Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 3

message: I propose to merge Harry Potter (character):  Book Seven into this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.21.29 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2006  (UTC)
:I agree. It would make sense to do so, since the article is about Harry Potter himself, not the book. Though, a link to "Harry Potter Book Seven" could probably be left there. --SSJ4 Aragorn 03:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Same reason as above. Dragix 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand, this is just a part of an article. Is there really any reason to merge the article? Tuvas 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume the idea is to take the content from 'potter' and place it in 'book 7', though most likely most if it is already there, and anything left out has been not included on purpose. I do not approve of having two articles saying the same thing. Harry's article is long (deservedly), but there already exists an article covering the ground in this section. So make a reference to it and get rid of the remaining entry within Harry's article. Sandpiper 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Someone has put on the article page that the Order of the Pheonix film is going to released 6 days after Harry Potter book 7 is released. If you go on this countdown to the Order of the Pheonix fim (I found it on the leaky cauldron website) it says Order of the Pheonix film is going to be released on the 13/7/07. That's 6 days after the 7/7/07! Is that proof that it's going be released on the 7/7/07 or not? Here's the website:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/countdown_ootp.swf
--Daniel Omy talk. 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is, 7-7-07 is totally unconfirmed, in fact, even though it was I who first put this bit on here, I wish I hadn't... It would be crazy to release the book and the movie so close to each other, although it could be possible... Who knows. There is no official book release date, because the book isn't done, and you can't rush a book. Because the book's not even done, I think it might even take longer than that. Who knows... Tuvas 01:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was intended to be proof that the book was unlikely to be released on 7/7/7. But I am not convinced by that argument either. It all depends, so I am content to make a note 1) when the film comes out, which may complicate things and 2) fans have suggested that 7/7/7 would be a very appropriate date, which is true. Sandpiper 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date is 7/7/07 

message: Now I realise that this article is aimed mostly at fans wanting to have a place where all the information about book 7 can be found without looking around lots of websites.  However, this is still wikipedia and the degree of previous knoledge assumed by the article is a bit excessive.  Untill my morest recent edit the first mention of the word wizard or a derative was "Each volume contains a complete problem and task for the heroes to complete, but each has also added to the background information about the wizarding world in general", even though the article has never mentioned that the books take place in a "wizarding world".  In the next section characters are referd to by their first names only with no explination as to who they are and what diffrence it makes tht harry is going to "Bill's wedding".  Most of this stuff can be fixed by adding a few words here and there, linking to people full names to show who is related to who etc. Dalf | Talk 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I tried to stick in an introductory section describing the basic outline of the plot I was struck down for putting in too much detail, I think the specific criticism was that i was describing the earlier books in an article about the last one. (all of three sentences about them). I also thought that the article (much worse than now) absolutely failed to explain to a newcomer what it was talking bout. Hmm.
On the other hand, maybe you are thinking about the various quotes which tend to be terse and unexplained unless you know the story. I am not sure how much we can pad these out without this part getting rather too wordy for something intending to get across the points to someone who is familiar with the plot, at least well enough to know the characters.  Sandpiper 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am talking mostly about changing things like, "Bill and Fleur's wedding" to "Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour wedding" because someone might ask 'who the hell are bill and Fleur?'  Granted that is why the words are linked but shoudl you have to read 5 - 10 sub pages to understand the one when you can simply include 3-4 more words.  Even the change I just suggested (of which there are many more in the article that could be done) would give a clue that Bill is related to Ron and it is herefore a weasley family weeding and the article at this point has at least somewhat introduced who the Weasleys are.  It is probbly nto in this instance needed to add "Rons brother Bill" but that is the sort of thing I am aiming at.  The fact that "Wizarding world" is casually thrown in midway thorugh the article without mentioning wizards or the setting is just bad form (Even is magic was mentioned how many settings contain magic?). Dalf | Talk 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context is missing 

message: I noticed that the mention of book length for philosophers stone (223 pages UK) and phoenix (766 pages UK) seem to change about. Possibly the US page counts are different (well, I'm sure they are, as page numbering for quotes is different, which makes it difficult to do). So are we adhering to the Uk ones, or what? Sandpiper 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of pages in books 

message: I don't know wht it is called, but my friend's, mom's, old boss is a friend of Rowling's (or so he says), and claims to have the first eight chapters. User:Jntg4
:Unless I misunderstood what you wrote, I don't think so. With Rowling being so tight on giving out details about the book, I somehow doubt that she would give away the firs eight chapters to a friend. I seem to remember JK saying somewhere that she didn't reveal what happens in future books even to her family. Anyway, this probably isn't the best place to post it. Try posting it at a fan forum. 0L1 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we have the Lockheart real person? Tuvas 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, maybe... 0L1 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, Book Seven is most important part of Harry Potter book. I guess. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Named? 

message: Quoted from the final line in the section "Continuing storylines from previous books" on this article:
The title of book 7 is most likely already decided by J.K. Rowling, and will most likely begin with "Harry Potter and the...".
Well gee whiz you think? Anyway I'm removing it, unless anyone can explain to me what it means/if it has any importance at all besides making me laugh. Code E 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think humour is not important in an article? if it made you laugh then  it was well worth including. Sandpiper 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, wikipedia may become a joke of it fails to understand that articles need to entertain as well as inform. But since it seems necessary to belabour the point, the actual title of the new book is of interest to everyone. I am not too keen on debate as to 'the pillar of Storge', and so forth (though JKR has now, in a sense, endorsed that debate by including it on her own website), but I seem to recall a quote where she effectively endorses the title as 'Harry Potter and..', and it quite sensibly follows based upon the titles of all the other books. It is one of the more established expectations about the new book. Sandpiper 07:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd dare to say it's the best information given. I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I know that JKR has stated that book 7 will be "Harry Potter and...", it is a bit of information which is useful. If it's humor, it's at least not original humor, and I have seen alot worse, take the grumpy old man article. Tuvas 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Title of book 7" 

message: Just removed some vandalism - this page was made a redirect to Talk: Harry Potter Book Seven on! (or something like that). It's all fixed now but I thought I should point it out. 0L1 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandlaism 

message: This is just light hearted you can skip if you want.  If not .... can someone explaine to me what the irristable draw of vandalizing the book title thing is?  I mean honestly is every 13 year old boy in the enaglish speaking workd going to have a go?  I mean why the book title when they could be bragging about a friend's homosexuality or some thing.  Anyway I was a bit curious and bord so I thought I would compile a list, if any vandals happen to be reading this (because I know you all check the talk page first) please not that the follwing titles have been tried (since July 10th):
*  Harry Potter Book: Fuck Da Police - Could not work and "and the" into that?
*  WB has trademarked one that perfectly fits: Harry Potter and the Alchemist's Cell - Have they now?
* Harry Potter: The Butthead of Hogwarts - Another deft (or perhaps daft?) deviation from the standard ".... and the ..." style. 
* Harry Potter and the Final Battle 
* Harry Potter and the Great Revelation and Harry Potter and the Parseltongue trophy these two were added as speculation at least.
* Harry Potter and the End - Yes very creative.
* Harry Potter and the Poison Horcrux - Well this time at least you did 4 or 5 diffrent places in the article.  A little harder to clean up but honestly. 
* Harry Potter and the Poison Horcrux - Because exploding ones that burn off your hand are not enough!  At least you stick to your guns.
* Harry Potter and the End of the Series - Oh you are so clever *pat on the head*
* Harry Potter and the Never Ending Story - Who is the hero of this one?  Is there going to be a flying dragon dog thing?
What ever the title turns out to be this edit assures us that it will be aswsome. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to try making a small change - to Harry Potter (Year 7).  It seems leaving it as Harry Potter and the ... provides too much temptation for internet trolls and vandals (and well meaning novices) to add on their favorite tagline that they heard from someone claiming to know the truth and had it posted on their myspace or blog page.  Bless their hearts.  --T-dot 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is definitely not "Harry Potter (Book 7)". I don't think we should use that, Internet trolls or no Internet trolls. As for well meaning novices, they can presumedly read any warning we insert in the form of a comment. Brian Jason Drake 11:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look - all the other books so far have contained a barely noticeable subtitle on the spine - e.g. "Year 4" on Goblet of Fire.  Of course the title will not be Harry Potter (Book 7) or Harry Potter (Year 7) - that is not the point.  Leaving the title as "Harry Potter and the..." is an open invitation to "Finish This Title!!!" - it is almost like advertizing a contest to see who comes up with something that some others might take as "real" - just like leaving a candy bowl on the coffee table - the kids are going to get in it.  I propose to "finish it" for the time being, until the real title is released, with something corresponding to the title of this article "Harry Potter book 7" - or "Harry Potter (book 7)" or "Harry Potter (Year 7)", which is a surrogate for the real title.  --T-dot 11:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that subtitle on every edition? I just checked a copy and I can't find it. Even so, if it's barely noticeable then is it relevant? Brian Jason Drake 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The year tag exists only on American editions. I think the best option for now is to simply deem the title unknown, which is both accurate and less likely to tempt trolls.--Lividore 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so long as we do not imply that it is the actual title but the number of the books in the series, it is fine.  It is common to refer to books in a series in this manner especially for Harry Potter books. Dalf | Talk 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book title vandalism ..... WTF?!? 

message: I heard that Harry kills Snape from someone that goes to my school he has claimed to have gotten a rough draft of the seventh book from the black market but I don't believe him. -- 70.171.190.17 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's lying. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, when last asked at the radio city charity reading, JKR said something like it was largely completed but she had surprised herself how many things she still had to get in. However, i really doubt it is a copy of anything written by JKR. But anyway, I want nothing to do with any copies of it until it is finished to her satisfaction. Sandpiper 20:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snape dies 

message: Hi there. 
On the Information from JKR section, a line reads:
And on Dolores Umbridge, "It's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish
and a link goes to citation 15, (). Now, I've not read the whole thing, but I searched for "dolores" and "umbridge", and she mentions her only when questioned about characters' personalities and her own. I've also searched specifically for the word torture and it is not there.
So, whoever added that line might have either linked it to the wrong reference, or just invented those lines. VdSV9•♫ 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It linked to the wrong interview; I've corrected it. Pruneautalk 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  umbridge 

message: What is the primary school for wizards?
:There isn't one. Magical children raised as wizards are discouraged by the ministry of magic from being sent to primary school, to avoid the problems faced by Harry, and the risks of culture clash and of the magical children spilling secrets about the wizarding world. Instead, these children are privately tutored, or taught by their parents. Only muggle-borns, and those few half-bloods or pure-bloods such as Harry and Voldemort, who are brought up in the muggle world, attend (muggle) primary school, where, according to Rowling, the MoM keeps an eye out to deal with spontaneous eruptions of magic, such as (to give some of Harry's examples) turning a teacher's wig blue, or accidentally apparating onto a roof. Harry may well have had such a watch on his school, to stop the teachers wondering about all of these examples in great detail. In any case, Hogwarts is the only British educational institution - there are neither universities nor primary schools.Michaelsanders 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Do not move. Either title would be only temporary anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: According to a Washington Post article she was set with one title until she thought up of another one that would be just as appropriate. 
I don't know if it's suitable for the article. Throw 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed it's already added in the article. I'll add the Washington Post article as another reference since it's from a more credible source. The one on there now is from a fan site. Throw 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowling has two possible titles for Book Seven 

message: Given the row over the previous suggested move (see three sections above, or so), moving the article anyways seems to be rather unilateral and will inevitably bring about more strife.  Why the move?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the hooba? 

message: Oh! C'mon! Just because he wants to kill main character he must be evil?!
:Evil is a childish word, used only by those who want to make a moral judgement in place of an intellectual judgement. It has no rightful place in politics or history. The novels have been stated by Rowling as being moral in intention, however, and so whilst the word should be avoided when casting judgement on Voldemort, it is undeniable that Rowling - and consequently the reader - views him as 'evil'. And thus one can't really avoid describing him as evil (unfortunately - use of the word offers an escape clause from having to explain what is actually wrong with the person, or people, and why they do what they do). Michaelsanders 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "evil dark wizard, Lord Voldemort" 

message: Hello. I'm reviewing this article as a GA nomination, and there are several things I'd like fixed before I pass the article. Here's a bulleted list to make things easier.
*I'm really concerned about the number of  tags. As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any in a proper GA.
*Be sure all facts that should be are cited - dates and other figures should be cited, imo.
*Perhaps the epigraph mentioned should be quoted.
*The plot summary is quite long, a bit of trimming may be in order. Most looks good, but try to keep things moving and only include the important details. 
*Citations should be at the end of sentences.
*I would be more likely to put the pre-release stuff at the beginning of the article, but that's really a personal style thing, so it's up to the person responding.
*The sales section is very well-referenced, good job on that.
*The translation section isn't in good summary style, that really should be fixed.
*I think the lead could be a bit longer, especially because of the length of the article, please see WP:LEAD. I agree with that NoRmIaD (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that this was on hold for awhile, and it seems that it hasn't been looked at, I'm afraid I have to fail this GAN. Please contact me if you've got any questions or concerns. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review