Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 21

message: What happened to the picture for one of the back covers? It had a picture of what looked like a huge ice fortress. It kinda looked like Hogwarts as it was next to a dark forest; only it looked like it was frozen. Just curious as to why it got removed.-Darknessofheart
:It's possible that it was removed because it's too trivial.  The article is currently bogged down with a lot of information, and will probably require a lot of editing over the next few weeks to keep it at a reasonable length, so I think maybe someone decided that front covers are good enough for now.  Front and back covers are readily available at various fan sites (and thankfully most of them are legal), including a nice international archive at The Leaky Cauldron.  I believe this is the one you're referring to. - Ugliness Man 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a big deal, but... 

message: For those of you who have been adamently making sure no spoilers are put in this page have you been bothering to check the other related wiki pages.  NO I SEE NOT.  If you had bothered to look at the other related pages (Horacrux, NAGINI, and such) you would notice that there are spoilers there too, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.102.33 (talk • contribs) 
:Removed spoilers on horcurx, now watching it for changes. I didn't find any at Nagini, but I'll watch over that one too. Please sign your posts with four tildes, like these (but more) --> ~~ THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food for thought 

message: Several facts need to be put up
Namely:  << Spoilers clipped >>
Many others. Just read the damn book.
CloudStrife433 10:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the comments of a newly-registered Wikipedian. That's the best source I've seen all week! ~~ THE  DARK LORD'  TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch the sarcasm, there. See WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if that stuff is real, but I'm taking it down, even in here.  I'm new, but this isn't the place for spoilers, accurate or not.  RiftDoggy 11:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry... tired of destroying vandalism... stopped thinking there for a minute ~~ THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its out, I read the ebook personally. 

message: I'm not exactly clear on this article's protection status.  Is it semi-protected, or full-protected? The discussion on this page states full-protection, but it is tagged at the bottom as "semi=protected". 69.138.114.229 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is (or should be) semi-protected at this time to prevent vandalism by anonymous users and and new sockpuppets.  About 12 hours ago it was unexpectedly put on full protection by an administrator, but that was retracted back to semi-protection after a consensus discussion of the alternatives.   I believe the protection is set to expire in a week, but it may be reinstated and extended longer if random anonymous vandalism resumes.  The only reason to place it on full protection would be if a massive edit and reversion war breaks out and disrupts others from providing quality edits.   --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Status 

message: Can't help but imagine a few editors drooling like mad over this and related articles ^_^. I for one will stay away from this particular page for days until much of the dust settles down. BTW, wouldn't it be neater when the edits begin this discussion page be archived so we can have a clean deck? Chinfo 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a 'bot' programmed to execute a periodic archiving of older discussions here when the talk page gets overlarge (100k+ I think), and I have also been archiving daily so far this week.  I would estimate the next archive action (#20) will occur in about 7 hours (about 20:00 UTC), depending on the page size. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the archiving bot instructions were changed a few moments ago to every 12 hours or at 70k. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already started it and halved the archive time, though the bot hasn;t actually done ANY archiving yet. (at least, in the last 500 edits). I think it should be set to archive at about 60k rather than 100k. RHB - Talk 13:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes - MiszaBot executed an archive to /Archive 19 (about 30k worth) at 20:38 yesterday .  I added another 30k or so about 12 hours later to bring it to just under 64k total.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Now that the book is being released in parts of Asia, the  should be replaced with . --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but just for the record, I believe it is not being released until 12:00 am UK time, regardless of local time in Asia. Joshdboz 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brisbane (Australia), which is a fair bit further west than many parts of asia, isn't seeing the book until 9am (local AEST) on Saturday morning. NZ isn't getting the book until 11am local time, so it doesn't matter what the time in that country is, the release is worldwide according to UK time. dr.alf 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and replaced the tag with , seeing as it has now "officially" been released. Nazgul533 talk contribs 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: rv'd - not for another 50 minutes ... --AlisonW 22:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  replacing tags 

message: The article is once again semi-protected, as it should be. Neil ╦ 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thanks.  There shouldn't be anything too unhandleable (if that's a word) until it actually gets released. Joshdboz 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this decision, but wheel warring won't help anything... ugen64 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that it should be fully protected till everyone gets a chance to buy the book, which would be 24 hours after the initial British release, but that's just me. KeineLust90 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected 

message: This article was brought to my attention this morning.  Not sure how/if it needs to be incorperated into the article, but it is an interesting read.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTYxYmE5Y2UzNDMyNWQ2YzFmYTk3NzY1MTkxZGFhNzI=
72.69.129.226 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I added the info. Joshdboz 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article from Will Collier on DeepDiscount, eBay and early shippin' books. 

message: It seems, that the pictures leaked on the internet help the investigators, because metadata saved in the pictures reveal more information. Also other aspects can help to identify the person.
See this article: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece (88.73.97.226 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be getting to the point where there should be a separate article entirely that traces the story of this particular Harry Potter leak, considering it has led to sustained press coverage and lawsuits.  As this seems to be the only full leak of the entire book, negating the need for disambig, perhaps it should simply be entitled Leak of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Joshdboz 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Try not to get ensnared in recentism. While there is still a ton of documentation, there isn't an enormous amount of unique information. We should wait a bit, see if it can't be condensed, and then consider a split.-Wafulz 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with that.  Only if it gets to the point where further legal action is taken or if this person's identity is discovered. Joshdboz 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is enough information, this would be an interesting article, but it should report the story of the leak from the beginning to the ending - if there will be one ;) - and background information. It would also shorten the hole article Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows there should be a section where a few sentences describe what happened and then above "Main Article: Leak of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". But I agree with Wafulz, that we should wait. --88.73.97.226 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traces to the person who leaked the photos of Deathly Hallows 

message: *Should it all be there?
*Fan sites et all.
*Remove it?
Universal Hero 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them should be axed. We should examine them individually after the book is out- we don't need links about speculation or news stories after the release. If people want fansites, they can look up the articles there.-Wafulz 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be from the big name sites, so I don't think reliability is a reason for deletion.  However, it is a bit excessive and as removing extensive links isn't exactly vandalism, it could be trimmed. Joshdboz 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: After this book is released it is to be expected that a large plot summary will be quickly added to this article.  I'm wondering what people think should be done with the then somewhat outdated info, such as the entire "What is known about the plot."  Obviously this is still a useful record of information, but perhaps a bit too extensive for this article.  Should there be a sub article about the hype/info/everything else leading up to this release?  It would be a shame to simply see it all deleted.  Joshdboz 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of the article will change after the book is released. The "hype" will become less important and should be given less weight in the article than critical reception. Leebo T/C 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Folks have asked how a pre-release plot summary could be verified by a wikipedia editor, since it is difficult to know what the summary is based on.  Even though e.g. the New York Times has vouched for the page pictures with the book laid out on a beige red-and-green-flecked looped carpet, someone else could edit such pictures and repost
them, etc.
One robust way to enhance verifiability would be for a valid source
(e.g. a respected newspaper) to publish the SHA1 or MD5  cryptographic hash function of the leaked download that they vouch for.  Such a hash
is easy to reproduce, just 16 or 20 bytes long.  People could then
search for and download their own copies, and if the hash matches,
they could be very confident that they were looking at the same thing,
and that they could contribute to the plot summary in a verifiable
way.
Disclaimer: I know of no reputable organizations who have vouched for a Deathly Hallows hash in this way, and I take no position here on whether Wikipedia would want to allow pre-release summaries  using this sort of verification mechanism.  I'm just a geek pointing out what is possible.  --NealMcB 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be quicker to just wait 11 hours.-Wafulz 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be pedantic, MD5 is broken for anything other than trivial uses. However, that would also seem as if Wikipedia condoned copyright violation, which the media would have a field day with. Not to mention that the book comes out in less than 6 hours here. 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting a plot summary is not a copyright violation (yet) even if it was posted two months ago from someone who read it at the presses. All the ballyhoo is over contracts with distrubutors, which wikipedia has not entered into.  Stop giving power to copyright rackets. --Nodekeeper 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The break does not affect the use I describe very much.  It would be possible for the original poster to post a version of the book which could be spoofed, but they would be unlikely to do so.  --NealMcB 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hashing wont work, not with compressed images. Even if a single byte changes, the hash will change. Since JPEG compression does not preserve data byte-for-byte losing a byte does not sound implausible to me. The only way this can work is to use the digest of the text, and reliable sources publishing it. And the text cannot even have a single word error. I would happily wait ten hours to doing that. --soum talk 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hashing works fine over either the pictures or a text version.  You just have to transfer the files reliably, and even one bit errors are rare in Internet protocols, by design.  But yeah, I'm happy to wait 5 more hours.... --NealMcB 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leak Verification via SHA1/MD5 hash 

message: someone will post Snape dies! (I don't know if he does) etc near the top of the page, or something similar.  Call me a pessimist but I think it's probably quite likely to happen.  Can't you make it fully protected for the first week of release etc?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.194.189 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, people will just try to spoil it (for example, by revealing not that Snape dies, since he doesn't, but that Harry himself bites it at the end). I say two weeks.
:No, the article will not be fully protected for a week. I expect it will have plot details in an appropriate section very quickly. Inappropriately placed text of all sorts will be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was fully protected earlier this morning, but the consensus discussion above (and wiki-policy) suggested that semi-protection from anonymous and new-sockpuppet edits was appropriate, so this is what we have.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  However, the protection period has been reduced progressively over the past few days from Aug 17 to Aug 3 to July 27.  I propose that we reduce it further to expire shortly (like minutes) after the release time.  If the anon IP vandalism spikes, we can protect it for short periods of time.  However, this is a great opportunity to advertise the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" feature to a very wide audience.  Semi-protection defeats that objective.  --Richard 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that sentiment, but I think it would be better to manually turn it off at release time (5 hours from now) so that we can leave move protection turned on. If the protection is set to expire, the move protection will also expire. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. It also discusses this topic and I think the result was to semi-protect the page.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism on the page has been pretty limited thanks to semi-protection. There's been almost an equal amount of vandalism on this talk page.-Wafulz 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the earlier conversation on the admin boards was about full protection, since the article was already semiprotected. I don't think it would hurt to unprotect the article for IP editors too, since as it is vandalism is reverted very quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping the semi-protection for a week or two after release is reasonable - the page is going to remain in extremely high visibility and will remain at high risk for vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say we lock this page and choose 3 people to edit it during the time iot is locked, I think it should stay locked for at least 2 weeks.--Jareth shadow 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just 2 weeks? Most people will take unleast a month to read that book (since most readers are children) and those can vandalize the article.--Midasminus 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Locking is not an option for dealing with vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When this book is released this page will be vandalised 

message: When this is released, will be marked for the first week at least as 
...?
Simply south 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it'll be marked using . Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: The book cover image pages contain minor spoilers. I'm sure spoiler policy has been discussed to death, so I will leave addressing the issue to someone who knows the policy.
:Sorry, to clarify: The spoilers are in the text descriptions of the images, on the image pages.
If anyone is desperate to add a few more spoilers in the last hours before the release, the French daily Le Parisien has supposedly published a summary of the epilogue, making it fair game for Wikipedia (properly sourced, of course).  I'd do it myself, but my French needs a little work.  24.121.174.22 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spoilers in book cover image descriptions 

message: I had written most of this several days ago, but was told not to post it; however, the book is now out in half the world, and is released in the UK in about 5 minutes. I felt it was appropriate to post the (unfinished) plot summary now; I'll finish writing the rest of it this evening if no one else beats me to it. Titanium Dragon 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's already started. Joshdboz 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the plot summary being added. However, is there anyway of allowing it to be hidden to only be shown if the reader wants to read it?  Jvsett 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Titanium - Thank you.  Looking forward to seeing your work, and thank you especially for your patience in going along with the consensus, in spite of your deepest wishes.  I guess we were all hoping that you would have finished it by now, since you started it several days ago, so that it would be complete and high quality from the get-go.  I guess we have to take what we are going to get.  But thanks again for enduring to the end.   --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No real practical way to hide info, and I don't think many people would agree with such a thing. Joshdboz 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, someone's going to have to post page numbers for the UK or US edition for this and future summaries. Joshdboz 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great job, though slightly long. I'm working on trimming it down a bit. Wikipedian06 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not everyone lives in the United States and not everybody lives in the same time zone as you. It's past midnight in the UK. Betterlucknexttime 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I never meant to insult you, I just didn't know it was after midnight in the U.K. yet. My aplogies. And for future refeence, I'm in Canada. Killswitch Engage 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I know the main Harry Potter series page is very large as it is. I am suggesting this merge as this article is likely to get bigger etc etc etc; it seems appropriate that the future of the series should be mentioned there or maybe split off into a separate article? If not then mention in both. Simply south 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think given this is stated to be the final book, the Afterwards section is appropriate for this article and would be appropriate in Harry Potter too. Gotyear 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of afterwards 

message: Sorry, but I just don't think these two are nearly noteworthy enough.
There were thousands of news articles on the leak, but only a few on these other two topics. Wikipedian06 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing ASDA and Sabbath sections from controversy 

message: Hello. I just added a spoiler warning (), but it was just removed for being redundant. However, I would disagree because obviously there is a plot section, BUT, most other books' plot sections have these as well. I suggest, with consensus of course, that the spoiler notice be used for what it was designed for-- Warning the reader that a spoiler follows! Regards, and happy reading/editing to all Harry fans/Wikipedians, respectively. —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, only a handful of articles have spoiler tags, and none of those is about a book. There was a recent shift in practice about the tags. The general consensus that has developed is that the tags are redundant when they are used on plot sections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is, however, a spoiler warning at the very top of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks-- I just remembered seeing them in the past on some articles (I was thinking books, but maybe they were TV shows-- whoops!). Cheers, —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: Well, aside from some spelling mistakes and minor errors, the following two statements are sufficiently inaccurate that they really ought to be corrected.
->"Harry finds Ravenclaw's Diadem in the room of requirement and Hermione destroys it."
Actually, Hermione stabbed the Hufflepuff Cup with the basilisk fang.  Ravenclaw's Diadem was destroyed in Crabbe's Fiendfyre.
->"Harry kills Voldemort with the elder wand".
I would argue that Voldemort killed himself, when his curse rebounded.  And Voldemort had the elder wand; Harry had Draco's.
->And since the offspring of Harry/Ginny and Draco are mentioned, it only seems fair to identify Ron/Hermione's as Rose & Hugo.
->I've also noticed a typo in the sentence "The trio barely escape from the wizards sent to fetch them, but Harry is emboldened and believes that they need to collect all the Deathly Hallows, these artefacts given by Death, to defeat Voldemort."
"artefacts" should be spelled "artifacts". Nothing major, but I thought I'd point it out.
I've also noticed a typo in the sentence "The trio barely escape from the wizards sent to fetch them, but Harry is emboldened and believes that they need to collect all the Deathly Hallows, these artefacts given by Death, to defeat Voldemort."
"artefacts" should be spelled "artifacts". Nothing major, but I thought I'd point it out.
WalkingKnowledge 00:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathly Hallows - suggested edits 

message: Please fix the box. Not all places was the book released at 00:01 - I note New Zealand where it came out at 11:01 am today and in Australia it came out at 9:01 am on the east coast. Please fix!!! - News Link of Harry Potter release in NZ confirming time!58.108.2.17 01:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The times in those markets correspond, I believe, too 2300GMT. Only in the North Amercan markets is there a later chronological release time. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Time 

message: In the plot summary, it says that Harry sacrifices himself to Voldemort, but does not die. Could somebody elaborate on this a bit more? Piggins 01:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voldemort's Avada Kedavra kills the piece of Voldemort's soul that is in Harry, but Harry is protected by his mothers love, which also runs in Voldemort, and pretends to be dead when Voldemort has Harry's body inspected. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's right. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to add to plot 

message: I think that there should be a spoiler tag somewhere in this article as this book is very very new and has not even been released in the US yet.  --Shanedidona 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the problem is people are doing stuff just because the rules say they can.  They are selfishly acting with blatant disrespect to the Author and readers of the book.  I am aware that Wikipedia does not have to withhold information just because the author does not want it out?  But why can't it?   Brianopp 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brianopp, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The book has been released already, and there is no information that JKR wants to be withheld, it's all out there in the hands of the readers already. We waited until the book was out and now there is a spoiler warning at the top of the article. JKR and Harry Potter fans are being treated with no disrespect. This article isn't meant to spoiler, it clearly warns that there is a plot summary. --70.210.48.57 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I love how people are apparently incapable of practicing self-control and simply not read the article. Warning people that Wikipedia contains information is not our job, and all the hissy fits in the world will not change that. It's also quite arrogant to use the United States as a determiner to whether the article needs the spoiler tag. Many works of fiction come out in the United States long before any countries. We don't spoiler tag them, and rightfully so. ' 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like the hide box used so that persons who want to navigate around the details of the book without reading the plot can do so.  --Tbeatty 06:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the table of contents is for. 08:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Tag 

message: The plot summary appears to have been written by someone who never actually read the book.  There are MANY mistakes.  For example, Narcissa Malfoy never asked Harry to save Draco.  She merely asked him if he was still alive.  The plot summary needs to be unlocked and completely rewritten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm your wrong she asks him if he (harry) is alive then asks if Draco is safe and harry says yes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.212.126 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes in the Plot Summary