Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 24

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 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 →

Contents

Sword's name

In the plot summary, should "Godric Gryffindor's sword" or "sword of Gryffindor" be used? Miles Blues 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

whichever flows better, either is fine.

Speculation

Where has the speculation gone (things like "plot details known form book 6, and what JKR had said about the book)?

Wouldn't this be useful for the article.

Finally, I would like to know what things were put into the third film, which apparently foreshadow events in this book. Shouldn't these be mentioned?

Is there a web page where this mentioned? That could be added as an alternative. Dewarw 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

such things are discussed extensively on forums found at websites such as the-leaky-cauldron.org and mugglenet.com. A far more extensive coverage than what is appropriate for wikipedia of this book will evolve on hp-lexicon.org in due time. These sites are under lockdown this weekend for obvious reasons. Bryanc 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but since the article had them previously, it would be better to include the answers- if necessary in a different article! If the material was "forum stuff only", why was it on the page to begin with?Dewarw 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Errant Code...

Why in the bloody hell am I seeing the sentence "Perhaps some egyptians believe" at the end of the Epilogue, yet when I attempt to view the editing screen for the section, it's not there!? Edit Centric 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it on the page. Try doing a cache dump reload? crtl-shift-r Lynnae 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Muggle-borns / Mudbloods

I think it's editorializing to change every instance of the second to the first. The stated goal of the search was to find Mudbloods. Note that "blood traitors" is equally as tricky a term. Claudia 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot 'summary'?

I think it's safe to say that the current plot 'summary' is at least 2000 words too long (a rough count gives 3,243 for the total). Okay, I'm not saying we should set a hard word limit, but it is far too long. I presume I'm not alone in thinking this? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. It currently has two too many lists, seven too many subsections, and a ridiculous amount of detail. Although we pretty much predicted this would happen three days ago. Such is the cycle of Wikipedia....-Wafulz 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Way too long - agreed. I think we will have to wait for activity to slow down to make much progress tightening things up however. Sophia 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's too long. However, there's a way to make everyone happy. I've seen a lot of articles with both a short summary and an in-depth summary. For those who would like a much shorter summary that reveals only the most important details of the plot, we should make a short version to place before the long one. FallenAngelII 23:00, 22 July 2007 (GMT +1)

I've been trying to get rid of the lists, if anyone else wants to help...-- John Reaves 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter book-related articles seem to suffer from the overly long plot synopsis problem as a rule. I personally favour very short synopses. They're more academic, and they result in more manageable, more readable articles. Anyone who wants minute plot details can easily just read the book. Exploding Boy 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, again, think that we should create two summaries, a Plot Synopsis and a Plot Summary. This is a very common thing on Wikipedia for both books and movies. Whoever wishes to can write one and then we can all jump in and edit it to create a very academic and short, but still good, synopsis. This will satisfy both those who wish for a long summary a short one. FallenAngelII
I've remove both lists as "superfluous bloat". Which is what they are. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis is too long. However, it is going to be longer than the norm even when reduced to an appropriate length. Each book has an unusually complex plot anyway, and the seventh book acts ties up all the loose ends in 4195 pages of prose. It's going to be long. Once it's off the front page it can be shortened to an appropriate length. At the moment, it should be enough to prevent it becoming a chapter-by-chapter paraphrasing. (chgallen 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

This book does not have a complex plot. I'm convinced that we could cover the basics in well under 1500 words, probably closer to 1000 (the length of our plot summary on the much, much more complex Tolstoy novel, War and Peace, is less than 1000 words). What we need to achieve this, however, is an agreement on what is and is not highly significant. During the course of the day I've seen several instances of quite well summarised scenes being embellished by well meaning editors whose conception appears to be to present a blow-by-blow account.
At the same time I think we've seen some salient points arise. The main points of the novel seem to be:
  • the flight from the death eaters
  • the search for the horcruxes.
  • the deathly hallows
  • the battle of Hogwarts.
I suggest that each should be given a very parsimonious treatment. In particular the battle sequence has been bloated to a ridiculous size. We could actually benefit by restoring that sequence to its equivalent state of around 1900 GMT yesterday. The beginning sequence, on the other hand, seems to have been trimmed quite well and reads better (in my opinion) than it did at around 1900 yesterday. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is far from the T3H M0ST C0MPL3X PLOT 3VAR, but it is relatively complex and does involve elements from six other books - this makes shortening difficult without becomingly opaque to the layman. But it does need considerable shortening, especially the final part. At the moment, people are seeing it on the front page and lengthening what they see as a lacking paraphrasing. We should be concentrating on preventing this primarily (that's what I'm doing anyway), and then on shortening the summary. We must remember that less than 48 hours have passed since the book's release. It's going to take time to settle. chgallen 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I drafted a complete rewrite of the summary at User:ClaudiaM/DH-synopsis. I'm going to try not to edit this article again before I've slept, but if others find my draft useful, feel free to make use of it. Claudia 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad start. It's too early to plug that one in, though. It would be just as bloated as the current one within twenty-four hours. I seriously suggest that you give it until mid-September, when the fuss will be long over and we'll all have a better perspective on what is important about this book. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think plot deserves more than one paragraph in any of Wikipedia's book articles. The point of the plot section is to give readers a general idea of what the book is about, not to outline every single event that occurs in the book. ~MDD4696 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You would easily found hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia articles on fictional works (books, films, plays, operas) where the plot summary is much more than one paragraph. The present version is a bit bloated, but it is less than 72 hours old. I have confidence it will eventually get to where it needs to be. Marc Shepherd 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the first section, Leaving the Dursleys, and gotten from 271 words to 188. Not beautiful, but a lot of miscellany (imo of course) removed. I can't post to the main page, is it worth posting here for someone else to if they like it? Lynnae 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why so much detail is provided? Couldn't the plot summary be, you know, a summary? I have seen books that have been out for years or decades with spoiler warnings, and since the plot summary didn't mention a spoiler warning, I thought it would be safe to read. Then I found it was a very detailed book report. I've read it already, so it didn't bother me too much, but why would someone who hasn't read it yet go to Wikipedia, see the entry, and think that the banner at the top is now important when other book entries have had banners right in the plot summary that were important? I notice that the book entries I have looked at no longer have such an entry. This policy changed? If so, don't blame people for not keeping up with policy and expecting to be warned about potential spoilers.

You're conflating two separate issues: the level of detail appropriate for a plot summary, and the presence of "spoilers." I think almost everyone agrees that the plot section, as currently written, is too verbose. Give the editors a break: the book has been out only 72 hours.
But the fact is, a plot summary of almost any length is certain to give away details that some readers would have preferred not to know. What can a meaningful encyclopedia article say while completely avoiding the subject of what happens in the book? It's pretty safe to assume that under a heading called "Plot," the subject discussed is indeed going to be the "plot" of the subject book. Marc Shepherd 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If die-hard Harry Potter fans want a 2,500 word plot they can always go to someplace like the Harry Potter wiki. Tesfan 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

US Cover

I was wondering... even though it is generally preferred for the UK covers to be in the lead in the infobox for each of the books' wikiarticles, why can't the US covers be in the article in some way? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be shown somehow, since the amount of books sold in the US is probably either comparable or greater than the amount sold in the UK, therefore earning it a rightful place. Miles Blues 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but the British version is also sold in most other English-speaking areas, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, throughout Europe, South Africa, and so on. It's likely that in terms of raw numbers, the British version wins out. Exploding Boy 01:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The cover was there, further down in the article, at one point, along with the deluxe edition artwork. Apparently someone removed it. --Guess Who 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say if the US cover is supposed to depict any specific scene from the book? It seems deliberately specific and mysterious, with Voldemort and Harry both looking at/reaching towards (possibly protecting himself against, in Voldemort's case) something high in the air, something unseen. I've finished the book, but for the life of me can't figure out what the cover illustration is trying to convey. --Lode Runner 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the regular edition is from the climax of the book, with Harry's hand reaching out for the Elder Wand. It mentions the sun rising in that passage, so the lighting seems appropriate as well. The deluxe edition is Harry and company on the dragon heading to Hogsmeade. --Guess Who 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, you can see shadowy figures lining the background, which I would take to be all the spectators watching the final showdown inside the Great Hall. There are also bits of broken stone and wood lying around, which are presumably debris from the battle earlier that night. --Nothlit 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the cover, I notice it's actually changed a bit from the original artwork released by Bloomsbury. For a start, the synopsis on the back is different, but that doesn't affect our art here in the article. What does affect it, however, is the change from purple to black. The cover on the books themselves have a black bar at the top and a purple bar at the bottom, contrary to the original purple on either end. I think we should change this. --77.107.193.110 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A Forgotten Death

There is no mention of Rufus Scrimgeour - the Minister of Magic in the list of characters killed. The book does not go into detail about his death by the hands of Death Eaters, it is merely mentioned. For further inquiry look at the last sentence of the chapter entitled "The Wedding".

Yes it is posted and sign your posts! Rembrant12 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also missing Crabbe!

added Rufus,Crabble is already there. Denisa hime 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I Propose

For "The Beginning":

In the beginning of the book, Voldemort himself plans to kill Harry while he is being moved to a new safe place, which must happen before he turns seventeen and his safety at the Dursleys expires. Voldemort borrows Lucius Malfoy's wand, as his own is ineffective against Harry's.

The Order of the Phoenix arrives at the Dursleys and attempts a decoy in which six members take Polyjuice Potion to make themselves look like Harry. While leaving, the real Harry is correctly identified by his "trademark" Expelliarmus spell and attacked by Voldemort. Harry and the Order eventually reach the Weasley residence, The Burrow. George Weasley has lost an ear to Snape, and Alastor Moody has been killed.

On Harry's birthday, the bequests of Dumbledore's will are given to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Harry receives the first Snitch he ever caught, Ron receives the Deluminator, and Hermione receives a book of children's stories written in Ancient Runes. Harry is also bequested Godric Gryffindor's sword, but it is withheld from him for the reason that the sword was not Dumbledore's to give. There are no apparent hidden meanings to the objects at this point.

Near the end of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour's wedding reception, news comes that Voldemort has taken over the Ministry of Magic and killed the minister. The Death Eaters attack again. Harry, Ron and Hermione flee the wedding, escaping to 12 Grimmauld Place. Here, R.A.B. is identified as Regulus Arcturus Black, who removed Slytherin's locket from the lake. A series of events lead the three characters to the realization that the locket is now owned by Dolores Umbridge.

For The Search for the Horcruxes:

The trio collect the locket of Salazar Slytherin when they infiltrate the Ministry of Magic and search for Umbridge.

After several months of hiding in woods, the three characters overhear a conversation revealing that the Ministry only has a replica of Gryffindor's sword; the real sword's location is unknown. Harry discovers that Dumbledore used the sword to destroy a Horcrux, the Gaunts' ring. Ron and Harry argue over the decision to search for the authentic sword of Gryffindor, which would allow them to destroy the locket. Ron leaves, and Harry and Hermione must go to Godric's Hollow without him.

At Godric's Hollow, they encounter an old woman, Bathilda Bagshot, a friend of Dumbledore's. They follow her to her house, but a trap has been laid. Bagshot is actually Voldemort's snake familiar, Nagini, who attacks them, and they narrowly escape. Hermione accidentally breaks Harry's wand in the fight.

Eventually a doe Patronus appears on the edge of Harry and Hermione's camp and leads Harry to the real Godric Gryffindor's sword, hidden in a frozen forest pool. After diving into the pool, Harry is rescued by Ron, who has returned to the camp. Ron uses the sword to destroy the locket. Ron informs Harry and Hermione that the Deluminator showed him the way back to them. Hermione decides they will speak to Xenophilius Lovegood and ask him about Grindelwald's mark, a symbol which has shown up in the book Dumbledore bequeathed to her, and several other times during their journey.

I don't know, I just thought I'd make some suggestions since the current content is so long. What does anyone think? Did I shorten these two sections too much? Not enough? Did I leave something crucial out? Stanselmdoc 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For the Deathly Hallows:

At Lovegood's house, they are told that the symbol is that of the Deathly Hallows, a trio of magical artifacts created long ago:

  • The Elder Wand, a wand more powerful than any other, passing through the years when its owner is defeated
  • The Resurrection Stone, a gem with the power to bring the dead back in some form
  • The Invisibility Cloak, which unlike common invisibility cloaks, never loses its charm and its magic is immune to spells.

Harry realizes that the cloak described is his cloak, and that Voldemort is searching for the Elder Wand.

They are soon captured by Death Eaters and taken to the Malfoy's house, where they are thrown in the basement with Dean Thomas, Mr. Ollivander, and Griphook the Goblin. They all escape to Bill and Fleur's home with the help of Dobby and a somewhat reluctant Peter Pettigrew, who are both killed in the flight.

The three plan to break into Gringott's with the help of Griphook, guessing that a horcrux is in the Lestrange's vault. During the theft, they find the Hufflepuff's cup, a horcrux, but Griphook steals Gryffindor's sword. Voldemort realizes they are destroying his horcruxes, and after checking the hiding spot of the two others destroyed, accidentaly reveals through a telepathic link with Harry that the second final horcux is at Hogwarts.

There was a lot of repetitive language here that I suggest we remove. I might do this soon just to get rid of the repetition. Stanselmdoc 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use penultimate instead of second final 78.146.44.106 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Teepan95

For The Battle of Hogwarts:

The trio get into Hogwarts with the help of Aberforth Dumbledore, and they alert the Heads of Houses to Voldemort's imminent arrival.

Harry learns about Ravenclaw's Diadem knows he had seen it the previous year in the Room of Requirement. Ron and Hermione return from the Chamber of Secrets, where they have retrieved Basilisk fangs in order to destroy the remaining Horcruxes. In a confrontation in the Room of Requirement between the trio and Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle, the diadem is destroyed by enchanted fire.

Harry leads his friends to the Shrieking Shack, where they see Voldemort kill Snape, in the belief that Snape, having killed Dumbledore, is the master of the Elder Wand and that the wand's power will now transfer to him. As he dies, Snape gives up his memories to Harry, who uses the Pensieve to find out that Snape was on Dumbledore's side all along, motivated by his lifelong love for Lily Evans (Harry's mother). Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him to prevent Draco Malfoy from doing it. Snape has been acting to protect Harry all the while, and it was he who sent the doe Patronus (the same form as Lily Evans's Patronus) to lead Harry to Gryffindor's Sword. However, Harry also discovers that he himself is a Horcrux, and that Voldemort cannot be killed while Harry remains alive.

Resigned to his fate, Harry makes his way towards the Forbidden Forest, where Voldemort is waiting for him. On his way, he encounters Neville and informs him that the snake Nagini must be destroyed. Harry discovers the secret of the Snitch, and puts it to his mouth saying, "I am about to die". The Snitch opens up to reveal the Resurrection Stone. Harry uses the Stone to summon the spirits of James Potter, Lily Evans, Sirius Black, and Remus Lupin, who glide along by his side and give him support.

Prepared for death, Harry allows Voldemort to hit him with the Avada Kedavra curse. However, Harry awakens in what appears to be King's Cross railway station. A wounded and dying creature lies on the floor, representing the part of Voldemort's soul which resided within Harry but has now been removed. He meets the deceased Albus Dumbledore, who explains that Harry cannot die while Voldemort lives, since he used Harry's blood to recreate his body. Harry is given the choice of "going on", or continuing with life and stopping Voldemort; he chooses the latter.

On Voldemort's orders, Hagrid carries Harry (seemingly dead) back to Hogwarts as a trophy. Neville Longbottom faces down Voldemort, and refuses to join him. As punishment, Voldemort puts the Sorting Hat upon his head, and sets it ablaze. At that moment, reinforcements charge in and the battle resumes. Amidst the confusion, Harry covers himself with the Invisibility Cloak and Neville pulls Godric Gryffindor's sword from the Sorting Hat and beheads Nagini, destroying the final Horcrux. Harry eventually reveals himself and faces Voldemort once more. Voldemort possesses the Elder Wand, so Harry faces tough odds. However, Harry guesses correctly that Draco Malfoy is the true master of the Elder Wand, not Snape, for it was Draco who had disarmed Dumbledore and thus beaten him in battle, while Snape was acting according to Dumbledore's wishes. Because Harry had himself disarmed Malfoy earlier in the book, mastery of the wand has passed to him. When Voldemort strikes Harry with the killing curse from the Elder Wand, Harry responds by casting his "trademark" Expelliarmus spell. The Elder Wand refuses to kill its master, and the curse rebounds to kill Voldemort.

A massive celebration erupts, during which Harry seeks solitude with Ron and Hermione in Dumbledore's office. Harry uses the immense power of the Elder Wand to repair his own, choosing to return the former to Dumbledore's grave instead of keeping it for himself.

What about this for the Battle of Hogwarts? I realize it's still long, but it's the most important point of the book, and I have no idea how else to shorten it right now because it's bed time. Suggestions? Stanselmdoc 03:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be like that. I'm trying to trim it down to that lenth. Unfortunately, if we shorten it any more it will have to be "Harry meets Dumbledore, who explains everything to him. Harry wakes up and kills Voldemort." Hyperbole, but you get my point. Though probably the best way in terms of an encyclopedia article, it will RAGE the fans. It'll have to be off the front page before we attempt to condense it so. chgallen 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention the bits that are contradictory and thus, still up for speculation? For example, Lovegood (on page 412 American) and Ollivander (on page 494 American) both agree in the book that a wand has to be "captured" (or "won") to change allegiance, but Harry never captures the Elder Wand, so how could it regard him as its master? The explanation he gives Voldemort doesn't hold water, in light of these earlier statements. I think we should include that in the article, because anyone who cares enough to read the plot summary will want to know why it ended as it did, or at least to keep a debatable subject open for debate instead of just settling for a contradictory theory. Epscoe 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because you say a theory is contradictory doesn't make it so. We're dealing in a legend that is contained with in a fictional universe. Draco became the master of the wand because he disarmed Dumbledore. The legend doesn't explicitly state that the master must take physical possession of the wand. so even though it was buried with Dumbledore, Draco was still the master. Harry later disarmed Draco, and even though he didn't take the Elder Wand from him, he still disarmed him, making him the new master. That's one interpretation of the legend, and it's the interpretation which is given in the story (which becomes verified with Voldemort's defeat), and therefore it's the accepted interpretation in the fictional universe in which it is given. Just because you don't like that interpretation doesn't mean we have to overhaul the article and poke in claims of it being contradictory. - Ugliness Man 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also remember that wands have a mind of their own, which is made very clear throughout the book. It's quite possible that the wand liked Harry's explanations during the duel, and decided he should be the rightful owner. We really do not know, and we cannot point this out without a source that says otherwise, which would pretty much have to be Rowling herself --Laugh! 04:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nurmengard

Should there be some mention of the links between a lot of the book and links it has to nazi germany? such as nurmengard/nuremberg, muggle registration, etc? I think it's fairly central to it, because it comes up alot in the book flagitious 03:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a notable connection to Nazi Germany, it should be cited to a reliable source. 17Drew 04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious there's a connection, but as it's never stated in the books (nor has Jo ever referred to it in an interview, as far as I know) I don't think it belongs here. Unless the author brings up the connection, it's just fan speculation, IMHO. Faithlessthewonderboy 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it would be original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. Not that I disagree, the Nazi germany parallel is obvious, whether important to the interpretation of the story or not. Lilac Soul 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if everyone made discussions didn't do original research on websites (or other things) that disalloud it they never would have made great discoveries. Go for it. I am NOT saying I break Wikipedia rules but sometimes you have to bend them to try to acheive better things. I agree. It has absolutely stone solid proof links to Nazi Germany. Muggle-born registration, killing in police forces (Aurors/Death Eaters), Nurmengard/Nuremberg, Voldemort-Hitler, all someone has to do is dige deeper and they would have more proof which I will begin now. Rembrant12 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What utter bollocks. Just find a reliable secondary source, if one can be found, and cite it. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Release time

The second sentence has two problems: first, it's not a sentence. Secondly, it's not true - in Christchurch, NZ, the book was released at 11:01 AM, not "a minute past midnight local time". What's the real story? Stevage 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it was released at midnight UK time everywhere but the US and Canada, but find a source for it! Claudia 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Death Count

The article says 55 people died yet only 22 people are listed. Where did the others come from? There is no reference. --Phoenix Hacker 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Preumably, the 50 that died at the battle of Hogwarts, and the people that died before that --Laugh! 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The book never gives a definite death toll; we're told which of the main characters have died, and then it is mentioned briefly that over fifty people had died in the Battle of Hogwarts, but that is only on the Good Side. We aren't told how many Death Eaters and their ilk have been killed, so unless we are given a definite set number, I think that a general "over fifty" type detail is good. Vaguely 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
They also mention at least two muggle families being murdered for sport. I'd say it's fair to say "over one hundred", although we need a source of some type --Laugh! 05:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
On pg. 745 (U.S. Edition) it states that "They moved Voldemort's body and laid it in a chamber off the Hall, away from the bodies of Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Colin Creevey and fifty others who had died fighting him." The other fifty are not mentioned by name, and the 22 listed are those mentioned by name and those that could have either supported Voldemort or the others. Reputation 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Those "fifty others" along with the main characters are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of body count. Numerous muggle families are killed who are mentioned throughout the book, plus Death Eaters, plus all that. That one line does NOT constitute a full count and therefore shouldn't be used at all, except maybe as a mention as how many people from the good side died during the final battle. But an overall death count, we've not seen yet. Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you tell Lumos and Tonks, were killed by.. UNKNOWN... but can't it be Dolohov? cause when they are going near the Room of requirment, you can read that Tonks runs away because someone said Lumos is duelling Dolohov!

Yes it probably is Dolohov but as it isn't clearly stated they could have also died from explosions etc.So it remains unknown. Denisa hime 12:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Since they're simply there one moment, then pages later they are laid out, looking peaceful on the floor, we can't say for sure if Dolohov did it. There were way too many things going on during that time; for all we know they got hit in the head with a rock. Since there is no definite, canon source for their death, we leave it as 'unknown.'Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Lumos you idiot. It's Lupin.

He isn't an idiot, don't attack. Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux table

What exactly is the point of the Horcrux table, especially when the Horcrux article exists? 72.208.25.18 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no point. It's listcruft. But however many times it's removed, it's always reverted. chgallen 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree it isn't necessary. I support the inclusion of the deathlist (as long as OR can be kept out of it) but the Horcrux table should be removed. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 10:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If at all, it belongs to the Horcrux article, not here. --Ayleuss 10:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, count this as another vote to remove this entirely superfluous and un-useful table. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote it stays as it gives details currently not given by the horcrux aricle Delighted eyes 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's your reason, then why not go to the horcrux article and edit it properly? Marc Shepherd 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-realease controversy

What happened to this section?—Wasabe3543 10:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you reffering to the Sabbath controversy in Israel?Denisa hime 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
the whole section on controversy. I renamed it Pre-release events and controversy, but that's still kind of clunky. For example, the Madeleine McCann appeal doesn't seem like either an event or a controversy. Maybe just call it pre-release?—Wasabe3543 10:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of books sold

Currently, only US numbers are listed, which is bound to be way short of actual sales figures. I can't find any global figures, though, but would much appreciate help in this - remember though, sourced figures, and no original research. Incidentally, I also removed the 2.2 million preorders info from the infobox, as that was based on amazon.com alone, from what I could gather from sources already cited in this article. Lilac Soul 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Today Show (NBC) said on 7/23 that 8.3 million copies sold in first 24 hours. No word as to whether this was US or worldwide, or whether this includes all the preorders.

Worldwide indicate that 72 million copies of the book were sold over the weekend. (http://hpana.com/news.20125.html)

Trivia

We need a trivia section... Like some unanswered questions and etc.

No we don't.-Wafulz 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You can put trivia information into the article, as long as it's useful and adds to it :). Pages with trivia sections usually have a tag that says to merge the information into the article and delete. --Isis4563(talk) 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't though, because it will be deleted due to WP:avoid trivia.
However, things that were in the article before the book was released, like the foreshadowing made in the third film, should be put back and answered, in a sort of trivia section, but not a trivia section.' If you get my meaning.Dewarw 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections are a nuisance and look messy. Dolores Umbridge 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And to all that add them, will you make them write "I must not write trivia sections"? Will (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, nice. Reputation Talk 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Epilogue

Presently in the Epilogue section on the page, it reads that Harry called Severus Snape "possibly the bravest man I ever knew." The word he used was "probably." This may be an unimportant distinction, but then again it may not.

Considering that there will be no more books (therefore it can't pertain to other books in the future) and the words are synonyms, it really doesn't matter.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Possibly means something with an unspecified, but not overly high probability of being true. Probably means something with a high probability of being true. These are not synonyms. 91.65.0.182 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no point in changing it, but I'll do it anyway, seeing as no one will really know the difference and I don't want to argue.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoire And Hugo

Surely the kids names are a reference to Victor Hugo? Should it be mentioned? 83.70.60.99 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Well, can't you do it? Oh, and obviously, we don't know, that's your theory. Rubyandme 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR if it was, so no. Unless you can find a source. Rekija 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

This is speculation, and so irrelevant for Wikipedia. Please discuss on fan forums. Thanks, Dewarw 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is Victor Hugo? Put on my talk page. Rembrant12 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Defective copies

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere. I don't know how widespread this phenomenon was, but there have been many copies released with a major misprint. That is to say, a large part of the book is missing, replaced with a section from earlier in the book. (eg. you reach page 312, and the next page is 217). I work in a bookstore, and we've had at least 1% of our sold copies come back to us with this defect. StuIsCool 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Really that should be mentioned, but if you don't have any proof (something said by the author or something on a reliable website) then you shouldn't put it in the article. IamHermionie 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
None of the news media seem to have picked up this story so far. That suggests it either never happened at all, or its scope was so limited as to be non-notable. Feel free to come back if you have a verifiable source for this information. Marc Shepherd 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If there has not been media publications of defective copies have come out yet, then there is no point to citing something without references. Reputation 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Such binding problems are not unknown. You just take it back to the shop and they replace it. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they're not unknown, not even uncommon. This information should only be included in the article on two conditions: It quotes reliable sources, and it establishes its notability and importance. For instance, standard binding problems should be included. Binding problems of a massive amount of books, say, 5 percent, should probably. Riots breaking out due to Harry Potter fans getting angry over binding problems should also be included ;-) Seriously, though, if you find some sources, feel free to post them here first so we can discuss how appropriate it will be to include the information. Lilac Soul 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=2332c6ca-a7f7-4a80-8282-31e366daaea2&k=45748

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_5642261,00.html

Not notable enough. This article is too long already! Just because something is on the news, it does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#INFO . Dewarw 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot subheadings

Chgallen has removed the subheadings from the plot. I think it is too difficult to read without them, but then, that may just be my opinion. I do not, however, want to start an edit war. Better to try and obtain some sort of consensus, or at least let the majority decide. Should we have the subheadings, or shouldn't we? Lilac Soul 09:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see they've been readded by FeralDruid. I agree with readding them, but let's still have the discussion, shall we? Lilac Soul 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind- I only removed them because there was a stink when they were added, and it was resolved that they would only be temporary until it had been reduced appropriately (unless I'm imagining that). None of the other HP books have subheadings either. I though removing them would discourage embellishment of the plot - makes it look like it should be a shorter length. But as I said, I don't mind. If people want them in, then they should be there. Sorry - was maybe too bold. chgallen 09:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting people would complain about adding headers. As I mentioned in my edit comment, a wall of text is hard to read. Headers break up the text, and summarize what's next. -FeralDruid 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, none of the other books have subheadings. While I find it much easier to read with them, perhaps they should be removed in the name of consistency? Lilac Soul 09:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I prefer them. Was just trying for consistency. Maybe we should just concentrate of trimming the length for the moment. chgallen 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion, of course, but I'd suggest readability is more important than consistency. The style guide recommends the use of headers for this purpose. -FeralDruid 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If we want consistency, maybe the other articles could eventually have headers added too? Brisvegas 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Was thinking that. I took a quick look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and IMHO, its summary should be broke into sections. My general rule of thumb is, if it's larger than a single browser page, it's too big.  :) -FeralDruid 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave the headers until such time (if any) that we can get the summary down to ~1000 words. Until then, they improve legibility and really, they aren't causing the length problem. Claudia 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

72.1 million copies?

This figure seems very suspicious to me. The figure seems to be generally agreed of 11 million copies on day one (2.7 million in the UK, 8.3 million in the U.S.); and today is still only day 4. So 72.1 million might be a plausible (if over-precise) projection of a possible total final sales number by, say, 12 months time. But I can't see any plausibility for it as an indication of current sales.

AFAIK, only one source has this number. Do editors agree that it seems likely to be a journalistic misprint? Jheald 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate the source is, but it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me. There are a lot more countries in the world than the UK and the US, many of which have English as official language, and many others in which people buy the original language version because it was released first. Until someone actually falsifies this source, or finds a better source for worldwide sales, I think this figure should be allowed to stand. Lilac Soul 14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently this is a provisional number- the official number will be out later today.Also, here's a more detailed story on The Guardian.-Wafulz 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So (from the Guardian article) the 72.1 million number is for worldwide sales of the Harry Potter series as a whole. Jheald 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian is incorrect, the first four books alone sold over 200 million copies [1]. Lilac Soul 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The AP report states that 2.6m of Deathly Hallows were sold in Britain on day 1, and 72m were sold of DH worldwide as of Monday. The Guardian report states that 22.6m of the whole series have been sold in the UK so far (note the possibility of an error with the 2.6 and 22.6 figures), while 72m of the whole series have been sold worldwide. Until these discrepancies are resolved by future reports, we should not include these numbers, as they are obviously dubious. --- RockMFR 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious? The one thing we can be sure of is that the guardian use of 72.1 million is wrong, since most sources prior to HP7 count worldwide series sales at about 300 million. I am rewording the factbox to say 11 million in the first 24 hours in the UK and US. But the source originally reporting 72.1 million should definitely be in the article, though perhaps with a wording to the effect that it is not a certain number. Lilac Soul 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I originally posted this...I cited Business Week. MSNBC also reported this number. I agree, it's sort of strange, but isn't an AP report reliable- at least reliable enough to be posted?152.3.8.235 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Could "After Deathly Hallows" section be moved to Harry Potter (series)?

The "After Deathly Hallows" section feels a bit out-of-place in this article to me, since it, by definition, exceeds the scope of the 7th book; moving would help make this article a little lighter. I believe it would be better suited as a subsection of the Series section of the main Harry Potter article. Could somebody please move if (s)he agrees?

I agree, and have been thinking along the same lines myself. I won't move it just yet, though, let's see if someone has good reasons for leaving it here. Lilac Soul 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
In its current form, the first two paragraphs of that section concern the possibilities for a sequel. They are unrelated to Deathly Hallows, and should move to the main Harry Potter page. The remainder of the section's contents are specific to this book, but they belong somewhere else in the article. Marc Shepherd 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the section to Harry Potter, removing the last 2 paragraphs as it cites revenue info and considerations related exclusively to the seventh book, I think it can definitely be removed from this article by moving the first paragraphs to other sections. Paolobueno 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
After some further re-arrangement, I deleted the section as redundant. Marc Shepherd 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pages missing

On CNN, there's a video about pages missing. In previous discussion, a user wanted to put it in the article. Now that it is on the news, I think it should be put in the article. If it's already in it, just disregard this message. :) --Isis4563(talk) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not notable enough. This article is too long already! Just because something is on the news, it does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#INFO. Dewarw 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. :) --Isis4563(talk) 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Defective copies. Lilac Soul 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job on shortening that plot summary

Much better now! Wikipedian06 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it was a long haul, I think. Let's all try and keep it from inflating again, by disallowing all minor points to be reintroduced. While one or two minor additions will not make a big difference, one or two an hour quickly will. Lilac Soul 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather than expanding the plot summary, a useful task would be to re-write and expand the Critical Reception section. Currently, that section only mentions the two reviews that were published before July 21st. But by now, there are probably dozens of reviews available. A proper synthesis would provide a much more well-rounded view than the preliminary (and hastily-produced) impressions of the first two critics out of the gate. Marc Shepherd 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is looking a lot better tonight. I hope that finally some where is got in the polarised debates that have gone on. Sigh. I thought that it had pased to harry through disarming draco there for passin through disarming. No wonder dumbledore was so powerful hehe 194.82.118.105 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Mistakes found in Book 7?

If I'm not mistaken, Colin Creevey was a muggle born because he said something about his camera being the normal kind. I cant refrence it to book 2 (its in storage right now), but can someone correct me if I was wrong? If he is muggle born, then how did he come back to hogwarts? Jimmy July 25th 12:52 AM

Ignoring the original research portion of this, let me clear this up. Colin Creevey states, in Chamber of Secrets, that his father was a milk-man. Draco implies that he's a Muggle-born because "scum" like him would only be allowed at Hogwarts due to the Muggle-born loving Dumbledore, but (a) he doesn't state it outright (leaving other interpretations open to possibility); and (b) he's not really in a position to know such a thing. So, long story short, it's quite possible that Creevey has a witch for a mother. Justin Bacon 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But then I guess someone needs to clear up the character list in Gryffindor's minor character list which says Creevey is a muggle born. Jimmy July 25th 1:16

Go right ahead and do that, then! Lilac Soul 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He was in DA, it's perfectly likely that he was called there, not having been there previously. That said, if you change it, change it to 'unsure', not 'mudblood', as it's still completely unknown until JKR publishes the encyclopedia --Laugh! 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Published book reviews

There are currently three positive book reviews (post-release) of HP:DH. This is good, and they all seem to come from notable enough sources to be in the article. However, of course, the article should reflect overall reception of the book. If, say, ten percent of major reviews have been negative, then we should dedicate about ten percent of our reception section to negative reviews, as per Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Lilac Soul 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The potion in the Basin with Slytherin locket horcrux

When Voldemort takes Kreacher & makes him drink the potion, He refills it. When RAB drinks the potion who refills the basin??? Dumbledore & Harry go after that & there is potion for Dumbledore to drink. When Voldemort is looking fro his horcruxes he sees the basin as clear with no locket in it. So the basin cannot be automatically refilling. Any ideas??? Manavi --Mdsindal 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there a lots of them, but this is hardly the place to discuss theories or speculations to try to resolve this particular incosistency, among others, in the series. And, personally, I doubt it would make any difference. Chinfo 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place for such discussion. But I note incidentally that Voldemort turns the potion clear, meaning that the basin has been refilled. Tesseran 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Godric Gryffindor's Sword

The golbin dude runs away with it while betraying Harry, et al, deep below Gringotts and then, in the final battle, Neville pulls it out from the sorting hat. Am I the only one who thinks something is amiss here? (I have read the book, btw) Is there a page where such missing details (in the series) are described/listed? What is usually done when such "plot fumbles" come to light (am not insinuating this is one; but just in case this is a fumble)

Heavynash 06:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Just saved the comment to see the thing being discussed. However, I would like to know if there is a precedent for pages discussing possible plot inconsistencies (the replies given in the earlier section on this very page are conjecture at best)

Heavynash 06:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We could talk about inconsistencies if they didn't fall under WP:OR. OR is usually incorrect. As the book itself briefly mentioned, Neville pulls it out of the Sorting Hat. --Laugh! 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The sword of Godric Griffindor will present itself to any deserving Griffindor, in time of need. That is why Neville can pull it out of the sorting hat. It is similar to arry pulling it out of the hat is Chamber of Secrets. --Mdsindal 07:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But the question was the sword was in the hands of the goblin, how could it have been in the Sorting Hat without explanation? Berserkerz Crit 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the sword was enchanted in such a way that it will come to the aid of a worthy Gryffindor no matter its present location, and that the Sorting Hat facilitates this enchantment. But in any case this is purely speculation, logical perhaps but still no more than a guess. We simply do not know; and supplying answers other than that which came from Rowling will still fall under the No Original Research rule. Chinfo 07:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty evident that the sword will be able to be pulled from the Sorting Hat no matter where it is whenever a "true Gryffindor" needs it. I doubt it was being kept in the Sorting Hat in "Chamber of Secrets" (and that Fawkes opted to, instead of just bringing the Sword, bring the Sorting Hat with the Sword in it), yet the Sword came out of it when Harry needed it. It most probably teleported there through the Sorting Hat, the same thing that happened when Neville, in one swift motion, did a lot of stuff. FallenAngelII/Yuna 09:44, 25 July 2007 (GMT+1)

Voldemort "Killed By"

This is going to be taken as a reason to delete the table entirely, isn't it? The table column is "killed by", which needn't mean a person. It can be a method. Look at the Peter Pettigrew entry. It's debateable whether it was Voldemort or Harry, so let's leave it at the how rather than a name. Claudia 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind on closer inspection of the table. Still, it's a debatable point. Claudia 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How is it debatable? It's obvious that Voldemort of all people was not the person who cast "Expelliarmus" while Harry cast "Avada Kedavra". Thus, Voldemort was the one to cast the spell. It's also obvious that it wasn't just a random ricochet since only the Avada Kedavra ricocheted while the Expelliarmus hit. The only debatable point is whether or not we should put "The allegiance of the wand" in there in place of "Voldemort". But there's no debating whether or not Harry was the one who killed Voldemort since he wasn't. FallenAngelII
Well, he's the proximate cause. If he hadn't acted, he'd have died instead of Voldemort. Claudia 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That is debatable. Since when do spells rebound when they clash? Since when does an Expelliarmus rebound an Avada Kedavra while raging on untouched? Never, that's when. Would the Avada Kedavra have not rebounded even without the Expelliarmus? Debatable, but I believe so. The wand's allegiance, was, after all, the reason for the rebound.

Also, no one but Voldemort cast the spell. However, the wand refused to kill Harry and made the curse rebound. So it's "Voldemort and the Wand's Allegiance". FallenAngelII

Like you said, these things are debatable. They are subject to readers' opinions. I happen to agree with ClaudiaM, for what it's worth. CarlosTheDwarf 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
When Harry wanted to get hit by the wand...or at the very least when he allowed it to happen (in the forest) it didn't rebound. When Harry struck back in the great hall, the wand backfired...and after all Harry is the owner of the wand so perhaps its following his will. But really we should be sticking to things we can source. Rekija 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the wand only "kill" the horcrux that was inside Harry and spared Harry's life ? Later, when duelling, Harry states that Voldemort hasn't noticed that the wand hasn't killed anyone yet despite Voldemort's assaults against people fighting in the great hall. Moreover when the cruciatus curse is cast against Harry nothing painful happened "[..]: and it took all his determination to remain limp, yet the pain he expected did not come". That would be evidence for the fact that it wasn't love that protected Harry but the flaw in the plan (the elder wand not recognising Voldemort as its true master). It would have nothing to do with using expelliarnus charm against Voldemort to force the wand to recognise its master, a wand has its own will (as shown when harry's wand react to voldemort's attack and fired by itself ; this was a reaction explained by the twin core theory).
The end of the plot story paragraph should be changed to accommodate the fact Harry wasn't saved by love but by the wand if my interpretation is correct. --Jeankri 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when Harry uses the Expelliarmus charm that makes the wand recognise its owner, and thus, rebounded, while it didn't the first time, because Harry did not use ANY charm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.211.130 (talk)

But didn't the wand need to be captured to become Harry's? It wasn't captured, Draco's was...Harry never captured it, how could he own it?
Draco bested Dumbledore and took the wand from him in Half-blood Prince before Snape kills the Headmaster. The wand attunes to the one who wins a battle, not death, so Snape wasn't the owner. When Voldemort killed Snape and took Snape's wand, he wasn't the owner because it wasn't the Elder wand. Draco still had it and the owner of the wand until Harry bested him in this book.--WPaulB 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me clear this up. Draco defeated Dumbledore, so the wand's allegiance passed to Draco. However, Draco never physically possessed the Elder Wand, because Dumbledore was burried with it. Later, Voldemort breaks open Dumbledore's tomb, and steals the physical elder wand. Voldemort kills Snape to attempt to gain the wand's allegiance, but Snape never had the allegiance to begin with. Meanwhile, Harry defeats Draco, so the wand's allegiance passes onto Harry. So, in the final battle while Voldemort actually possess the physical Elder wand, it's allegiance belongs to Harry. Bjewiki 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Godric Gryffindor's Sword

Do you think this article should explain how the sword of Godric Gryffindor suddenly came out of the hat when pulled out by Neville, when it was supposed to be stolen by Griphook back at Gringotts? Moonwalkerwiz 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It came out of the hat when a Gryffindor needed it, the same as it did for Harry in his second year, even though it was in Dumbledore's office. It doesn't matter where the sword was. Faithlessthewonderboy 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The real question is, what is Griphook going to do when he realizes it's gone...72.208.25.18 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The book never atually explains it anyway - better to leave it as open to interpretation as the text itself chgallen 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing encyclopedic to say about it unless Rowling herself at some point feels that a further explanation is called for. Marc Shepherd 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter if Griphook realizes it's gone? The series ends with this book anyways. Reputation Talk 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if you enjoy having an imagination. 72.208.25.18 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't the place for speculation like this. Claudia 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What in the world?

Some idiot messed up the page. They shortened the summary, got rid of the deathlist and other things like that. We need to fix this. Rembrant12 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what a vandal, removing so much unneeded bloat from the article! They should be blocked. --Guess Who 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Cutting through the sarcasm, consensus was established that the plot summary was way too long. As for the death list, there's still ongoing discussions about whether it should be in the article, in a seperate list article, or nowhere near Wikipedia. Lilac Soul 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Last chapter

Shouldn't we mention the fact that the last chapter was written years before the rest of the book somewhere? Not sure on the policy details, but i thought wikipedia's policy on writing about fiction preferred real-world information on the development of the piece of fiction over fictional information only valid within that world. This seems like a perfect piece of real-world info to fit in here.212.123.24.90 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem would be where to put it. There is no trivia section. User:FallenAngelII
I've heard this said before. Find me a very good source and I'll see if it can't be fitted into the article's Rowling on finishing the book section. Lilac Soul 08:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was in the article before. It's possible that it was sourced back then, so all it might require is someone willing to dig through several months of page history. This will also justify why the final line is mentioned in the synopsis, as it also mentioned the final word in the book was "scar". - Zero1328 Talk? 09:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All I've been able to find are interviews with Rowling saying that she had the final chapter written so as to having something to work towards, but that she was expecting it to probably be changed when she wrote the final book. If that's all she's said, then it might as well be left out. But come to think of it, that final line of the book could probably be removed from this article - the last word of it isn't scar, incidentally. Lilac Soul 09:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of Rowling's claims seem not to have transpired. As Lilac Soul mentions, the last word is not "scar"; nor did a previously-known magic-less character find the ability to do magic late in life. Tesseran 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling did confirm in an interview prior to the release of the DH that the last word had had been changed from "scar" though. Simon171717 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to the article. Lilac Soul 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)