Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 23

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 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 →

Contents

Plot

The book has been released now, we should add the plot

There already is plot. As a matter of fact its a bit too large. — Shinhan < talk > 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, what did you expect? It's a 756-page-long book. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How about something like this to make it more manageable? --Ayleuss 14:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, the plot length is comparable with that of the other books (see The Half Blood Prince). I'm not sure sectioning is required, but it could do with some tidying up and condensing a bit. -Jw2034 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

At 1500 words or so it's not the worst I've seen, but it is one-and-a-half times the size of our plot summary for War and Peace, the Penguin Classics English translation of which runs to over 1400 pages. It does take some time and thought to produce a concise and readable plot summary of a novel, and it would not be reasonable to expect that to happen in the middle of the excitement over release when everybody wants to add in a mention of his favorite scene. --14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
So, improve the plot summary for War & Peace... Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

true, it is too long, but the difficulty of explaining War and Peace in a short plot summary probably limits that one! I'm sure it can be cut down to a length about the same as with that of the previous book. -Jw2034 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a bit longer than the previous book, because there are more revelations, important deaths, and tasks the characters complete. When I read through the plot summary, its pretty condensed and there's not a whole lot of fluff. I actually think its about as good as you can expect from this book.MSauce 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot is overly long. It needs a complete rewrite, and to be reduced to at least half its current size. Sk2k52 13:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about moving the plot to a separate plot page and reserving the article about the novel for facts, figures, and criticism? Superjaberwocky 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think so. Read #2 here. --Isis4563(talk) 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trim down the plot. Part of that is to protect Wikipedia from legal issues, and part of it is because long plots don't belong in encyclopedias. It's truly sad to see how much effort goes into pages like this, with people fighting to have whole chapters quoted, while pages for classics like "War and Peace" and "Macbeth" see far less attention. 69.12.143.197 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not sad at all. It is a very good thing that someone has written a book which has encouraged so many people to read it. Rave reviews from teachers trying to encourage reading bears this out. What exactly is the point of a book which 'experts' consider to be high quality, but relatively few people are interested in reading? Thi is about the art of tale telling and keeping the attention of the readers. I absoulutely do not see why long plots do not belong in encyclopedias. Why on earth not? As to legal issues, the issue seems to be pretty much whether a description is likely to harm the copyright holders ability to make money from their book, and I'm not convinced even a rather long description is going to do this. Are you seriously suggesting people will read this article instead of the book itself? Sandpiper 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Plot details have no real world importance. If people want in-universe details about the world of the Harry Potter books, they should go to a fansite (it's not as if there's a paucity of them). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that discusses topics that affect the real world, not fictitious ones. 17Drew 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you for real? Of course there should be a part Of Wikipedia for fictional work because some work are very important to people. Denisa hime 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a fansite. If people want minor details about the plot, they should go to a fansite. "It is important to me" doesn't mean that something warrants mention; if there's no other reason to have it in the article, then it's fancruft. Only major plot points should be included so that there is context for discussion of real world aspects of the book. 17Drew 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause they should be here. over and over again we have the choice look at it or don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to look at it but if it was not there it would be denying people the choice. Who decides what is a minor detail? Delighted eyes 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

wait a minute...

i don't know if i missed something or what but who's the muggle who performs magic late in life under desperate circumstances?i just finished the book and i didnt see anything about who the muggle is that performs magic later in life.67.185.182.69 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Daniels? He's been called far worse things than "muggle"! --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I missed this too!!!!! LizzieHarrison 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed the omission of this plot detail. I recall Rowling saying that there was a reason Sirius had to die, as well, which I don't recall reading. PhilShady 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
He died so that Harry would know the truth about his mother and Dumbledore through the Pensieve. -71.87.110.208 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was Ted Tonks. 76.110.151.156 02:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Tonks is a wizard. PhilShady 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought he was supposed to be a muggle. 76.110.151.156 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ted Tonks is a Muggle- his wife, Andromeda Tonks (nee Black), was removed from the Black family tree for marrying a Muggle. Cdlw93 04:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Ted was a Muggle-born wizard, which in the eyes of the pure-blooded Black family, was just as bad as a Muggle. PhilShady 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a reference to Ariana Dumbledore-- she never went to school, but relatively late in life she tried to use it in the duel with her brothers and grindlewald.75.53.126.56 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ariana wasn't a Muggle. Her parents were a witch and wizard and she performed magic at a young age (6 years old?). --Dave. 10:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling never said it would be a Muggle that would perform magic, but "there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life." I think it's more likely that this was Merope Gaunt, who her father identified as a Squib. After Marvolo and Morfin were carted off to Azkaban, she was able to brew the love potion that bewitched Tom Riddle Sr. Stile4aly 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
But that's Half-Blood Prince. I think she said it was going to be someone in Deathly Hallows. Is it literal? I think it's magical the kindness Dudley shows to Harry in DH, but that might really be stretching it. Perhaps its Petunia's attempt to get into Hogwarts after she's eleven? Valley2city 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be Ariana. She never said it would be a character we knew. She was probably feeding up information that we could never interpret to make guessers stop guessing correctly and look at all the new useless hints.

It's Hagrid, doing his Reparo to the flying motorcycle. It didn't work right, but it was magic, and not something Hagrid could previously do.

it wasnt late in hagrids life though, as for all we know, hagrid is still alive at the time of the epilogue --71.61.81.172 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hasnt Hagrid been doing magic since Book 1? The pig tail? --Ayleuss 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might just have been cut out. I think we were all meant take all her hints with a grain of salt, after all, she changed "Scar" didn't she?

Difference between US and UK editions

Why one has 700 over pages and the other has only 600 over pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.82.51 (talk)

A difference in font size I would guess. 70.253.203.156 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
After making a quick comparison, I would say that the number of lines per page is lower in the US edition. There's extra space at the header and footer of each page; the chapter title and page number are much smaller in the UK edition.- Zero1328 Talk? 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a comparison...get a picture of a us Edition page and a uk edition page..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.82.51 (talk)

If you mean in the article, I don't feel it's very significant. If you just want to see it for yourself, you can very easily find it like I did. Actually, whether or not one may think it's significant, I believe it would be illegal to give a picture of the actual insides of the book. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Different font size, as well as the addition of images to the US version. All of the other books are like this as well. Daggoth | Talk 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(a)What words are different?..., (b)what pages are different?... between the Bloomsbury British editions and the USA edition?... Also it appears there are a British children's edition http://www.bloomsbury.com/BookCatalog/subject.asp?Category%5Fid=885 and a British adult edition http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/BookCatalog/subject.asp?Category%5Fid=592 dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Same text, different cover, so as to have more adult street cred Sandpiper 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The US version has images. There should be no word changes. After the first change that pushes text from one page to the next, they're all different. The font size is different. Combined it's a difference of over 100 pages!--WPaulB 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoof Cover Appears in the Article

The book cover posted is a spoof. See this link from uncyclopedia.org : http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28Books%29 look half way down the page... the book cover appears here. It had been at this spoof website for three months or so before Deathly Hallows was released.

Whoever has write access to the real wikipedia article should update to the real image of the book cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.94.204 (talk • contribs)

Very cute, although it's pretty lame to try and conceal a link to spoilers to someone who is looking at this particular page at this particular time. And new topics of discussion go to the bottom of page, I don't feel emboldened to remove a discussion entry outright, but I will move it to the proper location. Bryanc 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bryanc, I don't think he/she was trying to send readers to a page with spoilers. If they were genuinly concerned about the cover image, that is the real cover. I think the uncyclopedia page just had that caption because the ring in the background bears striking resemblance to the fictional stargate. :) --Isis4563(talk) 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions, if so my apologies anony. The cover art on WP is genuine, and was released officially by the publishers several months before the book release. Bryanc 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the cover of the US edition. Is there some reason for this? Tvoz |talk 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

...It's a British book, possibly? --Jamdav86 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the US publisher changed the books. Changed from British English to American English. Because we have to coddle our children now. We cannot allow them to gain a larger vocabulary by reading words they may not know. We cannot discuss the books with our children to help them learn new words they do not know. We have to Americanize the cover art. We have to make every single book into a movie for the people who are too lazy to use their imagination. We have to release a Harry Potter movie a week and a half before the final book releases so that there will be a marketing blitz. -- 24.19.205.83 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Other than the change from "sorcerer' to "philosopher" the differences between the editions are trivial. Anony is obviously ranting, but his/her concerns are unfounded. You are more than welcome to purchase the British editions and share them with your kids. If anything the popular movies will drive people to read, not shun them away from reading. And the neither the book nor film needed a "marketing blitz".
Trivial but not non-existant. I still feel that the books should be left as written, not edited for American spelling/grammar/word usage. But this isn't a forum for expressing opinions about such things, so I'll stop my ranting now. BTW, I just did cave in and buy the books (all 7) to read. It just irritates me that so many books get made into movies (which often leave out massive parts of the plot and/or explanations of the ideas in the plot). As far as marketing blitz, well...I said I'd stop ranting :) -- 24.19.205.83 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it was 4AM for me, I had spent about 12 hours straight reading and I didn't express that too well. I didn't mean the UK cover should be replaced by the US cover - perish the thought - I meant that perhaps the US cover could be included down low on the page somewhere where we deign to mention that there is a US edition which will likely sell one or two copies. US fans might be pleased to recognize the book as they know it. Relax, friends, I for one wouldn't have changed the title of the first book for the US audience, and there's still a great deal of British English in the US text - like "take in turns" where we would say "take turns", for example. We know that it's a British book. We love that it's a British book. But the American edition's cover might be a nice addition. By the way, some of my best friends on Wikipedia are British - shall I have them pop over here and vouch for me?Tvoz |talk 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
People fight over this: the final difficulty is that there will be dozens, maybe hundreds of covers by the time all language editions have been published. But there is also a faction which believes using multiple cover pictures is not 'fair use' under copyright laws. I'm not entirely convinced, but there it is. Sandpiper 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's the point that this is the "English" Wikipedia, and we're showing only *one* of the two major book covers for that language...

I don't know what the result of previous debates was (as I'm sure there were), but I thought I'd nevertheless include this point in this conversation. -Mysterius 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is a book by a British author definitely affords the British cover the spot at the top... but it is the English Wikipedia, and not to include the other English language edition's cover anywhere in the article seems rather ridiculous. It's not a matter of fair-use, because it's not a slippery slope. We don't need every language's cover in the article, leave the Greek cover to the Greek Wikipedia, but there's no reason an English cover can't be in the English Wikipedia. SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the British Adult version of the cover ought to be in here in that case. It is the one I bought here in Canada. WillTheHedgehog 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the marriges mentioned?

I got a plot, which might be fake the epilogue mentioned about 4 years after the battle of hogwarts....it's fake, isn't it?

The epilogue is a scene nineteen years after the end of the story. Bryanc 02:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that all she gives for the futures of all the characters folks? Is there not anything said about any of the other weasleys or any of the other characters effected like Luna or the teachers. I would really like to know what happens to the surviving twin as if I have read one dies. I would also like to know what has happened to Nynthadora Tonks and Lupin as all I know is that she has obviously died as she has an orphan son. Any more questions to be left answered please I am getting annoyed with the vandalism! Keep the plot as good as possible so we can all join in celebrating the end of an era. Your choice, don't read it if you don't want to!!! delightedeyes 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the Epilogue does not answer many questions at all. It doesn't tell us when Harry and Ginny get married, if at all. It doesn't tell us who took Lupin & Tonks child in. It is incomplete, and unsatisfying. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use the word "marriage" when summarizing the epilogue. The book never refers to it, and we should not assume that all couples are married. Wikipedian06 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am gutted. What a way to leave it. It does seem a little pompus to assume that you have to be married to have children. But if the rest of them are married with children than I guess it can be assumed they are unless they are rebels delightedeyes 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<EDIT by Yixin: I'm pretty sure Harry and Ginny take Teddy Tonks in since Harry is Ted's Godfather>

We do not know this for sure, and therefore it is not put in. For all we know, Andromeda, Teddy's grandmother, could of taken him in. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 04:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only do we not know it for sure, we have slight evidence to the contrary in that Teddy comes to dinner several times a week. If he'd grown up there surely "why don't we just invite him to live with us" would read "move back in" or similar.
My money's on him being raised by his grandmother, but that is speculation which doesn't belong in the article.Claudia 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Little James says "Our Teddy! Teddy Lupin!" in the epilogue, so it's probably safe to assume that whoever raised little James also raised Teddy Lupin. --711groove 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it figured out why Dumbledore has left Ron the thing for the light and Hermione the childrens book in Runes or is it just a joke about their future. Are they any use to them in the rest of the book apart from the sword and snitch to Harry? delightedeyes 04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC). Yes, it is. --Dave. 10:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those things are explained in the book. The Deluminator was for Ron to return as Dumbledore asumed he would vacate. Hermione was meant to see the symbol and put it together with the other times she's seen the symbol. She was the only one of the three to take Runes and some kind of Symbology course.--WPaulB 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I join those who believed the Epilogue to be unsatisfying and inappropriate. When I saw it in earlier online sites, assumed it to be a fake. Would have preferred the story to have simply ended after the battle and victory over Voldermort and left the "future" to itself. Rather seemed childish to have all the happily-ever-afters to end with high school sweethearts. -- dmf 14:30 EDT 22 July 2007

Yeah, the epilogue was pretty disappointing, much like the rest of the book. But surely it's correct to assume that the main characters who have children are married? One would consider the heroes to have some degree of morality, after all. So they should use the term "marriage."

This is completely absurd - I can only hope you're all joking. In fact, the Epilogue refers to "the five Potters" so yeah, maybe they're not married, and Ginny took on the name Potter for old times' sake. Sometimes it's a duck, folks - they're married. (And Victoire is Fleur and Bill's daughter, but I see all reference to her has been extinguished, so never mind.) Tvoz |talk 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not completely absurd. If it is so bloody obvious that the fact that two people have children together implies that they are married, then why even insist on mentioning it in the article?? Everyone who reads a Wiki article that says "X and Y have two children" will automatically conclude that they are married, if that's how they understand a statement like that. On the other hand, other people might not come to the same conclusion from the statement "X and Y have two children" (which is closer to what is actually in the book). Using the word marriage in the article draws conclusions for the reader; simply stating what the text says allows the readers of Wikipedia to draw their own conclusions. The case is more clear-cut for Harry/Ginny (i.e., the "five Potters" reference) than from Ron/Hermione case, although even for Harry/Ginny there are alternate ways to read the chapter. Why not just say it all in a very neutral way, reporting what the book says... something like: "The epilogue describes the family of five Potters -- Harry, Ginny, and three children [X, Y, and Z]. Ron and Hermione also have two children [A and B]...." etc. If a person reading such a statement wants to draw conclusions, he/she is free to do so, just as a reader of the book is similarly free to draw conclusions. But such a statement would clearly report what the book says, rather than making assumptions (which may be likely, but are not explicitly stated). 24.147.123.99 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I am quite indifferent to he nature of the protagonists' unions and was speaking of the epilogue in general. I suppose we could assume, however, that none of the referenced couples was married in the local Anglican Church. :-) dmf 15:30 EDT 22 July 2007

I think that the assumption with Teddy is that Harry and Ginny raised him. Using Sirius as an example, I think in the wizard world that if parents are somehow unable to raise their children, it falls to the godparents to raise them. Valley2city 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would never say that I actually knew what I was talking about, but when I read it, I did assume that Harry and Ginny took Teddy in and raised him, as was Harry's responsibility as godfather. Since Wizards come of age when they're seventeen and the epilogue takes place 19 years later, Teddy has probably moved out and has been operating on his own for 1-2 years at that point. Considering this, its not that unlikely that he only makes family dinner 3 times a week.

Can we at the least give the IMPRESSION that they are married? Like what the book implied. That way...we can really be well faithful to what the text says. If the book can give us the impression, the readers of this summary should at least be able to pick up the meaning of what has happened to them. 219.74.72.11 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Ray

Well Harry's family is reffered to as "the Potters" so he and Ginny must be married.Denisa hime 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they are married for the sole reason that every character in the Harry Potter Universe that got children end up being married beforehand. Just look at Lupin and Tonks, James and Lily Potter, Bill and Fleur, etc. Don't forget that marriage seems to be an important part of the courtship. They are binded by a magical contract. WillTheHedgehog 15:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to change the subject of this thread but could somebody please tell me what Ron uses his deluminator for in the book or is it some sort of joke about getting Hermione .....? I think they are probably married as i don't think she would want to promote living in sin although maybe this is why she does not specifically say. Tt is to keep every body happy and to show the change in times and be modern (obviously the way hermione is she wud want to be married but Harry n Ginny are cool). But if it says the 5 Potters at the station then it must be that Ginny is now a Potter unless they are now Weasley-Potters or Potter- Weasleys due to Their fame they might want to have both so they can carry on working in the media? At the end of the film Harry n the Order, you get to catch a glimpse of what looks like a wounded rabbit when voldamort cucro's harry and goes into him. I wondered what the hell it was as it is just an unexplaned glimpse but I did have a good guess. Delighted eyes 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Eyes and Late-Life Magic

I read the book today, and I still have no clue why Rowling said that Harry's eyes resembling his mother is so very, crucially imporant. Can someone fill me in? Also, Rowling said that a non magical character will peform magic late in life, under desperate circumstances. Who did this? I recall nothing.Piggins 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. Go to a fan-forum. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is relevant. It is answering the information put up on the page when it was still pre-release. This may be in the article, but Harry's eyes = his mother's is important because Snape loved Lily; his eyes remind him of her. The character was someone "thought" to be a Muggle/Squib. This was Dumbledore's sister Ariana Dumbledore. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And i believe that Harry having Lilly's eyes is the one thing that helped Snape go on and try to play spy/protect Harry. Denisa hime 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the "Muggle driving test" is probably a reference to Rupert Grint (the actor who plays Ron in the films), as he was in a TV programme in 2006 called 'driving lessons' which JK ROwling was known to have enjoyed.202.83.35.62 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

US child Edition

On the US child edition, where did that take place in the actual story?

Once again, this is not the place to discuss this. Go to a fan forum. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This actually is NOT relevant. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • there isn't a children's edition in the US, you meant to say UK.
  • Lestrange's Vault
  • I expect things will calm down here when the fan sites are available again... they are all currently frozen.

I think he meant the normal US edition ( as in, the non-deluxe edition), and I was wondering where that was in the story as well. Leprechaun Gamer 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The so called colosseum pictured in the US edition is actually the Great Hall at the time of the final showdown, the onlookers are the Death Eaters and Hogwartians/Order members while Voldemort and Harry are looking up while the Elder Wand flies through the air. -MightyNe 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deep Discount doesn't carry the book anymore...

Head on over to Deep Discount, and enter a search for either 'Harry Potter' or 'Deathly Hallows'. You'll simply be redirected to the front page.

And no matter how hard you search through their list of new releases... you'll find NO Harry Potter books at all.

Gee-wizards Batman! I wonder why they don't carry Harry Potter books anymore.T ConX 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They were sued for releasing the book early. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux list and casualty list

  • At 05:59, 22 July 2007 User:17Drew deleted these 2 lists "removed listcruft, important information should already be in the plot summary or the Horcrux article". But to many readers the information in these lists is useful important information and not cruft, and putting it in a list means that readers do not have to ferret for it through a mass of general information. Anthony Appleyard 06:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Scrimgeour's death can be placed at the time of Fleur and Bill's wedding. Patronus messages are pretty much instant in reaching their recipients, as demonstrated by the message sent to them after the wedding. 202.131.163.123 06:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The plot needs to be condensed. When this happens, not all of the deaths will be listed (for example, Colin Creevy's death is so minor, and gets so little time, that it is not worth putting into the plot. Therefore, we have a list for people who were killed. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They missed bathilda bagshot as well I think. Reincaster 06:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the two lists, I think WP:TRIVIA applies here as both lists are mostly trivia. I also think the lists are listcruft that don't add anything to the article, the Horcrux list is already covered by the article on Horcruxes and the casualty list is not a legitimate encyclopedic topic in itself. --Farix (Talk) 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge and agree with the concept of listcruft, but I don't think these two lists are crufty. In fact, they are concise, legible summaries of the information a large number of people consulting the article will be looking for. The hunt for horcruxes is the core of the plot of the book. I would be willing to see it moved to the Horcrux article, as that seems to fit the guideline better, but not removed entirely. Claudia 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just had to reinstate these 2 lists AGAIN. They seem to be forever in and out like owls at the Hogwarts owlery. Anthony Appleyard 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:USEFUL. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and all information should have real world importance. If people are coming here to find out about unimportant plot points, they're at the wrong place. If any or all of the deaths are important, they should already be in the plot summary. And there's no reason to have a list of Horcruxes, when the Horcrux article already has that. 17Drew 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The Horcrux article has a pile of dense text. The table pulls out the essential information. Perhaps it should be in the Horcrux article instead of here, but it out to exist. These aren't unimportant plot points: the identification of the Horcruxes and their elimination is the main thrust of the book. Claudia 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Do we have a list of every character who was beheaded in Highlander (film) and by whom? Of course not. Such detail is trivial and not encyclopedic, and the same goes for these listcruft. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I really don't know enough about Highlander to address the analogy. I'm not talking about the death list, though, I'm talking about the Horcrux list. This is not trivia, it is the spine of the plot. Claudia 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Horcrux serves the purpose in a much better fashion. --Farix (Talk) 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(vote removed by 007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters)

Wikipedia not a place for Listcruft. All Horcruxes already listed in Horcrux. Important deaths should be covered in the plot summary and minor deaths shouldn't be in a separate list. Sounds like the only point of this is for easy spoiling. Wikipedian06 06:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HANG ON A MINUTE! You can't just hold your own vote like this. The only votes on this website are for things like AfD's. And furthermore, you cannot just put other users names into the vote! Get lost, seriously. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's far from unknown for talk pages to hold polls like this although maybe he should not have filled in your name for you. Additionally saying things like "Get lost" is uncivil so please refrain. Thank you :) --Meridius 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely needs to be removed. It's an awkward and unnecessary list, and it violates the manual of style. Right now, the plot summary for this book is longer than the plot summary for Lord of the Rings.-Wafulz 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
'Longer than the summary for LotR' may in fact be appropriate. Tolkien wrote far more setting, far less plot than JKR has in her series. The experience of reading Deathly Hallows for me was watching a bunch of tapestry threads each get neatly tucked away. Whether the right stuff is summarized is a more useful question than how many words it takes to get there.Claudia 15:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
LotR spans three books, dozens of battles and characters, and several separate plots lines, and still manages to be more brief than this one single book. Not every single piece of plot needs to be detailed here, and not every step taken in the book needs its own sentence. Why can this:
With the Dursleys escorted to safety by a pair of wizards, the Order of the Phoenix arrives to sneak Harry out of his house. Despite an attempted decoy involving six younger members of the Order of the Phoenix taking Polyjuice Potion to make themselves look like Harry, the real Harry, accompanied by Hagrid, is correctly identified by his "trademark" disarming spell and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry's wand, surprisingly, still reacts with Voldemort's new, borrowed wand, destroying it. Hedwig, Harry's owl, is killed by a stray Killing Curse. After narrowly escaping, Harry and the Order eventually reach the Weasley residence, The Burrow. George Weasley has lost an ear to Snape, and Alastor Moody had been killed by Voldemort himself. Reacting to Voldemort's anger at his escape, Harry has a vision, now common again, of the Dark Lord questioning Ollivander the wand maker why his borrowed wand still reacted with Harry's.
Not be shortened to this?
With the Dursleys escorted to safety by a pair of wizards, the Order of the Phoenix arrives to sneak Harry out of his house. Despite an attempted decoy, the real Harry, accompanied by Hagrid, is correctly identified and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry's wand reacts with Voldemort's new wand, destroying it. Hedwig is killed by a stray Killing Curse. After escaping, Harry and the Order reach the Weasley residence. George Weasley has lost an ear to Snape, and Alastor Moody had been killed by Voldemort. Harry has a vision of the Dark Lord questioning Ollivander on why his borrowed wand still reacted with Harry's.
This is just one example of how people document every breath a character takes as its own sentence. There's a lot of needless detail. Oh well, odds are it will only continue to grow as long as this article is linked on the main page. -Wafulz 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
By all means tighten the prose. But comparing it to another series (/book) doesn't really make sense. Tolkien wasn't setting up puzzles early on to be resolved later the way Rowling was: this book has a lot of answers. Claudia 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This should stay !!!!! 83.104.225.189 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We won't be holding a stupid vote. We won't be having those lists without consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The box format takes up too much room and stalls the article. A simple written list would suffice for the Horcruxes and as for the casualties, they should be woven into the text. Sophia 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There have been way too many edit wars on the cause of Voldemort's death anyway. Best just to integrate the deaths into the summary. CarlosTheDwarf 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Horcrux list is at Horcrux, character death details are given in the plot. Remove the lists. chgallen 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pius Thicknesse was forgotten also.

About Pius it is not revealed if he dies or not.The lists were very helpful. Denisa hime 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Having a page about what the weather in London will be today would also be helpful. But Wikipedia is not a weather service. Nor is it a Harry Potter fansite. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and all information must have real world notability. If a death is important, it should already be in the plot summary. If it's not important, then it's trivia and doesn't belong in the article. 17Drew 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you try and digest that monster of a plot description.The lists were helpful because they cleary showed who died, where.How can it be consensus that the list is inappropriate? I can't see this as there are divided oppinions Denisa hime 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If the plot summary is too long, then you can help by condensing it like the {{plot}} tag suggests. Considering most of the support has been "it's useful" comments and nobody has shown why the list has any out-of-universe importance, there seems to be consensus that the list is inappropriate. 17Drew 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not in my intention to offend but do you know what consensus means?The fact that there seems to be about 50-50% for/against the list does not mean it's consensus.
See Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus refers to actual discussion rather that repeated comments that "it's useful", which essentially amount to votes to keep it in and don't contribute to discussion. 17Drew 04:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have already read [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensusso i know what that means.That as long as somebody makes a post and every one leaves it there, it will be considered as Consensus but this is more of an edit-war now.

Don't say "it's useful".It's as useful as that enormous plot that if you try to make it smaller, somebody will appear and add the info.And when you take down the lists, somebody puts them back up, and you take them down again.Where does it end? Denisa hime 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Re "We won't be holding a stupid vote. We won't be having those lists without consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)": Or, we won't be deleting those lists without consensus. Anthony Appleyard 04:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As regards "out-of-universe importance", if so, we may as well delete most Category:Star Trek and Category:Star Wars pages, because there is no such thing as interstellar travel and that sort of fictional information is not useful in the real world. If it is of no interest to you (= any one reader), it may be of interest to other readers, so skip past it and keep off the delete key. Anthony Appleyard 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. The "universe" reference is to the fancruft that is constructed external to the books in the fan world. At the moment some of us are fighting a losing battle to keep strictly to what is in the books. It is the only way to keep trivia and inaccuracies out. One person's assumption from the text is another's error. Sophia 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
All the information in the tables is accurate and contains to canon.Denisa hime 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • All the information in these two tables IS in the books. None of it is from Harry Potter fan fiction or from fan forum speculations. Anthony Appleyard 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And you are in breach of 3RR [1] [2] [3] [4] so I would think twice about edit warring over this. I'm not going to file this as I hope we can all be reasonable but if you are having to restore these lists so many times yourself you must question how many of us agree with you. The lists take up a lot of space and stall the article. Sophia 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If the Star Trek episodes have no mention by secondary sources, they should be tagged with {{in-universe}} or nominated for deletion (be wary of WP:POINT if you do the latter). Nobody has shown why any deaths not important enough to be in the plot summary have any out-of-universe importance. Until that happens, there's no reason for the list to be there. 17Drew 05:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to address the issue of what the list can be, rather than what it is. If it contains speculation, as Sophia seems to be claiming, then that speculation should be removed from the list, but whether the list should be present or not is a separate issue. At present the first is 21 lines, hardly a huge disruption, and the second is either 8 or 5 (in flux). I personally believe that the Horcrux list belongs at Horcrux—the list is not relevant only to Deathly Hallows, but to the series as a whole, even if most Horcruxes are met in this book. In contrast, "characters killed in Deathly Hallows" is clearly relevant to this book, and belongs nowhere else (except perhaps on a page of its own, or of course nowhere). It seems clear to me from the excessive reverts on the issue that no consensus has been reached in either direction. I suggest that the list remain in the article, where it is now, while it is under discussion; this has the added benefit that we can continue to improve it. Remember the distinction between "useful" and "important"; see WP:USEFUL.Tesseran 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, OK, someone has deleted these 2 lists again, and I will leave them deleted. I have tidied page Horcrux to make it more readable. I put this short note in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#The Battle of Hogwarts:
    The book says that 54 died opposing Voldemort in this battle: "Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Colin Creevey, and fifty others".
    06:43, 23 July 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard
    [edit conflict] I would disagree on keeping it in while it's usefulness has not been established and it's still being discussed. Doing so simply means that it'll grow even larger than it last was, which is already bigger than two of the second-level prose sections. It's easy enough to discuss the issue without the lists currently being in the article by using the oldid. 17Drew 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there's a reason to keep the lists of horcruxes and deaths. If they are to be included after a consensus has been reached, they should be separated into 2 different List articles which would decrease the amount of space that both tables take up and streamline the article. This way, the embedded details can be accessed via the ignorant browser who only came to read the article about the book itself and not the deaths which have been documented therein. ~ DarkS Umbreon 11:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the list of characters to be important.The one dealing with Horcruxes could be sent to the page that deals with them. Denisa hime 11:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it important? If you are going to state it's important at least point to reasons why they should remain in the main article when a separate list article linked to in the main article will suffice. ~ DarkS Umbreon 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the rational about having those two lists in this article, when the Horcruxes are already convered in extend in their own article, as well as the death's are accounted for in the HP timeline article? 62.134.232.171 13:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The timeline article isn't exactly directly related to the deaths, so people searching for the list of deaths (that might be a good summary that people might be searching for, say, a year from now) might not easily find that. With that rationale, the list can stay here. But the horcrux list seems pointless redundancy to me. --Ayleuss 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the horcrux section is redundant. The death list is not necessary such that its separation into a separate list article will preserve the unbeknownst reader's enjoyment of the book. If someone wants to read who dies, they can easily click a link that says List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. ~ DarkS Umbreon 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Which has been AfDed. Until someone establishes why the list of deaths has out-of-universe importance, it does not belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Financials

There are a number of things that should be considered with the final sentence of the 'After Deathly Hallows' section. Firstly, it doesn't state a currency, and since Bloomsbury is registered on the London exchange, the value should be in GBP, not USD (of which I assume the writer has converted to). Also note that the USD value would only be valid if it were calculated at the time the decreased value of Bloomsbury was measured, and not any other time. Secondly, and I am not suggesting to rewrite history, the article that is cited is dated over 5 weeks before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Given this, it is not even appropriate for it to appear in a section titled 'After Deathly Hallows'. A more up-to-date article would be more appropriate, but this will not be viable until some time has passed since the release of the 7th Harry Potter book. I'll add that this footnote-like sentence would be better off in an article about Bloomsbury, be that an article on it's stock market history (which is rather interesting), or an article on the effects of Harry Potter on the publisher. Psydexzerity 06:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

second battle of hogwarts

While I am all for linking to the separate article in an attempt to condense the plot, you cannot remove everything. Write a condensed version of the battle. Include only the important points, and important deaths. Try and get it down to 2 paragraphs, three max, and that should be good enough to leave, and remove the rest. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The book calls it "The Battle of Hogwarts" so to have "second" in front of it is incorrect. Sophia 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that point, but I think it's too late to do anything about it now that it is being called that all over wikipedia. However, it can be called that if you assume the first battle to be when Malfoy let the death eaters into hogwarts. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the world and we should not fall into the trap of creating fiction - if this article is to stand a chance the only thing to do is stick faithfully to what is actually is in the book. Sophia 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I know what you're asking, and it's an awful lot. It means changing and splitting a lot of articles, because we'll need a new name for current first battle of hogwarts, we'll need to edit everything that references to it, and change a lot of work that's gone into the 2nd battle of hogwarts over the past 36 hours. I just don't see it happening, but if you feel very strongly about it, take it up on the wikiproject talk page. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
First I'm quite happy to do a lot of the work - second I shall give up now if the criteria we edit by is how bothered we are with accuracy. Other articles in wikipedia are pinned to the wall with preciseness. The only way to save an article such as this is to rigorously stick to canon. Sophia 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I will support you in your endeavours. I agree with you that articles should stick to the strongest fact. The only way, however, that you will effect a site-wide change, is through the wikiproject. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 09:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the list of them it's not obvious which one would be appropriate - which do you suggest? Sophia 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Novels does jack all. The one you need is the Harry Potter WikiProject. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Sophia on this one - the book specifically calls it The Battle Of Hogwarts - therefore it is obvious that Rowling doesn't consider it the second battle. We should go with the Chapter name (cannon) and not another title (which is I believe more of a continuity issue - note that it is not Wikipedias job to fix continuity issues between books only to create an article based on said books. A note in the first sentence that it can also be considered the second battle would, IMO suffice. 03swalker 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't have an official name for the events in HBP that comprise the chapters "The Lightning-Struck Tower" and "The Flight of the Prince". Before the release of Deathly Hallows, this was widely known as the Battle of Hogwarts. The fact that there is now a second one that has seemed to usurp the name, I think we should go with First Battle of Hogwarts and Second Battle of Hogwarts. This thread is getting very indented...
I think that the DH's Battle of Hogwarts is likely to be known as such in the wizarding world as it is the most important battle in all the books. WillTheHedgehog 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Sabbath contoversy

I put this back in (with an extra sentence on legal ramifications), since what I could find in the discussion was inconclusive. Thoughts?—Wasabe3543 07:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It definitely needed to be included. It is good and informative, thanks for contributing. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be cleaned up and clarified, as it makes it seem like the Rabbi and others who deem the release controversial are critical of the publishers with their choice of release date, when in fact, it seems they are irritated with bookstores and other Israeli avenues that sell the book in violation of their Jewish law.

The Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and ends on Saturday at sundown + one hour. One of the many prohibitions on the Sabbath is a prohibition of carrying (things) from private to public. Many Jews do not carry (things) on Sabbath, and they do not carry money or conduct business. I am new in Wikipedia world but I am sure there is a Wikipedia link that would be helpful here. I don't know how link to it. The Harry Potter Book release was to be on Friday night/Saturday morning at 2am Israel time, definately during the Sabbath. The problem: stores conducting business on Sabbath (big bad prohibition). The problem is not: stores selling Harry Potter books.(no big bad prohibition). Voshna 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

They do carry clothes so how can they not carry things? What does that even mean not carrying things? I am sorry if I may offend you, I'm just really unaware of Israeli laws. WillTheHedgehog 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SPELLING

Minor point -- in a post in an earlier archive, someone says 'artefact' should be spelled 'artifact'. This is incorrect. 'Artefact' is the British English spelling and probably at least as popular as 'artifact' in the US. Dougweller 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in wikipedia guidelines I read that if the subject is British, British spelling should be used. If it is American, American spelling should be used. If it discusses a general topic neither British nor American, either may be used (As long as it's consistent), so I think British spelling should be used in this article. :) --isis4563 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, the mentioned article may be found here. Dust Filter 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Both spellings are in use in the UK, but the "e" spelling could be seen as more correct to its latin roots. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my edition the word 'succeeded' is misspelled. Unless the Brits like it with only one 'c'. ActuarialFellow 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Must have been a typo 172.209.180.106 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a discussion about artifact/artefact on the talk page of Wizarding world some time back. The "artifact" spelling is something like 30/1 dominant in the U.S. (see Google or even search en.wikipedia), whereas the "artefact" spelling leads only by something like 2/1 in U.K. usage.

Someone argued that since Rowling is British, the #1 UK spelling should be used. But that's actually irrelevant. The real inquiry should be, which spelling did Rowling actually use in the original UK edition? No one answered that. But some time later, the "artefact" spelling disappeared from the article. Kestenbaum 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An article about mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed

Hi, I am looking for an article that will contain a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed. As for example, I remember reading in the part 1 or part 2 about Dudly throwing away a Playstation. If I know it correctly, the 'Deathly Hallows' is supposed to happen in 1996, so in 'Chamber of Secrets', we cannot expect Dudley to use a play station, which shipped first in 1994. I'm sure there are minor mistakes like this. Please give a link, or create the article

Perhaps you mean this link? [[5]]Kanamekun 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

US page count

According to Barnes and Noble, the US edition has 784 pages. The article says 759. --Isis4563(talk) 15:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The US hardcover edition here in my hand has 759 pages. android79 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mine has 759 as well. Miles Blues 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Barnes and Noble has it wrong, mine also has 759 pages. Bryanc 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright :) thanks. --Isis4563(talk) 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually... that's 759 *numbered* pages... taking into account the table of contents and other such unnumbered pages, there are indeed 784 physical pages in the book. Bryanc 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I figured that was why, because Books-a-million and wal-mart also say 784. I guess 759 should be the number put in the article, though. :) --Isis4563(talk) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even counting all the pages (numbered and otherwise, and front and back red inserts)in the US edition there are still only 774 pages.

Does that count blank pages as 1 page or 2 (one for each side)?Claudia 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for following the reliable sources policy. Two reliable sources say 784. Amateur internet sleuths with the book say 759. This is is a no brainer from a policy respect. --Tbeatty 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 7 leaves of paper before the numbered pages start (14 pages). There are 759 numbered pages, followed by a blank page (1 page), and 5 leaves (10 pages). 14 + 759 + 1 + 10 = 784. No mystery. The reliable sources and the "amateur" sources do not conflict. It's a matter of what we are counting... physical pages in the book, or numbered pages of the story. Bryanc 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It makes little sense to count blank pages, even if the booksellers do. android79 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
With big fanfare the publishers announced that it was going to be 784 pages a couple of months ago, a number which emblazoned the episode titles of both major Potter podcasts the following week. 784 was announced as the official number, but I think we should stick with 759 as those are the total pages that count. Valley2city 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)