Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 25

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 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 →

Contents

German translation

  • The German translation of the Book-title is know known: "Harry Potter und die Heiligtümer des Todes". Can someone correct the German Interwiki? --84.131.218.217 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Point it out on the German Interwiki - It doesn't really do much here. Reputation Talk 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 84.131... meant to move the article on de.wp - that happened yesterday already - but to update the interwiki link on this page accordingly (which I did earlier today). --Dapeteばか 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
exactly, the Article moved in the German Wikipedia, as an IP I was not able to correct the Interwiki myself. thanks --84.131.220.162 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. "Harry Potter und die Kammer des Schreckens" can also mean "Harry Potter and the Chamber of the Ancient Evil". Schrecken has an old German meaning associated with anything dark and evil (ghosts, the devil and the like).

Dumbledore scandal

I know that the summary needs to be trimmed, but it should mention the mystery surrounding the Dumbledore family, which does affect serveral charcters' motivations. CharlesTheBold 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important, but not important enough. IMO, its place is in Dumbledore's article. It gives the motivation for Dumbledore's search for the Deathly Hallows, but this subplot (as well as the involvement of Grindelwald) is glossed over in the synopsis. The important parts are the trio going into hiding, the search for the Horcruxes, an explanation of the Deathly Hallows, and the final battle. Everything else can be explained elsewhere. chgallen 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. Dumbledore going after the Hallows with Grindewald lead up to Grindewald getting the Elder Wand, which ended up in Dumbledore getting it, to Draco (Voldemort thought Snape, which lead to Snape's death), to Harry, and ended with Voldemort's death because the Elder Wnad refused to kill its master. That plot is very important as I have shown. (note: the same thing killed Voldemort that created Priori Incantantem in the fourth book, also important) Rembrant12 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is explained that Dumbledore has the Elder Wand. How he gets hold of it is backstory, and the plot synopsis must be kept short. From Dumbledore, it's path is described. By all means put this information in a different article, but it's place is not here. "the same thing killed Voldemort that created Priori Incantantem in the fourth book, also important." I don't understand this - the dual want cores were irrelevant, it was the Elder Wand's allegiance that killed Voldemort. chgallen 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No it is but an important coincidence worthy of at least recognition. Harry: "Expelliarmus" Voldemort: "Avada Kedavra". Like the fourth book. Also Harry refused to use the killing curse. Rembrant12 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created a subplot page from which you are very welcome to work on. Here is the link: Harry Potter (subplots)

I have been forced to move the page so here is its new location: User:Rembrant12/Subplots . Rembrant12 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please fit this into the main page for it is very relevant.:

Dumbledore had a very disfunctional family. His sister, Ariana, going crazy after being beaten by Muggles for doing magic in her childhood years. Their Azkaban prisoner father who saught revenge on the muggles who attacked Ariana. Their mother who dealt with much stress and died. His brother Aberforth who was imprisoned for a short while for illegal charms on a goat (mentioned in fourth book). Under these conditions Dumbledore was, understandably, exstatic to find an equal, Gellert Grindewald, who was able to bring Dumbledore over to a part of thinking Dumbledore was already thinking, that wizards have the power, therefor the responsibility to rule muggles as to prevent another incident like that of poor Ariana. Before gathering followers, Dumbledore and Grindewald set out to find the Deathly Hallows. 3 objects, the perfect Invisibility Cloak, the Ressurection Stone, and the Elder Wand, all created by the 3 Peverall brothers. The Elder Wand, otherwise known as the Deathstick or the Wand of Destiny, was said to be the "unbeatable" wand, and that the possesser of the Wand would control power beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunetly, or fortunetly, before Dumbledore or Grindewald ever began their search a duel started between Aberforth, Grindewald, and Dumbledore. Ariana supposedly wanted to help and was killed in the process. Grindewald fled and was able to find and take the Elder Wand from its previous owner, the wand maker Gregorovitch. Dumbledore then defeated Grindewald and took the Wand. Draco Malfoy then was able to win the Wand from Dumbledore the night when Snape killed Dumbledore. Voldemort was able to take the Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and believing its master was Snape, had Nagini kill Snape. Yet it the Wand was Harry's for Harry was able to disarm Draco then winning the alleigance of the Elder Wand. The Wand refused to kill its master and Voldemort's killing curse rebounded upon him, thus killing him.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rembrant12/Subplots" Rembrant12 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Add it to Dumbledore, Gellert Grindelwald and/or Harry Potter (character). This is not the place. chgallen 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Rembrandt, there isn't enough room for everything that is relevant to be included in the article. We'd duplicate the book eventually. A lot is going to have to be left out. Claudia 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Not agreed. I believe that it is very relevant. More relevant the snatchers catching them and going to Malfoy Manor. More relevant and better that the explanation of the Hallows that we have now. This one shows the good connection between the Wand and Voldemort's death, and talks about the other 2 Hallows also. This is very relevant, NOT RELEVANT info, but VERY relevant information. Rembrant12 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Did we Decide...

Did we decide that the word "Horcrux" should always be capitalized? If we did, why? Is that how Rowling always uses it? (I have no books handy) If we didn't, may I suggest that we place the word into the lower case? I see that the horcrux page itself capitalizes it always too, so maybe we should keep it that way for consistency. But if Rowling doesn't capitalize it, we shouldn't either, should we? Can someone let me know if she does or not? Thanks! Stanselmdoc 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that she capitalises stuff like Disarming Spell etc., but having no books handy I can't say about Horcrux. I'd bet she does though. Someone with a book, check. chgallen 13:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've checked, and Rowling does capitalise Horcrux, so we do as well. Lilac Soul 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia article pages are limited to capitalized titles, pages with subjects with lower case first letters usually do, and should have, it stated under the title. Paolobueno 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how your comment is relevant here, but it is absolutely possible to create a Wikipedia article with a non-capitalized title. Lilac Soul 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've checked and confirmed that possibility, it seems it is a Wikipedia feature newer than my last attempts at editing...[1]Paolobueno 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'm glad I didn't jump the gun and place them all into the lower case. Stanselmdoc 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

those redirects...

  • Just curious. When I type in "Deathly Hollows" it takes me directly to this page. When using the correct spelling ("Deathly Hallows"), however, it takes me to a disambiguation page. Obviously not a big deal, but it does seem a little odd to me. Shouldn't they both point to the same place? --whit rink
  • Cured. Anthony Appleyard 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Last thoughts of dying men

Should it be mentioned that Harry's last thoughts before being hit by Voldemort's curse go to Ginny, and that Snape, dying, asks Harry to look at him, probably to look into his (Lily's) eyes?

No, probably not. --Ali'i 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The Snape-thing's interesting, though...Never thought about that before.

Tagging Spoilers (who gets killed ect)

I REALLY think a spoiler warning should be put up for people who are killed in the book. Someone who hasn't read the book may come her and see the list, not expecting such a huge spoiler... --Jaydeejj 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No one would accidentally stumble upon the list. It specifically says "List of characters killed" in the able of contents and the lists come after the long plot summary, right after the epilogue. FallenAngelII
(edit conflict) The section is titled List of characters killed, so it would be quite clear that it will list the character who where killed in the book. There is absolutely no need for a spoiler tag for something so self-evident. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We are well beyond the date any facts are spoilers. If someone is reading this page either 1) they've read the book, or 2) they don't mind spoilers. Any other circumstance is user stupidity.

Thing is guys, it is common curtousy to put up a spoiler worning as I have been trying to do. Everytime I do someone deletes it. I was reading a Harry Potter page years back and it did not say "spoiler warning" on it so I thought it was like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details, gave away the entire book. I was very angry. It is just common curtousy to others. So I will be putting up the spoiler warning endlisly as to be nice to those new to Wikipedia. Rembrant12 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do read Wikipedia's guidelines on spoiler warnings. The {{current fiction}} is more then enough of a warning that the article may contain plot details. And also, your threat to edit war over a spoiler warning can result in you being blocked. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It was not a threat but a statement, there is a difference. 2. And though it "Current fiction" may be enough under regulations but Wikipedia should be nicer to people than this. Rembrant12 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you do. If you see a section titled "Plot Summary", you don't have to read it. Look away. GO outside. Go to another page. Whatever. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Even your arguement about people coming here not expecting spoilers is foolish. It's not like someone is going to go " Oh no, I just read the first sentence of the plot summary. It spoiled something. I guess I should read the whole thing". Just don't read it. Thank you and have a nice day. Piggins 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on people! If they don't see the large headings of "Plot Summary" or "List of Character Killed", what would make them see the spoiler warning? The headings ARE spoiler warnings because the clearly state what you are going to read. People going "OMG you jerks! You spoiled the book for me!! Why wasn't there a warning?!?!" Are just people looking for a scapegoat to cover up their stupidity.--Crazybizi 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do keep complaining about spoilers when there's a banner at the top of the page that says "It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes"? 17Drew 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For heavens sake! If you have not read the book yet, why are you looking at the Wikipedia article and then moaning when you read the plot? I have a simple solution for al such people. Turn off you computer, and pick up the book and read it!!!!! Dewarw 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are making me mad. It was not this book but the third one. And it was long after it came out. There are people who have never been on Wikipedia, who have never read these discussions, etc. they do not know that plot summary means EVERYTHING IMPORTANT but like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details and others may beleive this to. SO be nice to people. It takes like 10 seconds of your time to do so just add a spoiler warning every other book site does so. Rembrant12 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not talking about you only, but the many people (see archives).
Wikipedia policy is clear. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Spoiler tags are unnecessary and discouraged in plot summaries. There was extensive discussion on the matter, and this was the clear consensus. -- Ssilvers 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition, there is practically nothing you can say about a fictional work that someone won't consider a spoiler. I mean, at one point (not so long ago) there was a spoiler alert on Three little pigs.
I don't think the rest of the Internet is as scrupulously careful about this as you suggest. The headline of the New York Times review was "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many HP fans complained that that headline, in and of itself, was a spoiler, since it disclosed the fact that Harry survives into adulthood. If that's a spoiler, then what isn't? Marc Shepherd 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant now, because the List of Deaths has been moved to a new article. However, it is now an afd! This means it might be brought back! Oh well, Dewarw 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's just rude to many people who haven't read the entire thing. Rubyandme 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The first part states that it is a synopsis of the book. Given that, it can be easily inferred that there will be spoilers. Reputation 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the top of the article needs a big honking SPOILER ALERT. I can't speak for others, but for myself, I usually ignore the fine print in those warnings at the top, or in the contest list. Make it clear, there are spoilers here.

We're not here to make up for your failure to read or use common sense. ' 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If people aren't bright enough to read the banner that says "It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes" or the fact that the section is named Synopsis or the maintenance template that says that the plot summary is "excessively detailed"...then they're beyond help. 17Drew 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
17Drew that's incredibly insulting. You fail to take into account that most of the book's readers are children. If you Google search your favourite book series as an 9 year old kid, and click on Wiki, it brings you here. Perhaps that kid didn't know what the word summary or synopsis meant. Perhaps he just scrolled down and caught a word he didn't mean too. -Please read my post below for more. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In further defense of a Spoiler Warning:

Look, I know the Wiki guidelines (see WP:Spoiler) say that you shouldn't put a spoiler warning in front of a plot summary, but this book is a very unique case.

  • 1. It has many, many more readers than the usual book (as evident by the 2.2 million copies pre ordered online, mentioned in the artice).
  • 2. Many of the book's readers are young adults or children, who may not fully understand how a Wiki plot summary works.
  • 3. This is a highly anticipated book (again, I sight the 2.2 million pre orders), and it's the last book in a 7 part series. It's not your typical novel or sequel. The plot of this book is not just the plot of a single book, it's the collective details of 7 books combined.

Finally, I'd like to ask, what's the big deal with putting a spoiler up anyway? It's not like it makes the page an eyesore or anything. There's still plenty of articles floating around Wiki with spoiler warnings in "Plot Summary" sections. Nobody's going to care if this one does, and it doesn't degrade the value of the website at all.

I don't think Harry Potter fans (or anybody for that matter) will find it particularly important that we editors are extraordinarily meticulous in following guidelines that are meant to be warped in special case scenarios anyway.

At least for the next few months, we should have a spoiler warning up. After that, we can discuss to see if we want to keep it, or leave it.

--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We have one. It's at the top of the page. It says:

Template:Current fiction

It doesn't use the precise word "spoiler," but anyone who reads it is clearly warned that significant plot details may be revealed in the article. Adding yet another spoiler warning would just be saying the same thing twice.
Personally, I don't know why that template, {{current fiction}}, doesn't just use the word "spoiler," which is a generally accepted and widely understood term. Nevertheless, as currently worded the meaning of the disclaimer is quite clear. Marc Shepherd 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
When you visit an encyclopedia of an in-universe item, how can anyone expect to only receive non-spoiler information? Come on, an article on an in-universe item is, by definition, a spoiler in and of itself. Nobody seems to go the encyclopedia article for, say, the 2007 Tour de France and then complain that they weren't warned that the article mentions who has one the different stages and what the standing is. I don't mean to be rude, but why do we have to protect people against their own stupidity? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggested warning text

I would propose adding to the top of the plot summary the text

Note: Wikipedia plot summaries give away the plot in full, including endings and surprise developments.

which is modelled on the standard warning the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine gives in its online examples of encyclopedic articles on current movies. (See eg http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3814/).

The appropriate place for such a warning is at the plot section, where it is relevant, not at the top of the page, where I believe the vast majority of readers will overlook it.

Most online resources discussing the plot will not give full plot and ending details -- not even the fansites. It is right that Wikiepdia is different, but we should make it clear to readers that Wikipedia is different. I don't think that currently we are doing that in nearly a noticeable enough way. Jheald 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag at the head of the article already warns that the article "may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." That is the most we need. Anybody who can miss that and also can't work out that a plot summary is a summary of the plot has deeper problems that can't be solved by yet another warning. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like that warning style, Jheald. "May give", I'd say, or somebody will take it as a mandate to extend the summaries that are marked with it. The fact is, most of the web gives more explicit warning for spoilers than the subtle "detailed information" tag, and so it's not totally unreasonable to expect them.
Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that most people who read Harry Potter are kids, so it's probably fair to expect a majority of this page's readers will be kids. If that is the case, we can't automatically assume they're going to understand Wiki policy, or even exercise common sense by reasoning out what the article's contents will be. I'm in full support of the tag suggested by Jheald. It should remain on the page for 1-2 months after the books release in my opinion. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
However, this is a change that needs to be made at a higher level in wikipedia, not just for this entry. Claudia 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"most of the web" is not an encyclopedia. --Ali'i 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Jheald is wrong about the Harry Potter fansites. On all of the major fansites, you will find that the books are spoiler-protected only for a short time after they're released. Details of the first six books are openly discussed without any kind of warning. It just so happens that, on Wikipedia, {{current fiction}} is the standard warning we have. I would support adding the word "spoiler" explicitly to that template, because that's the widely understood term for it. However, {{current fiction}} is a standard template, so any changes to it would need to be discussed on its talk page. Marc Shepherd 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Warning, Spoiler!" Sign?

Could someone put up the sign that says the text below gives the book away? I've finished the book already, but I think some people (kids are reading this, remember) might not know what they're reading till it's too late.

Thanks, great book! 68.55.235.179 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That subject has been vastly discussed already, it has been agreed that sections called "Plot summary" or "synopsis" are obvious spoiler-containers and the {{current fiction}} at the top that indicates that the article "may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes" is also a spoiler warning. Please look into Wikipedia:Spoiler as suggested on the top of this page. Paolobueno 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Not strictly on topic, but here on The Guardian's website is a "digested read" of the novel that made me giggle. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's brilliant :D chgallen 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Please go to a fan forum. Thanks, Dewarw 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you're taking Wikipedia:Be bold to heart. Boom boom... chgallen 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are so grumpy. Why are we talking in bold text? --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would hurt if people re-read what's written at the top of this page, namely: "Be polite," "Assume good faith," "No personal attacks," and "Be welcoming." Marc Shepherd 15:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

well he did say thanks. that was nice of him124.176.91.150 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Epigraphs

Hey, the article mentions the epigraphs, but neglects to mention that this is the first and only books to include epigraphs. Anyone want to add a comment after the article becomes unlocked? -- Self-Cannibal

It's not locked. It's just not editable by anonymous users and users who've recently registered. FallenAngelII
I've added that piece of info, but I don't know if it will stay in the article, it might get trimmed off.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should mention what these epigraphs are and where they were quoted from. The first one was from Aeschylus and the second one from William Penn. Moonwalkerwiz 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The character who almost didn't live...

There has been speculation on the subject here in this talk page, and news on this just hit the Leaky Cauldron site moments ago, it has now been revealed that Arthur Weasley was the character who "got a reprieve". He was actually slated to die back in book 5. reference. Don't know if it belongs in the article, but now we know. - Ugliness Man 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. Lilac Soul 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It would go on the article for book five somewhere, not here. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The wording in the article given above doesn't make it clear, but in addition to almost being killed off in book five, he was "given a reprieve" in book seven as well. I finally found a more confirming quote: "Lupin and Tonks were two who were killed who I had intended to keep alive. … It's like an exchange of hostages, isn't it? And I kept Mr. Weasley (Ron's father) alive. He was slated to die in the very, very original draft of the story."[2] So, yeah, this info is just as relevant to book seven as it is to book five. - Ugliness Man 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It could also be mentioned briefly in the page for Arthur Weasley, if you wanted.

DarthSidious 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Deaths section

The section labeled "Deaths," whatever its merits may be, is misplaced. It is at the end of the synopsis, but it is clearly not part of the plot summary. My own view, clearly shared by many others, is that it's just miscellaneous trivia. But as editors delete it, others keep adding it back.

As now written, it says:

  • This book has the largest number of named casualties of any book in the series. [Trivia]
  • Challenged on this before the book's release, J.K. Rowling had commented "It's not a bloodbath, but it's more than two." [Merely one of JKR's many pre-release comments]
  • In fact, over a dozen characters from earlier books are killed off over the course of the story. [Merely one of many facts that could be stated about the book]
  • In a statement from Harry's point of view, it is said that at least 54 wizards died opposing Voldemort in the Battle of Hogwarts. [Merely one of many statements made from Harry's point of view. Also redundant.]

Can we finally give this section a proper burial? Marc Shepherd 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is continued interest in the question of deaths in Deadly Hallows, I see no advantage to having less information instead of more. Rick Norwood 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is absolutely relevant, if nothing else then just as a link to the list article. Lilac Soul 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be removed until or unless a reference can be found examining the relevance of the deaths in the real world. chgallen 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If we should have it at all, the section is misplaced. It's embedded in the plot synopsis, but it doesn't "synopsize" anything. Editors have been trimming down the plot summary for days, apparently on the premise that it contained too much information. If this is important, why isn't it properly integrated into the plot summary? And lastly, this is simply one of many topics in Deathly Hallows that people are interested in. Why a separate section for this and no other such topic? Marc Shepherd 13:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As consensus for retaining this section seems to have diminished considerably, I've gone ahead and removed it pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention in the article regarding the number of deaths. It is a notable feature of the book, as attested to by its frequent mentions in reviews and press regarding the book. (Do a search for "deathly hallows death" on news.google.com and you'll pull up several hundred such articles.) I agree it doesn't belong in the synopsis section, but mention should be made somewhere. Justin Bacon 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the most asked questions about the book is exactly who dies. I was asked this by a relative, being thought knowledgeable on the subject, and came here to look it up. If there weren't so mant deaths, a table would not be necessary. Sandpiper 08:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That may well be a frequently asked question, but that subsection was placed in "Plot," which it clearly isn't. If you think it's that important, either integrate it in the plot summary properly, or put it somewhere else. In my view, the plot summary already mentions all of the significant deaths. Marc Shepherd 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you would call it, apart from information about the plot. Interestingly, a second person asked me this exact same question today. Not, some detail of the plot, just 'who died'. Sandpiper 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps your acquaintances are of an unusually morbid cast of mind. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And sure enough, the plot summary as it now stands answers that very question. Of course, you do have to read it.... Marc Shepherd 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
While it may be a water cooler talking point, that doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. But as has already been stated, the important deaths are already mentioned in the plot summery. If you have no problems with spoiling yourself about who dies, then you shouldn't have a problem with whatever spoilers are in the plot summery. --Farix (Talk) 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be a little careful about that. There are 316 Harry Potter articles in English Wikipedia, a great many of them full of unencyclopedic fancruft and speculation. When even Crookshanks, Hermione's cat, has its own article, it's hard to get on a high horse about what's encyclopedic. Marc Shepherd 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's more an argument that HP articles need to be cleaned up instead of permitting more "unencyclopedic fancruft". --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Except, I think it's over. The Wikipedia HP project is very clearly a fansite: how else do 7 books spawn 316 articles? Marc Shepherd 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When a WikiProject is no longer doing its job, then bypass the WikiProject and fix the problems directly. --Farix (Talk) 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussing Potential Marriage

I know there has already been discussion on this, but I wanted to bring up the fact that discussion has occurred on this question on a different talk page, and they came to a different conclusion:

On this page, Harry and Ginny are not stated to be married. On Ginny's page, they are stated to be married. Harry's page also states that they are married.

I would like these pages to be consistent. Ginny's page has had an extensive discussion. Harry's page a small one. This one a slightly longer one. No matter what decision is made, I just think we should be consistent in all three.

Are there any objections to re-opening discussion on this page about the potential marriage of Harry and Ginny? Stanselmdoc 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine they will come into line over time, but the facts do not need to be repeated on three separate pages. We're trying to shorten the plot summary, not make it exhaustive. Claudia 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The current revision does indeed state that Harry and Ginny get married. The discussion need not be extensive in every article. Otherwise, what is the point of having separate articles? It's not surprising the marriage would get the most extensive discussion in the Ginny Weasley article. She's not as important a character, so the fact that she ultimately marries Harry is, in relative terms, a lot more important to her biography than to his. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, Now that I think about it... Rowling does not actually say they got married... only that they have kids. Think about it... we've seen how Mrs. Weasley acts when a wedding is imminent. Could you blaim Harry and Ginny if they just skipped that bit and went straight to living together and having kids out of wedlock? (ducks while 4000 copies of book 7 get hurled at my head by outraged Harry & Ginny fans)  :>)... OK seriously... Of COURSE they got married. That they had kids is discussed in the Epilogue section. The reader can infer a wedding. We don't need to spell it out. After all, if Rowling gave her readers enough credit to know that they could figure it out without being explicit, so can we. Blueboar 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We can be quite sure in Harry and Ginny's case in particular, as reference is made to "five Potters". But it is still more detail than the summary needs. Claudia 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we cannot be sure of that. We are told nothing about naming conventions in the HP universe, so we'll just have to assume that the same rules may apply as in the real world. And in the real world, it is perfectly possible, and by no means uncommon, to have children and for (usually) the woman of a couple to change her last name to that of her partner, without ever being married. So the articles should, in my not so humble opinion, just steer clear of the whole married / not married thing, and state that the characters have these children, and then let the reader decide for themselves if that means they're married or not. After all, there's nothing that can be considered "correct" if it isn't mentioned explicitly (or can be deduced infallably) from the books. Lilac Soul 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We agree firmly on the end result, at the very least. Claudia 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooookay, for some reason it seems that my original post was taken incorrectly. Just to clarify, I wasn't in any possible way suggesting that we somehow "make the plot summary longer." I was pointing out that different conclusions have been found by different talk pages, and would like to see consistency between them, since they're all about the exact same topic. If the revision on this page is what is finally decided on, then those pages should be changed so that THEY don't say Harry and Ginny are married. So I guess I'll just go present the topic on those pages. Stanselmdoc 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry and Ginny marry, says a Today Show interview with JKR[3]. --Guess Who 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minister of Magic

Under plot summary, you have Minister for Magic. It should be Minister of Magic. 205.241.11.6 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe that's an American/British difference there, mate. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Both are correct; this is another British/American editions difference. Claudia 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policy, HP being a British series, we following British spelling and phrases whenever there's a difference between British and other types of English. So it's Minister for Magic, as is used in the UK edition of the books. Lilac Soul 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The UK editions follow Jo's (JK Rowling's) original text better than the US editions do. It's Minister for Magic, not Minister of Magic, Trelawney's first name is spelled Sybill, not Sibyll, etc. The British editions also prefer to use description rather than illistration and formatting. For more info., see this page. (scroll down to "Differences between the British and American versions".) (TehLostBug 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

CSM review

The review by The Christian Science Monitor seems decent. Anyone looking for something to add to the reception section might want to check it out, especially if you're looking for something representative of the negative reviews. --- RockMFR 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to protect using charms

Instead of the dull little silver lock in the top right, I propose we create a custom template for this article and any other protected Harry Potter articles with a wand beside it that says:

"Protego! This article has been protected from Muggle edits until further notice! Contact the Ministry for Magic if you wish it to be unprotected, and if you wish edits to be made, you may discuss them by owl post."

And don't you go saying "but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia!". This article is 15 pages long. That's over 5000 words. Our article on macular degeneration is barely 3000. Come now! Embrace the Potter-mania, Wikipedia! Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No. --Laugh! 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No. --Guess Who 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No. --Daggoth | Talk 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fun, but no. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hell yes! :D --- RockMFR 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Very amusing. Claudia 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is so stupid. This is not the Harry Potter wiki. Vodak 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling's plans for Potter Encyclopedia

Rowling has stated that "she probably will" write a Potter Encyclopedia and that it would include background stories of characters she has already written but had to cut - such as Harry's school friend Dean Thomas.

She also said the book would include details of a new headmaster at Hogwarts, and who was teaching defence against the dark arts at the magical school.

In addition, she also stated that the release might be years into the future.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1159322007

Whoops, sorry. I mistook this for a Wiki entry in the hustle and bustle of fixing stuff that people had added overnight. Sorry for editing your entry. But she did only say "probably will" and all that stuff. User:FallenAngelII

the dedication

would mentioning that the dedication is a lightning bolt shape be unessecary?124.176.91.150 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it used to be in there anyway. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ok i thought it best to ask. though i dont think unregistered users can edit this page anyway. thanks124.176.91.150 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think it's a lightning bolt? Why not a snake? Why not any other similarly shaped object? To note it's a "ligtning bolt" seems very unimportant and borderline original research. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kings cross station?

in the synopsis it states that after he is (aparantely) killed by voldemort he awakens in kings cross station. this wasnt exactly correct as the place he awakens in just reminds him of kings cross station and dumbledore is actually amused when harry mentions this. dumbledore then says metaphorically that harry could catch a train out of there i.e he could die if he wanted to.124.176.91.150 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the King's Cross Station bit (it isn't important in terms of the plot summary) and clarified that it is a dream or a vision, he doesn't physically wake up anywhere. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but it is important to mention that the horcrux within Harry has been destroyed. chgallen 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the issue some. It's important to note that he woke up in a different place, and it's not a 'dream or a vision' had it had been simplified to. --Laugh! 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I do believe it is a dream / vision, but you're absolutely right, that would be my "original research" and has no place in the article. It's better your way. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to: " . . . a place resembling King's Cross station. PNW Raven 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers?

I've got a copy of the Australian children's version, 1st edition hardcover, and it's ISBN is (978) 0747591054, not 0747591059. Maybe the Australian edition has a different ISBN to the UK edition. Perhaps someone can add the AU edition? --58.167.124.170 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, those two are effectively the same number. The 10 digit ISBN is what you get when you remove the new 3 digits of the ISBN-13 number, and recalculate the last digit (the check digit). See ISBN for more info on the structure of these numbers. Jheald 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing about the plot summary

The plot summary is practically the only part of the article that is likely to endure. Everything else is highly ephemeral stuff that eventually won't matter very much. It is therefore amusing that most of the energy going into the article is directed at keeping the plot summary short. That might actually make sense if there were anything more substantial to say about the book. But there isn't. So plot details keep getting axed—which might or might not be a good thing—but nothing of substance is replacing them. The plot is practically the only substance the article has. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You would have a point if those plot details were getting axed in favour of other temporary information. But the plot details that are getting axed are just getting axed to keep the plot summary within acceptable size, not to make more room for other info. Even if all the other stuff were to be removed and the only thing on this page would be a plot summary, it's still a better summary if it's shorter.212.123.24.90 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the people who are shortening the plot summary have nothing else to say. This is understandable, because the book is only a week old, and the plot is about the only factual information we have. Of course, I am not suggesting that every detail is helpful, and of course some of the writing just isn't that good, and needs to be mercilessly edited. But some editors are clearly proceeding on the premise that brevity is a goal in itself. But brevity isn't the goal; quality is. Marc Shepherd 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Have nothing else to say"? This isn't a fan forum. Brevity *is* a goal inasmuch as we're writing a summary, not a plot outline that explains every motivation in the book. Claudia 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny you tossed out that "fan forum" epithet, obviously not pausing to consider what else there might conceivably be to say about a work of literature. If you look the Wikipedia articles for older works — take King Lear, for instance — you find that the synposis is just a starting point. For Deathly Hallows, it is practically all there is, because it's simply too new for much real analysis to have been written. What analysis exists, no editor has bothered to synthesize, because it's much easier to spend hours a day correcting every little comma in the plot summary. Aside from the plot, most of what's in the article is fancruft anyway (spoiler embargo, online leaks, early delivery, price wars). Wikipedia isn't a newspapaer, and a lot of those anecdotes are really ephemeral. They mattered for about 2 days. Marc Shepherd 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're being quite fair. The most notable things about this book are its pre-release hype, and the fact that it is the fastest selling book of all time. Even after it's been out for years, these things are still going to be notable. Keeping the plot section short is to prevent this article being dominated by (really quite unimportant) story details, detracting from the stuff about sales and spoiler embargoes. ven if you do personally think that it's a waste of time, it seems a little mean-spirited to belittle editors who are trying to do a job of work trimming a 700 page novel into a 1500 word synopsis. It's much more concise than it was 24 hours after the book came out, and that makes it more encyclopaedic. If it were not pruned, it would bloat itself up to 4000 words again - and that is not proper. chgallen 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not critiquing the editors who try to make the plot summary read better (I am one of them, after all). I do think that the stuff about sales and spoiler embargoes will shrink significantly over time. Five years from now, how much does it really matter that a few people got the book 3-4 days early? I do think that some editors have awfully arbitrary views about what purportedly "belongs in an encyclopedia." Just peruse some of the 316 Harry Potter articles in English Wikipedia (that's more than we have on Shakespeare, by a wide margin), and you'll find that the bar for encyclopedic relevance is set rather low indeed. Marc Shepherd 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Give it a few weeks for all the "Looking back on the Harry Potter era" articles to be published and we'll have a lot more interesting stuff about the book's reception and cultural impact to put in. chgallen 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Epilogue information

Here's an article from MSNBC that goes into great detail about the characters and expands a lot from what was in the epilogue: click here!

I just figured it'd be a good source to use. The basics are that Harry and Ginny/Ron and Hermione are married, Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter, Harry and Ron are aurors, Hermione is in law enforcement, Luna is out exploring, Neville and Luna are not together, Neville's parents will forever remain in St. Mungo's, Hogwarts has a headmaster that we have not been introduced to before, and there's a DADA teacher that can remain for longer than a year since the jinx on the position was broken. Anywho, have at it. --74.137.227.117 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too excited here, it's never specifically stated that Harry and Ginny are married, and I don't believe she decides either way on Neville and Luna. Anyway, it's inappropriate for the book's article anyway, it should be in their respective biographies.--Laugh! 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
READ THE ARTICLE! This is all ROWLING'S INFORMATION that she gave away during an interview with a group of children. This isn't made up original research by some reporter coming to their own conclusions. It is all straight from the author's mouth! --74.137.227.117 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huh... And misinterpreted information is as useless as no information. I advise you reread the article, reread what I said, and then reread the article again --Laugh! 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its place isn't in the Deathly Hallows page - none of this information comes from the book. But I've added it to the Hermione Granger talk page, because it probably is relevant to the character articles. chgallen 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I just figured I'd bring this up here instead of posting the same message several times on the character pages since most people are currently watching this, rather than the individual character pages and this does directly relate to this book (even if the information doesn't particularly belong here). --74.137.227.117 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The article does indeed specifically say that Harry and Ginny are married, and it also says that this information comes from Rowling. Now, just like any media outlet, it's possible that MSNBC got it wrong, but at the moment there is no source contradicting them, nor is there any reason to doubt its veracity. While the exact word "married" doesn't appear in the book, 99.9% of readers would have interpreted it that way. Rowling is just confirming what most people would have regarded as obvious to begin with. I hope we can agree that Rowling herself is allowed to interpret her own text. Marc Shepherd 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple question: Where? The article ASSUMES it, which is no different than any other article assuming it. Unless Rowling says it, we shouldn't bring it up --Laugh! 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Assumes? Ha! The interviewer is sitting right there with the author (do you doubt that JKR would not correct her??). You're grasping straws now. Do you need JKR to call you personally? "We know that Harry marries Ginny" --Cdman882 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
(this is to User:L) I admit that I read the Neville/Luna thing wrong. She doesn't go into specifics there. However, you will admit that Rowling is releasing incorrect information about her own book, right? That interviews with statements made BY HER are incorrect? The logic you are suggesting is extremely backwards. She said it, but, since she said it to a news program, it's automatically incorrect and unreliable? You might want to take that up with the folks over at reliable sources who would likely consider this to be a perfectly reliable source by many standards. --74.137.227.117 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huh, and again, where? Where does JKR say that Harry and Ginny get married? The author of the article assumes it, which is no more proof than any book review. --Laugh! 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And clearly you need to take this up with those at reliable sources and verifiability because your standards for reliable sources are directly contradicting what they've had for standards for ages. --74.137.227.117 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? One person's opinion on the matter does not canon make, unless said person is Rowling. Unless it is SPECIFICALLY STATED that something came out of Rowling's mouth, it's nearly useless. Hell, the writer themselves says "as we all know", which shows that THEY, THE AUTHOR is making an assumption--- nothing mentioned on Rowling's part --Laugh! 15:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with L that the article as written assumes rather than shows that they are married. I imagine the interview itself is clearer--I'll be watching it tonight, but I expect it's up on youtube or similar if anyone wants to dig for it. How does one cite sources like an interview, which we can't link to? Claudia 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not assuming. It's relaying, or paraphrasing, information that the author said, instead of quoting each word. Nobody around here seems to know anything about writing novels or articles. When writing a novel you don't word it like an encyclopedia article (see Ginny Potter talk page), and when writing a news article you don't just quote everything the interviewee said. --Cdman882 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a good find and will make things a lot easier - we don't have to be so careful with wording now. chgallen 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you and I'm glad if it can help, even if some are hesitant to use it. --74.137.227.117 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I am getting a bit tired of people insisting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Rowling refers to the family as "the five Potters". Now, unless you think Ginny just up and changed her name for no reason, please stop asserting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Thank you. 72.208.25.18 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's tiresome. This is a respected interviewer, a respected news coporation, conducting an interview sitting right there with the author, and people still want to argue against marriage. Silly. Some people just so want to be right that they can't see the forest for the trees. --Cdman882 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please "assume good faith" and keep the tone here friendly, thanks. Most of us are referring to the MSNBC article, which does gloss over the point. (Did she say they married? Or did she say he'd created himself a family and the article writer gave background info for that?) If the interview makes it clearer, please do cite it in the DH article and be done with the question! I won't watch it myself for another 3 or 4 hours, or I would. Claudia 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just been frustrating. It's hard to make things any clearer. We can't get our own interview with JKR. If we went through debunking every quality news source that does not include an exact quote, but paraphrases, we would have to shut down Wikipedia. You should be able to quote an NBC, or BBC, or Fox, or the AP, or Reuters, etc. etc. etc. and trust that they have checked their sources. This isn't a fly-by-night blogger.--Cdman882 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

um, the book says that james referrers to Victoire as "our cousin" and for her tobe thier couisin, harry would have had to marry a weasly!

No, for her to be their cousin they would have to be children of a Weasley. Marriage is never explicitly stated in the book, but has been confirmed by JKR. chgallen 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

72 million copies

Has this figure been debunked yet? Seems very farfetched considering there were 8.3M sold in the US and around 2.6M sold in the UK, the two largest markets. I couldn't imagine 60M+ coming from elsewhere. --Cdman882 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was debunked in Archive 24, and a few sections above this one ("First weekend sales" or some such).-Wafulz 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Wafulz. I'm guessing that when all is said and done, 72M may not be too farfetched (as the first six show an average of roughly 54M ea. worlwide), but at this time it's wrong. Is there a reason why it is still in the article? --Cdman882 14:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It was sold simultaneously in 93 countries, it makes sense that it could have sold the 72.1 million copies. Supertigerman 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 93 countries, but even if you take the 11M sold in the US and UK, and the other 91 countries average 500,000 each (which is a major stretch), you still do not reach 72 million copies (it's 56.5M). --Cdman882 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it quoted in a fair amount of media, so it should be mentioned in the article because it is what many people go by. I have yet to see a reliable alternative figure for worldwide sales. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The figure can't possibly be correct. --- RockMFR 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no way that figure could be correct. jj137 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

12 Million copies were shipped in the US alone, but that figure seems waaay to hign

Yoman786 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

I have a Bloomsbury published edition for Australia, of which the ISBN is ISBN 978 0 7475 9105 4. This differs from the ISBN listed in the article for the Bloombury edition for Australian distribution. I think it is possible that the ISBNs differ between countries as the prints themselves also differ. E.g. the Australian distribution edition says it was "Printed in Australia by Griffin Press". I would assume the South African addition would not say this. Should the other ISBNs be listed? I think this is the Australian Adult Jacket Edition - ISBN 9780747591061 Tinkstar1985 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked about this above. These are essentially the same ISBNs - the ones in the articles are the old ISBN-10 representations (see ISBN#Overview). Actually WIkipedia:ISBN states ISBN-13s are preferred if available, so now I'm wondering if there's a reason why they're not used here. --Dapeteばか 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Archival

The timing on the bot was not changed so things are still being archived to Archive 22, instead of now 26. Are some of the stuff in 22 (now 69kb) in 23-25 as well? Should tthey have been moved there? Can someone sort this out? Simply south 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Fixed - moved material archived improperly into Archive 22 to Archive 25. Also removed the malfunctioning bot. Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)