Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 14

message: Recently, some users have removed a gallery of fair use images (namely, other-edition book covers) from the article. The last edit on this matter was the restoration of the gallery by Reywas92. This is to provide a new opinion on whether the WP:NONFREE policy excludes such images, or whether they are acceptable. 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear cut in my opinion. Non-free content is to be kept to a minimum, showing covers of all editions (two copies of each no less) of a book is clearly not minimal. The extra covers do not supply any additional information of importance (we are not a "buyers guide" if that's the intention) and they are not subject of any commentary in the article. Despite Reywas92's asertion that they are "important" no rationale for the use of the images have been provided, and the onus is on those who whish to include non-free material in an article to provide detailed explanations for how each image satisfy each of the criteria for non-free image use. --Sherool (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the gallery again. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each image is equally supported: this article is about the book, and the covers serve to identify it. In this particular case, they do rather more than that. The cover illustrations  are drawings of scenes from the books. We do not have the text yet as it has not been published, but we do have the covers. Each cover is a different image, but all concern the book somehow. Sandpiper 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sandpiper, this time, the case isn't about relevancy. Everyone I'm sure agrees they are relevant. However, technically the pictures aren't free, and WP has a policy that such things as covers can be used, but preferably only once per page. The gallery would not qualify unfortunately here, but the good news is, WP doesn't get sued. Specifically, from WP:NONFREE, Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative. Tuvas 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing for two copies of each. But i am observing that the argument above, 'the extra covers do not supply any additional information' is plainly incorrect. Each cover is an informed choice by the publishers of a relevant image from the story. There are ten points listed in the guideline which must be met to include an item. Which does this fail? 1:there is no free equivalent. 2: these items have been released to advertise the books, and we are effectively boosting this campaign, so I don't see we are damaging commercial interest. 3:  Low res isn't really an issue, the originals are about 4000x4000 4: again, broadcast by the publishers and elsewhere. 5: relevant content. 6: meets other policy, which is mainly the use of non free images policy, anyway, as far as I can see. 7: images are used in this article. 8: the images are distinct scenes, so each has a distinct reason to be there, as I just said. could perhaps do with better explaining in the text. 9: is in the right place. 10: Is presumably just a matter of housekeeping. {i was somewhere else user:Sandpiper}
===Response to Request for Comments===
My personal feeling is that the case for inclusion of all these images is somewhat slim. If, for each image, there is something specific in the article which is illustrated by *this* cover (but not the others), then it can be argued that they should be included. Otherwise, having external links to the images from an official site is probably the best choice. Even if there will be information on the separate covers in the article, it could be argued that such links would be the better choice. I will also note that the section on the book covers currently seems to contain plenty of OR (i.e. "clearly shows Harry and his friends battling in the Room of Requirement" etc.) This needs to be improved. LR 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image gallery 

message: My personal feeling is that the case for inclusion of all these images is somewhat slim. If, for each image, there is something specific in the article which is illustrated by *this* cover (but not the others), then it can be argued that they should be included. Otherwise, having external links to the images from an official site is probably the best choice. Even if there will be information on the separate covers in the article, it could be argued that such links would be the better choice. I will also note that the section on the book covers currently seems to contain plenty of OR (i.e. "clearly shows Harry and his friends battling in the Room of Requirement" etc.) This needs to be improved. LR 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Request for Comments

message: In the introduction, it mentions the release of the seven questions most debated by fans. Do they have the answers to them, too? What are they, and where can I find them? Mollymoon 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the reference article for that section. As the article states, they are poll questions, allowing fans to guess the answers. And there won't be an answer to a single one of them, until Book 7, or at least, I hope not! Tuvas 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) who will live and who will die, 2)is Snape good or evil, 3)will Hogwarts re-open, ansd the others are supposed to be release fortnightly.  Personally, I would be a bit skeptical whether Hogwarts reopening is uppermost in everyone's mind, but we must wait and see what their other questions are. Bear in mind this is an advertising campaign. Sandpiper 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Questions Most Debated by Fans 

message: An IP just added this, and it looks relevant: there is a report circulating that Harry Potter and the Relics of Death is an alternate working title that has been given to translators, since Deathly Hallows doesn't mean much to them. Apparently.
Can anyone read the articles? I can't even tell what language that is ... Swiss? Daggoth | Talk 08:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't get the link to work properly in its raw format. Click here, and then put quotes around the search box to narrow it down to the relevant articles. I really need an external link for dummies guide :( - Daggoth | Talk 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well seeing as HP has origins in English, if there was any legitimacy to the proposed alternate title, then it would have had orders of magnitude more hits in English than in Swedish or whatever.  Chances are this is just more of the same rumours and daily gossip that we have been getting used to seeing, just in foreign sources this time rather than British or American or whatever.  We already know that Hallows can be relics of saints, so another possibility is that we have a simple case of translation entropy (Deathly Hallows - - - Blah Blah - - - Hallows of Death - - - Relics of Death).  The alternate titles are moot, per discussion above; and without bulletproof reliable sources, in English, from Rowling or her publishers, we will not be randomly posting what some fans might think were the other alternate working titles which Rowling may have kicked around, or what her Publishers may have registered as "dummies" at the trademarks office.  Furthermore, one could theoretically do a Google search on Harry Potter and the Wheel of Fortune.  If some hits in, say, Japanese or Mandarin came up, should we post those too?  I think I'll go with "not".   For reference, the Swedish (Harry Potter och dödsrelikerna) and many other foreign language titles are linked in the left column marked "In other languages", so we do not need "re-Englished translations" of the foreign titles to try to find "relevance" or to help us form more theories on what the title might mean.   --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my primary concern - that since it's in a foreign language, unless someone here can read it and is somewhat familiar with the sites in question, we can't verify if it's a valid source or not. But as for more turning up in English - check out the dates on those google hits. They're dated 24 May - it's only just happened. I've got a feeling we may be seeing more of this very shortly, especially if the news sites pick it up and verify / debunk it through their sources. Daggoth | Talk 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - Per the previous discussions above, if the major English news outlets, for example the BBC, Times of London, CNN, New York Times, Associated Press, etc. begin to report on verifiable information related to Book 7, plotlines, spoilers, alternate Titles, statements from Rowling, answers to the "Seven Questions", etc., then we are free to consider adding relevant information from that here.  Anything from unreliable or questionable sources, especially the rag sheets that are more bent on selling a story and spreading gossip, conspiracy theories, and rumours than on reporting the verifiable facts, are to be excluded, per policy on verifiability and attribution from reliable sources.  We are bound to see mountains of theories and rumours posing as "facts" during the next 8 weeks, and it is our duty to resist the urge to post anything, without bulletproof sourcing.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We do not know if it indeed was the English title or not, but "Relics of Death" is the translation of the French title "Harry Potter et les Reliques de la Mort". --soum talk 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relics of Death - alternate title 

message: Daily Mirror and other media report that a quarter million copies of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", the seventh and final installment in J. K. Rowling's fantasy series are being printed in the small german town of Poessneck near the czech border. According to locals the security measures introduced in and around the GGP print factory resemble those at the height of Cold War. Employees under threats of fines had to sign secret contracts and are body and vehicle searched after every workday. What's more, to prevent them reading or copying the book they have to work in PITCH DARK!
I simply cannot imagine the work safety implications of this. In a high-capacity printing house machines 15 feet across unfold one-ton rolls of paper at several dozen miles an hour. Have a hand or piece of apprel entangled and it will rip out your whole arm and you are dead! How could anyone work in the dark with such equipment?
Supposedly the European Union is notable for its focus on workplace safety - but now it looks like for profits we have almost degraded to the level of black Africa, where underpaid diamond miners are x-rayed every day for body cavity contraband, without regards for their radiation exposure. I'd say it is no longer Voldemort who should be public enemy no.1, but rather that Lord Franchise.
Read the original article here:
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/harry%20potter%20book%20made%20in%20total%20darkness_1032245
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs) 
:That's nice, but the Wikipedia talk pages and articles are not intended for editorial commentaries and spreading gossip and rumours.  We don't post made-up materials gathered from dubious or unreliable sources, make judgements on the claims, and air our concerns and viewpoints on the matter here.  Please feel free however to post your views at an appropriate HP fan site or blog site, where I am sure they are already discussing it if it is "true", or they will soon be after you post the "breaking news".  Have fun with that!  Now if CNN or the BBC or The Times or some other highly reliable news agency does a story on the horrible work conditions at a factory printing Rowling books, we can discuss the possibility of adding it to the article in a proper section.  Otherwise we have nothing to post.  Thanks!   --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fake. Today's lesson, kids: British tabloids suck! Daggoth | Talk 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Deathly Printing-house 

message: 170 kb :( Daggoth | Talk 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please!  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: Archived #12 with 68 kb - probably needs another one soon, as recent discussions die down.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive again? 

message: I don't know who or where the cover art image came from on the main page, but I don't believe it is an actual cover for the book.  Mary GrandPré has created all the artwork and images for the past books, and anyone who has seen her past work will know this image is not hers.  I read somewhere that Mary GrandPré has also created the image for the cover of this book, but I don't believe this is it, plus Amazon.com has an image of the book on file that I believe is the actual cover for the seventh novel.  Perhaps someone should help me research this and change the image out if need be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs) 
:GrandPré only makes the artwork for the US versions, not the British. Voretus 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Art Image 

message: I really wonder about the relevance of this section. It doesn't have any external sources, and thus much of its content is what the contributors themselves are expecting in book 7. Aside from the stated facts from book 6 that Harry intends to visit Godric's Hollow, that he has to locate the remaining Horcruxes, and the RAB issue, I can't see how this section could exist without being original research. Any thoughts on this ? Folken de Fanel 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, relevance is not really the issue is it?  The "dangling plot elements" of any incomplete serial work are most definitely relevant to the continuation of the series.  Perhaps you meant notability?  Or verifiability?  But what did you mean by doesn't have any external sources - did you mean to say doesn't have any secondary sources (published outside of Rowling's canonical books)?  Just about all of the line items on the current list have very thorough "chapter and verse" external quotes to the previous books (eg: HBP Ch.30), and many internal cross references on the subject matters being discussed.  I would characterize it as well documented.  A cleanup of excessive and inappropriate in-universe style and otherwise poor phrasing is always welcome - but blanking of plot elements may not be well received at all.  The intent is to document the "known" and "important" dangling plot elements, which may (or may not) be answered in Book 7.  You can certainly debate the notability of some items on the list as it stands, but I think some of the "shipping" and other nonsense has been long removed.  Now, I do cringe a bit when the list starts off blatently with the rather crystalballish "Harry will return (home)...", since for all we know Harry could get killed by Death Eaters as soon as he steps off the Hogwarts Express on the way home from school, and thus it will be up to the others to deal with Voldemort et al.  In any case, as long as the items are carefully worded and well sourced, there is little reason to delete it.  That said, in about a month and a half this will all be moot and gone, replaced with a mangled plot summary and perhaps some "unanswered questions" for everyone to kick around like a worn-out football.  Rowling all but said that she expects (and delights in the fact that) the speculation to continue even after Book 7, indicating that there will be unanswered questions and unresolved debates.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all counts. Some of the recent edits were getting a bit ridiculous (one item from each maurader? mirror might be used? etc etc), but the section looks fine now. I fail to see how the article will be improved if we take out the rest. Daggoth | Talk 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, no. This point is not really likely to be developped. Hey, I could add Crouch Senior's house as an unsolved plot element! Barraki 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure JKR said somewhere (interview before HB publication?) that what Dudley saw would be explained in a future book. But it's probably not significant enough to be mentioned. Daggoth | Talk 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved plot elements from previous books 

message: Which in turn isn't allowed by Wikipedia. I mean, we are just stating what the title might reference, since we don't know. Your thoughts. ArchKnight47 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's an awful lot of trivia and speculation in the article which will be totally irrelevant once the book is released... I'm not sure if it should be removed, however. Wikis change and adapt to the present, so perhaps these tidbits are somehow relevant at the present. ~MDD4696 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a distinction, to be sure.  I think people are just concerned that there may be a risk of slipping in weasel words, which happens all too frequently on this article.Phoenix1304 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps people should appreciate that 'weasel words' are not 'weasel words' when they happen to be correct. some people are quite prone to accusing statements of being 'weasel' when they are precisely accurate. Sandpiper 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't the Deathly Hallows Section just all Speculation? 

message: Shouldn't it be noted that Stephen Colbert happens to have an advance copy of the novel (Probably along with other celbrities)? Colbert flashed his copy on a recent edition of the Colbert Report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.197.100 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a reference for this? --Pyreforge 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt this is anything more than Colbert being his facetious self. (especially given that he then went on to state that Hermione isn't a female!) Besides, for the previous books, Radcliffe and co commented that they would be getting their copies like everyone else on release day. If the principal actors aren't getting them, random celebs probably aren't either. Colbert's copy of the book is probably nothing more than a previous book (same number of pages? UK edition is anyway) with a printout of the DH dust jacket around the outside. Daggoth | Talk 09:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And there I was confusing the man with David Colbert, who has written a book about HP. Guess he won't be getting one either, then. Sandpiper 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to get you hands on a copy of the book in advance, make friends with the director of your local library.  Public libraries get advance copies so they can be checked out on release day. Djdowns 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, at least not for my local library.  They get it at the same time everyone else does - which explains the midnight parties.  Then again, I live in Ohio, and if it isn't corn or Amish, we probably got it wrong. Phoenix1304 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to note that just the other night, he brought out the DH book again.  It's fake.  The reason I can tell is because the book was about as thick as the third book, which was only over 400 pages.  This book is 784 pages. --Crushti 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities getting advanced copies 

message: Could people have a close look at the recent vandalism and repair it please? See here. The vandalism I found includes the following.
;Initial vandalism
*'Critical reception' section blanked
*'The Battle of Hogwarts' section blanked
*'The search begins' section blanked
*'Epigraph' section blanked
**TOTAL:four sections blanked
;Incomplete response
*'The search begins' section restored - following this one up in more detail with the new user
;More vandalism and a correct response but still not enough reversion
*Three sections blanked
*Three sections restored
;Someone notices that a section is missing
*'The Battle of Hogwarts' section restored
;Strange edit and later fix
*Looks like vandalism (not sure) that got fixed in this edit
;Protection
*Page then got protected
;Someone noticed another section was missing
*'Critical reception' section restored
;I noticed that one of the sections is still missing
*'Epigraph' section restored
Overall, I think everything got spotted, but it was worrying that it took so long for all the vandalism to be spotted - the ball seems to have been dropped here. I will notify a few of the people above who maybe could have checked before reverting. Possibly some bits are still lost. Could someone who follows this article more closely than I do check? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, problem identified. User:RMDRDR (a new user) only partially reverted the IP. Will deal with that separately on his talk page. Still, this kind of partial reversion is something to watch out for. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Carcharoth. You'd asked me to comment on this. Life's been a little crazy, hence the delay in responding, so I really don't remember exactly what happened here, though I think I saw that the IP had defaced the page several times and left a warning for that reason, even though I hadn't been reverting said vandal. I don't think I looked at the page history at all, only the IP's contribs, hence my not realizing that some of the vandalism was missed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism not properly reverted