceptional. I'll deal with the two examples provided first. Spiderman 3 is different because there was widespread foreknowledge of its plot (at least broadly), because those that follow that franchise devotedly also followed the comic books on which its plot is largely based. The Sixth Sense was not part of an existing franchise, and its release was certainly not a media event of this scale, so it didn't generate the same flood of page traffic and potential 'spoiling' (for lack of a better word). Furthermore, again, unlike Tbeatty, I'm advocating that a more prominent spoiler tag be placed here temporarily. I'm thinking something of the order of days, not weeks. I also don't agree that this applies to all fictional works by any means. And again -- I'm arguing for the spoiler tag (even though it's under the wrong heading). I think the hiding is possibly a little misguided.
For those who realise that an example does not an argument make, I think the larger point is that I can't recall a recent work of fiction (whether novel, film or anything else) that does fit all the requirements here: extremely large base of readers, immense and widespread devotion (in the sense where spoilers would really ruin the experience - and which is largely created because this is the continuation of a successful series of novels), and lack of foreknowledge of the plot. 196.210.88.91 08:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
extremely large base of readers, immense and widespread devotion (in the sense where spoilers would really ruin the experience - and which is largely created because this is the continuation of a successful series of novels), and lack of foreknowledge of the plot
End of Evangelion. Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3. Unbreakable. Ocean's Eleven. Seriously, just because you personally don't think anything else is as important as this, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of similar things like it. And why will a few days make a difference? Do you think everyone on the planet will buy and read Deathly Hallows by then, or do the ones who get it later not matter? 08:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly haven't argued special treatment. I have still yet to receive a good reason for why such detailed plot information is even necessary for a brand new work of fiction that hasn't even established whether it's stroyline is significant or not. Further, I think there is an ethical problem with essentially paraphrasing the written, fictional creative works of another person in such detail. --Tbeatty 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the sophistry. The plot is clearly significant because it's the conclusion of the story to one of the best-selling book series ever. There's no ethical problem with fifteen paragraphs being used as a summary of a book that runs to 759 pages, though the current plot summary is a little unwieldy. However, there are far longer descriptions out there: are you seriously saying the final Harry Potter book's plot is worth less description than the third episode of Angel? 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you didn't tackle Utopia (Doctor Who). Extremely large base of watchers, immense and widespread devotion (in the sense where spoilers would really ruin the experience - and which is largely created because this is the continuation of a successful television series), and lack of foreknowledge of the plot. You still haven't really provided a reason why this is "exceptional" and how that means we need a pointless means of protecting people from "spoilers". ' 08:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is protecting them from spoilers. Just like the TOC is used to navigate around sections you don't want to read, the show/hide box is used to navigate to sections you do want to read. --Tbeatty 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It walks like a duck. It swims like a duck. It even quacks like a duck. Unless you're proposing we hide all sections. Is effectively using the ToC to skip one section at the top really that hard? ' 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Um...So you want to add something you admit is completely useless because it replicates an existing feature of the page for no good reason? 08:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No one has admitted it's useless. In fact, a number of editors expressed how useful it is. It is really just another navigation tool in addtiona to the TOC. It performs the inverse function which is useful. Is effectively using the show button really that hard? The TOC allows you to skip sections, the hide/show box lets you read them. TOC's are arbitrarily determined by consensus, so could the show/hide box. Do you argue that and index should be eliminated from books because it performs a similiar function as a TOC? Of course not. Both are useful even if their functions overlap. Both are navigation aids that help the reader explore and digest the information. --Tbeatty 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't absorb information by evading it, last I checked. There's no point in duplicating the TOC's function needlessly: if you had a book with a table of contents and some of the pages stapled together in case you didn't want to read them, would that strike you as an optimal way of presenting the information? After all, people who want to see the information can just take the staples out, right? 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I must have skimmed over that without noticing it. I didn't tackle it, and I'm not going to tackle the other examples, for fear that I'll be drowned in them. On the surface of it, though, I don't see that any of them satisfy the criteria I laid down for the size of the devoted readership (or viewership). I can see that I'm going to have to deal with countless examples of decreasing quality if I'm to make the point that this is an exception, however. So I'm going to give up. As an aside of sorts, I'm sure the assurance won't be worth much, but my opinion of the scale of the book's penetration is based entirely on what the media has offered up. I've never read so much as a paragraph of any of these books - but I'm not going to go to the lengths of actually having to establish with sources how unprecedented it is in literature.
I think a few days will make a difference for two reasons. Firstly, I think it's the safer route before an actual consensus is reached. Secondly, I think it's simply too much of a sacrifice (for all the reasons you and others have mentioned) to leave it up any longer than that. I think the number of readers that will have finished the book before next week is up is large enough to justify removing the tag then. I don't think the resulting increase in the article's utility from retaining the tag after that date would justify doing so.
Also, I've had another look at the page since taking this line, and it's probably less of a problem than I thought. I'd still like a somewhat more prominent spoiler tag (I know there's one at the top, but it's hidden under another heading and absolutely no one is going to read it). I think that the excessively long/detailed tag above the plot section deals insufficiently directly with the spoiler issue. 'Spoilers' should be mentioned explicitly - in the heading, I believe. But I think I've presented enough of my opinions on the subject for other editors to determine whether the event is exceptional - or exceptional enough (if you'll pardon the clumsiness) to warrant exceptional treatment. 196.210.88.91 08:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A consensus has been reached. That consensus removed almost every spoiler tag on Wikipedia. Simply hoping that a huge amount of precident will magically disappear isn't going to help here. 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's plain that consensus has not been reached for this article - which I consider exceptional. I think many other editors of this talk page and the article have expressed the same sentiment more succinctly (to put it politely) over the last few days. Edit: Forgot to sign. 196.210.88.91 08:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't have to be achieved on a per-article basis if it's already been achieved on such a scale as to virtually eradicate the spoiler tag from Wikipedia. 09:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to hide the information from people. But it also makes sense that people would still come to this page. I came to read about all the controversies surrounding the book, not to read a plot summary. A Hide Box, if possible, isn't so horrible an idea. Drinel 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me qualify myself by saying that I don't give a rat's fart about Harry Potter. The books are juvenile in their writing and overflow with bloat and padding. The reason I mention that is because I wanted it to be known that I have no dog in this fight. Spoil or not, I don't care. That being said, I see no reason to add any kind of unusual spoiler warning to the page. "Plot Summary" pretty much says it all. If I don't want to know about the plot, I think I'm capable enough to avoid something called "Plot Summary". While someone can accidentally glance at a page and glean information from it, there is so much information here that the only way someone can be spoiled is if, unconsciously, they were looking. When it comes down to it, the Wiki doesn't provide any information that can't be had a thousand times more in depth from a fan site where spoilers will be better hidden. So bottom line, there is no reason to take special or unusual care to hide the plot. The reason people are coming to the Wiki page is because they want to know about the plot. Really, there's no real reason to come otherwise as any true hardcore fan of the series will be going to a fan site where much more information of the book will be available than on the Wiki. Lighthope 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

People complaining

If you don't want the book ruined, why on earth would you come on this page?

To find information about it's release, publishing data, quotes from the author and reviews. None of that information is related to the plot. --Tbeatty 07:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have visited the article to read up on the leakage of the book and information related to that, such as the "early critical reception." I haven't received or read the book yet, but I don't want the plot to be spoiled for me. Kalani [talk] 07:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't read the plot section then. violet/riga (t) 09:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you honestly think that reading about the leaked material wouldn't lead to spoilers? -- 24.19.205.83 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

People complaining about "plot being spoiled" are being a little naive surely. I came to this page precisely because I wanted to find out the plot. It is an encyclopaedia; that is its job. Plenty of other sources on the web for the other infoDatapanik 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is informative and knowing. If you think ignorance is bliss, you should stay away. Wikipedia isn't going to withhold relevant, verifiable information about a book because you haven't read it yet. Also, the whole plot is so big, you should be smart enough to stop reading as soon as pertinent details start getting revealed.

Spoilers

Normally we are warned of spoilers, is this article special in that it's being allowed to potentially ruin the whole story for people?

There's a already banner that says "It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." 17Drew 07:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone who keeps saying that there's normally a spoiler warning doesn't seem to have read Wikipedia in the past two months. The spoiler warnings were almost all removed then; there's literally only about 5 or so left. Atropos 08:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
YOU'VE RUINED THE WHOLE BOOK JUST BY WRITING THE LAST SENTENCE! YOU'RE A MEAN PERSON! ADD THE SPOILER SIGN! 89.139.28.31 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then don't go to any website that might possibly discuss the plot. If spoilers are such a huge deal to you, then why can't you just read the damn thing, and then check the website? You're such a huge fan that you don't know who wrote it? Or published it? Or where to buy it? If you don't want something spoiled, sequester yourself. The moment you think you might come across any information on Harry Potter, don't read it! Common sense would dictate an encyclopedia article on a book is going to have plot details. Even without spoilers, that should be obvious. The truth is, more than likely you wanted to be "a little spoiled", and got mad when you couldn't shut Pandora's box. Get over it!-- 24.19.205.83 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the first day of release and almost the entire plot is up here!! have some concern for the people who havnt read it...REMOVE the SPOILERS..!! --59.178.39.178 10:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if you are part of the hype and you don't want to know what's happened you shouldn't look on an internet article about the exact same subject. You should assume that by reading this page there will be spoliers. I don't mind anyone putting a spoiler tag on, but I think anyone who needs it to realise the plots in the article is needing to sit down and think. Josh 10:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A registered user is vandalizing the page by throwing in spoilers at the top. Please fully protect. 65.93.31.124 15:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We won't remove the spoilers because of policy, sorry, please check WP:Spoiler Marlith 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not remove the spoilers. But, perhaps it would be wise to move the plot section to the bottom and put a spoiler warning. Just a thought; I mean, that's what the other ones do.

Spoilers can easily be seen.

The first batch of spoilers cant easily be seen by people with large resolutions. Perhaps adding more description would prove useful and even protective :)

To the kind editors of Wikipedia...

I recently put the book down only a few minutes ago. Having read it continuously since I bought it, I can say that it has been a long night. Convinced I'd only find a few interesting sales numbers I hadn't known of, I came here, to find a complete article on the last book! A better example of the kind of thought and time that gets put into Wikipedia does not exist. I can only praise the editors, and say that I am proud that such hardworking people take time out of their day to make sure Wikipedia is as complete as they can make it. The reason this site is so sucessful is because of people like you, who work hard to bring information and knowledge to the net. I'm sorry if what I am saying here is not 100% conforming to the guidelines, but I felt that someone needed to congratulate you on the kind of work you all do every day. Thanks again.--Onearmdude 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Finally, somebody that doesn't hate us! :) 70.210.48.57 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you sooooooo much for posting this. I live in Egypt and can not get hold of a copy yet and wanted to know what happened. Knowing the outcome will not spoil my enjoyment of the book when I get it. Jk Rowland is too good an author for that.

I would like to add my thanks and gratitude to all those who have provided, and continue to "tweak," the synopsis. It will enhance my reading of the book (which, sadly, appears not to be arriving until Monday). ---dmf 08:30 EST 21 July 2007

poor language

i was reading the whole book summary at once and noticed a few too many "in the process" phrases. only someone with poor english skills would use the same phrase 5 times in the same body of work. someone who has read the book should edit out that phrase and replace it with something more elegant

Since most of this discussion page is people complaining pointlessly over unimportant things, I feel that it should be pointed out that you were criticizing poor English skills while using poor English yourself. The first word is not capitalized and one sentence is missing a period. Good job. S. Randall 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for pointing that out. I've changed them where appropriate. --Jw2034 12:49, 21 July 2007 (BST)

plot summary

the plot summary is slightly too long or needs to be sectioned; could someone look at condensing it down or adding suitable sections to the existing plot. Thanks. Happy endings are lame. Lame like this book. I cannot believe that a waited in line for this book!

--Jw2034 12:53, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Since the plot is almost as long a the book, perhaps someone could add some section headings from the chapters of the book? --Camptown 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the appropriate action is to shorten the plot summary.-Wafulz 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, try comparing the plot summary to the ACTUAL PLOT OF THE BOOK. I saw a lot of continuity errors in this. Like, for instance, the fact that Lupin and Tonks died BEFORE Harry was "killed", Hagrid was captured by Acromantulas AFTER Fred was killed, by, I might add, the building collapsing, NOT by a single Death Eater. I have a sneaking suspicion it was a giant smashing the side of the castle. Along that same vein, Percy Weasley had arrived long before the fighting even started. Someone edit this, please, for I have not the time.--23:31, 21 July 2007

ending leak

I compared the ending to the leak ending.

Unprotect?

Seeing as the article is linked from the main page, shouldn't we be unprotecting it? I'll be out of town, so I won't be able to monitor it.-Wafulz 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be unprotected, but give it a bit, else it will be vandalised -Jw2034 15:09, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Indefinite Pronoun

Please fix this sentence in the plot summary, it is incredibly confusing:

"Snape was asked by Dumbledore to kill him if the situation demands it; the curse placed on the horcrux ring limited his life, regardless. Resigned to his fate, Harry sacrifices himself to Voldemort, and is seemingly killed."

Kill who? Limit who's life?

It's not redundant. "Him" means Dumbledore. If it meant Snape, the proper word would have been "himself."KyleGoetz 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubledore. Have changed it, cheers for pointing it out --Jw2034 15:35, 21 July 2007 (BST)

the scum

What exactly can I do to ensure that the scum who just posted spoilers at the top of this page, twice, in the way he did, is booted off wikipedia for good? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the bastard who was doing it has been indefinitely blocked. That ought to teach him a lesson. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 15:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not attack other users, please. Banned or not, it's still against the rules. HalfShadow 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can comment, its a bad idea to look at this page in between the book being released and you reading it - I largely stayed off the internet, and didn't even use MSN.

DarthSidious 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

We called it "Internet lockdown" in my house. Twelve hours of reading with some breaks, and it was well worth it. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Typos/misprints.

bought my book last night at midnight, and found a misprint in one of the issues. i'm in the u.s., and while reading i found this. page 642 is immediately followed by page 707, this cintinues until page 738, which is then followed by page 675, and thereafter the book conyinues uninterrupted to the end. so, 31 pages are missing, replaced by pages from later in the book?!? a friend who bought another book from the same store had a similar misprint, while a third copy, again, from the same store, didn't appear to have it. has anyone else encountered this? is it a local thing, or is it country wide, or global? 24.105.206.171 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck went and read the book this fast?! Didja stay up until 5:30 in the morning to get this all in?!

Perhaps the ones who read a leaked version of the book? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The book was leaked on July 17, and people who worked in libraries/bookstores read it as early as the 10th. We've been waiting a long time to get the info out. Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As for typos, both "skulduggery" and "skullduggery" (the latter being incorrect) are used at least once each. Rangi42 00:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of spoiler?

It is the immediate aftermath of the books release, surely there should be a spoiler tag applied for the immediate future? I don't understand why there is a lot of fuss being created over a small spoiler tag, that will/can be removed in the near future. Obviously delete the spoiler tag if you feel differently. Paul S UK 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

SPOILERS HELL... why the rush to add the kind of detail... I'm trying to defang. MUCH can be written to give a synopsis, without giving crucial plot details. Please act responsibly for the sake of youngsters, at the very least. Keep things mysterious, not explicit for a long while! Split this by chapter, as I began and others modified, so each section can be tweaked, but I beg you, leave out foreshadowed explicit information. Apologies on the incidental reverts, but sectionizing things takes a while. I'm out of this for now. Best regards // FrankB 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Wikipedia has a history of giving spoilers on fiction. It gives people something that can be looked up easily. People should know that by now. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary needs to be trimmed, not lengthened

It's WAY too long, and we do NOT need chapter-by-chapter summaries detailing every minor event in the book. Judging from previous books, I'd say 8-10 paragraphs is a good length; any more than that, and it's excessively long & overly detailed. Anyone else agree? Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's a new book, so people are curious. Maybe give it a few days and then shorten it. That's what I think, anyhow. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing compared to the richness of the prose... Suggest the chapters format for a few months as then can be section edited by the many. // FrankB 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean to say you suggest that putting text in the form of "chapters" FOR A FEW MONTHS, so that many people can edit its sections, is a good idea? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's far far too long as it is. 1000 words on one chapter? It'd be shorter to transcribe the book. Whilding87 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice to Dumbledore

Say to Harry Potter, "Harry, you are a Horcrux. Yes, you are! So we need to do a little bit of tinkering. First, I'll kill you..." See how he reacts. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Who edited this?

"Harry reveals that he still blames himself for Dumbledore's death, and so he soon feels so consumed by his guilt that he admits to himself that he cannot continue the fight. He sets out to join Lord Voldemort."

Whats this all about? I've read the book and Harry definitely does not set out to join Lord Voldemort, especially not at the beginning of the book.

Who wrote this? Edited Jamie0293 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, maybe? ;) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
nah. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall I fix it? Philip1992 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Philip1992

  • That was just an obvious vandalism by Raskanazi (talk · contribs) (see his first edit to this page). Henrik Ebeltoft 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Adult editions

There is a discrepancy here: In the UK, ISBN 1551929767 is an adult edition In Canada, the same ISBN is not an adult edition, and the adult edition is ISBN 1551929783.  Andreas  (T) 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats the diffence between the adult version and kid version?

This is what I been wondering since the Harry Potter books started? Philip1992 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)philip1992

The cover. --Guess Who 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
simple. the adult covers are so that adults can read the books without feeling embarrassed they are reading a childrens book. although, all mine are childrens versions, doesn't bother me.--Jac16888 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapter headings, censorship, etc

I've removed the chapter headings because they lead to inappropriate blow-by-blow accounts of the plot. Ideally we should be producing a synopsis, which covers the most significant plot detail and not necessarily constrained by the order of presentation in the novel.

I've also removed a comment that seemed to imply that inclusion of certain (perhaps significant) plot elements is premature. That's nonsense of course. Wikpiedia is an encyclopedia. The fan sites are elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the text was already long, however, I divided up into three sections anyhow (beginning, middle, and end). This should be sufficient. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the text is far too long. The thing to do is to remove text. Dividing it into sections will make this more difficult. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Text can be removed easily by clicking on the full heading and not on the section heading. The section headings are there to make it easy to edit specific sections. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. What concerns me is that (as I explained above) the synopsis shouldn't be constrained by the order of presentation in the book. Having these particular divisions (just as much as having the chapter headings) constrains it to follow the novel's ordering. In any case for now we can concentrate on trying to trim down the summary to relevant detail--surely there isn't anything more to add. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okeydokes. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am hoping that if there is anything more to add that someone will put it on there quick. Already some details have been changed since I first came here, (Please keep it acurate, this is an encyclopedia) Purposely looking for the plot of a book that I know I will neither beable to afford or find to buy for some time. I was looking forward to coming back to see the chapter by chapter guide filled in. I also don't want it condensed loosing detail, that would not be fair. Some of us are not so lucky as to have a copy of this book and why should we be left out. If you don't want to know that plot, don't read the section headed plot. More detail please and make sure its completely acurate. I would like to thank you all for getting the plot on here so quickly. I looked forward to reading it on here all night and i sat up and waited for it so i got to join in with the Harry Potter mania in some way. delightedeyes 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

The mistake currently recorded is non-existant. The Tonks child is on platform 9 3/4 to see someone off - not to attend the school, so the fact that he is 19 is accounted for. B Walker 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Has been corrected now)

I removed that section as original research. Spotting errors is fun but without verifiability we shouldn't be putting lists of supposed errors into the article. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't display the plot!

I deleted the section because it is spoiling it for people who haven't read it. Who ever created that plot section in the first place is a mean person, Because you are spoiling it for everyone who hasn't read it. Don't restore the section, Because it is not fair for those who have not read it. (Woggy 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Please read Wikipedia's content disclaimer and spoiler guideline. Wikipedia is not in the business of "protecting" people from potential spoilers and the guideline expressly forbids the removal of spoiler on the bases of them being spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please reverse Woggy's deletions? The plot belongs there. 68.198.34.245 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't! You are spoiling the book for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Woggy 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

This isn't a book review, it's an encyclopedia page about the book. If you're looking at this page on Wiki, trust me, you must want to know what happens instead of reading the book. So your reasoning doesn't hold water. Plus, look at your talk page, Woggy. You have a tendency to create non-sense articles and edit things that you shouldn't edit. You should be banned by now. 68.198.34.245 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing the plot because it contains spoilers is against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as outlined above and in WP:NOT#CENSORED. Continued removal of the plot section is vandalism and will be treated as such. --Farix (Talk) 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. Thanks TheFarix. Just as I was saying Thanks to Tony, he had reverted back. Blah! 68.198.34.245 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read it already. I should be banned should i? Send a message to the administrator then! Look, I didn't mean to create them non-snense articles and didn't mean to edit stuff that i shouldn't edit. If you think i should be banned, Then you can think that. Why are you nosing about on my talk page in the first place? (Woggy 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm only warning you based on your actions on this article and not elsewhere. If you already have a history of vandalism, then you really need to think through your actions carefully. --Farix (Talk) 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Farix, I was talking to the user above you. Look, I regret the vandalism and nonsense and i do think through my actions. (Woggy 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC))


Yo there's a mistake in the plot outline, u havent said why Harry goes to be killed by Voldermort, and then it says that after he is killed talking to dumbledore he understands why he has to die, But it clearly states if u read the passage that after seeing the memory of snape, Harry realises hat part of Voldermort's soul is in him cause Dumbledore clearly says he harry to die. Ill find the page reference if u want!

Revert edits that removed the plot elements of HP7 book

{{editprotected}}

Done. I've added a "spoiler" tag for now because a number of people do seem to have found the presence of a plot section surprising. We can take it out in a few days time when all the hype dies down. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. That seems best.  :) 68.198.34.245 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
On "vandalism", I've noticed this term applied to Woggy's edits removing the plot summary. To me it's clear that he intends his edits to improve the article, so it isn't correct to call them vandalism. His edits are controversial but acceptable (and may even prevail if he gathers consensus for them). Obviousl like everybody else he should not continue his reverts unreasonably in the face of clear opposition, but it hasn't reached that point yet. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers 2

Regarding "spoilers", maybe we can do something like this:

Seems unlikely this will be approved, but its just a suggestion. Its better than deleting everything and you are not really censoring material as its still there for everyone to see. --Hdt83 Chat 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hideous. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it, it doesn't violate policy. Perhaps you might want to contact an admin about this. Marlith 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It does violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Spoiler, which is "don't hide or officiate plot details." --Farix (Talk) 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus it's absolutely hideous. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot introduction

I've added a very brief plot introduction section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels.

The guideline for this section is as follows:

This should give some idea of the type of novel this article is about, the setting, the period and its place in literature. Consider not giving information that would be thought of as spoilers unless that is necessary per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to have such plot "introductions" incorporated directly into the lead instead of in a separate section. Having separate Lead, Plot introduction, and then Plot summery sections never made much sense to me and is probably a relic of when spoiler tags were pervasive. --Farix (Talk) 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

a list

someone should put a list of the questions answered and the people who died throughout the story. It'd help a lot.70.124.8.59 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO. 17Drew 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
To be more specific, read #4 in User:17Drew's link. --Isis4563(talk) 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Characters Killed in the Book

I added a table of characters killed in the book, and was told that it violated the policy on lists [1]. I don't see the violation? The list of characters killed wasn't a list of FAQ's, and wasn't not a list of Statistics. I modeled the list on this one here: [2]

I checked the policy on when tables are appropriate, and it seemed like an appropriate use of tables. So I thought I'd check with the Talk forum and get clarification on the policy. Any thoughts?Kanamekun 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:17Drew's comments on your talk page pretty much explain why, but I really don't see how it adds or takes away from the article. --isis4563 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A table of those killed in the novel would not be appropriate. This isn't a slasher novel or a whodunnit. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I found the table a convienent way of remembering all of the people who were killed/how/and by whom (200206a)

I think that the table has a mistake: Harry Potter is never killed by Voldemort, and is never stated on the book that he returns thanks to one of the DH, because we know that they are not able to really bring someone back to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.0.136 (talk • contribs)

I think that has now been removed. --isis4563 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Lots of things are useful that we don't include. An individual character that dies has no real world importance. If there are important deaths, they should already be included as prose in the plot summary. 17Drew 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...you do have a point, but what if a reader just wanted to know which characters died? They wouldn't want to have to read through the whole plot summary. :) --isis4563 00:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not what Wikipedia is for. If they want something like that, try a fan site. The fact that something "is useful" does not mean it's encyclopedic. 17Drew 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Death plays a big part in this book, and it is important to know who all dies. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. I don't want this to end up in an edit war, so why don't we vote on it? --isis4563 00:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
codingmasters, you can already tell who dies from the plot summary. 17Drew 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't do votes on Wikipedia and I'm certainly not going to remove it again if other people want it. I don't happen to think it adds to the article but if others do it's not a huge deal. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What about WP:AfD and WP:RfA? Aren't those votes? --Isis4563(talk) 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they're not. --Deskana (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm for keeping it. I think it's important to have some sort of list. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You say an individual character who dies has no "real world importance." And, at the risk of offending English teachers everywhere, I could argue that fiction has no real-world importance at all. So, why not delete all the fiction? Assuming you don't do that, I think the table contributes greatly to the article. Smartyshoe 00:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point, I think. Obviously this book is of very high significance because events surrounding its release have made front page news around the world. Similarly the death of major characters (Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort, the Weasleys, Harry and so on) would have some real world significance because it would have an emotional impact--which could be measured for instance in newspaper column inches. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The overall plot does have real world importance. It contextualizes discussion of how the book was written, critical reaction, etc. 17Drew 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed the list did not include the "old man" that Voldemort killed (who told him that he did not have the Elder Wand). Could it be possibly an old Grindelwald?Kernan rio 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the "old man" Gregorovitch, the wand maker? 66.31.6.101 00:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The one who said he did not ever possess the wand was Grindelwald. This is confirmed later in during the conversation in the chapter "King's Cross".Bryanc 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you measure emotion in newspaper column inches? I think it's important, so people don't have to look through the enitre plot summary to figure out who dies. Smartyshoe 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do they have to figure out who dies anyway? It's not an essential part of the story. Why not have a list of what pages the horcruxes were destroyed in, or one of on what pages Harry and Ron fought, or a list of magical spells used an on what page? I think a plot synopsis is all that is necessary. Iorek85 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just to say that the table of characters killed has disapeared at the moment but in case it comes back I just wanted to say that it said that the Voldermort character was killed by Harry Potter but earlier in the article it said that he was responsible for his own death. Thanks Shelley

In response to Iorek85: Yes, why not have a list of the Horcruxes, and who destroyed them? I completely agree with you on that point. But as I have already said, the deaths also play a major part in the story, and they should be included to. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, a table of Horcruxes is more important to a story than the details of the deaths.

(removed by author, added to article) Bryanc 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dolohov killed Remus Lupin. Aberforth tells Tonks that he last saw Lupin fighting Dolohov. Dolohov shows up later in the novel. Presumably they were dueling to kill. Could a "Probably Dolohov" be added? -TJNerd 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, put the table of Horcruxes into the article. But the table of killed characters is staying, we've been over this.

Wikipedia is not a place for speculation it is a place for fact. Therefore "Probably Dolohov" is not good enough. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The table of deaths should stay. This is not a place for opinion this is a place for fact. There fore a list of all the horcruxs can go in it as well if you like. It could say maybe Dolohov or presumed to have been Dolohov? delightedeyes 03:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a place for fact, not opinion or speculation, as you just pointed out. We are not told exactly who kills Lupin, therefore it is not put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codingmasters (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but IMHO we really don't need this yucky garbage here. A well-written plot summary will do. The Horcruxes are listed within the Horcrux article. Please don't add any more pointless filler to an already over-long article. Thanks. Wikipedian06 03:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is fact that they assume it was Dolohov, then it could go in lol delightedeyes 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an obscene amount of unnecessary, crufty, and redundant material. Wikipedia is neither a fansite nor is it Sparknotes. Ideally, the plot summary should be one of the shortest sections- if anyone ever wants this article to reach good or featured status, the plot summary will have to be shortened significantly, and it shouldn't contain tables.-Wafulz 03:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian06: You cannot just come in here and make your decisions final and binding. You must discuss them, and you have not done that.

Delightedeyes: the answer is no. It is speculation, not fact.

Wafulz: I agree that the plot summary must be condensed, but I have no idea of how to do this.

-007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot let this go. If you want to edit all the information in the table into the plot, fine, then the table can go. But when the plot is finally condensed so this can become an FA, that's not going to work. This table needs to stay, it is an important part of the book, and therefore an important part of the article. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, who dies is not an important part of the book. Even if the plot summary is condensed, any important deaths will still be included. Any unimportant information will be removed or summarized, and there's no reason to use a table to keep information that's not important. 17Drew 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the tables should stay they make the page look better as well as helping to shorten the plot section [delightedeyes] 04:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Now all that needs to happen is to actually shorten the plot section :) -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Weasley did not die. Why is he in the list?

is Harry going 2 b added to the killed list

The cause of the death of Bathilda Bagshot is not unknown, she was killed in order to set the trap with nagini for harry's return to godric's hollow.

Trivia Section

Once it's opened for editing again we should release a triva section. One thing that could be added is the fact that the book came out ten years after the release of the first.

WP:TRIV 17Drew 23:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The "this book came out X years after the first" thing is a very good reason not to have a trivia section. Ever. Crap should be kept out of articles, not given a little place of its own. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite against it, I see. I do not think articles need trivia sections. Articles that do have trivia sections have a tag that says to merge the information. --Isis4563(talk) 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Another trivia thing is that in the Canadian version (with this cover: http://blog.pennlive.com/poprocks/medium_pottercover3.jpg), the book is the exact same number of pages as the edition of the Half Blood Prince in the same format (http://onlineshop.rnib.org.uk/local_images/publications/zoomimages/TC21124B.jpg). 607 pages
And how is that not totally irrelevant? SURELY we should not be advocating the creation of a Trivia section? If it's notable, put it in the article. If it isn't, don't bother with it. --Dave. 10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)