Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 28

message: Deathly Hallows has sold 72.1 million books WORLDWIDE.
So why is it written 11 million??
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia424ecde35cd0d81dd5c1ec8fb1c09f6
89.243.181.133 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed here before, but it may have been archived. 72.1 million was reported already after the first weekend of sales which is an extremely unlikely figure that has never been confirmed. Thus, we're sticking with the 11 million bit for now. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Total Sales 

message: After muddling around the History page for a few minutes with no success, I would be very appreciative if somebody could provide me with a historical link to this page before the novel had been released, when it still consisted of headings like "Information revealed by Rowling" etc. Thanks. -68.164.229.236 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version was protected for a time about a day before release, and avoids most of the pre-release (and post release) spoilers, trolling, vandalism, and speculation.  There are plenty of similar and reasonably uncontaminated versions nearby that version as well.  Hope that helps.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I have read a lot of negative reviews about this book from a critical stand point, so I just want to ask if I add some of those reviews will the be instantly deleted by the full force of Harry Potter fans? The fans loved it, but from a literary and critical standpoint reviews haven't been as pure in their praises. JayKeaton 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see new debate forming below, but my view is the article needs considerably more comment on both sides of the fence. Sandpiper 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that would original research, unless it were phrased in terms of poor sales (which hasn't happened), negative critical reviews (already in article, balanced with positive), or a comment by Rowling herself.  Anyway, your disappointment may be temporary; Rowling did say (in the Brown interview, see references) she may write an encyclopedia based on all her notes etc.  So we may hear more about our favorite characters some day. Ariadne55 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews and reception 

message: The book contains Bible quotes - a first in the Harry Potter saga - but does not cite chapter or verse. For those who would like to know:
"Where your treasure is, your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21.
"The last enemy to be destroyed shall be death." I Corinthians 15:26.
:This should be in the article. It is easy to state this without drawing conclusions. Just state it as information for the reader of this article. Carcharoth 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the quotes is already listed on the Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues page and that seems the most appropriate spot for it.  We wouldn't want the Deathly Hallows page to get cluttered with information that is better organized elsewhere. Ariadne55 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, try to remember to not bite the newbies, DasBaz. Look at the new user's contributions - (s)he is brand new and shiny. They may be inappropriate in expressing those views here, but that's an opportunity to help them along, not smack them with the editorial equivalent of a ball-peen hammer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: People can quote the Bible without being Christians.  The Bible, especially the King James version, can be appreciated simply as literature and poetry.  We don't know what religion the Potters and the Dumbledores were, or even if everyone in those families was the same religion. Ariadne55 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Or they may have found a pretty bit of poetry or a phrase that resonated and decided to use it, without regard to the source.  We don't know why Rowling chose those phrases. Ariadne55 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? I would and I'm definitely not Christian (nor do I belong to any other religion). "Where your treasures lie, your heart shall be also" sounds real cool to me and I would quote it if it was from the Bible, the Koran or any other book. --Burek 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Quotes 

message: Considering that the book is a virtual bloodbath of major characters, I think that a list of "casualties" is more than warranted. Considering that Pettigrew, Snape, Fred, Moody, Tonks, Lupin, Dobby, and...whoever else died, the fact that you can actually lose track of the number of dead main characters is a testament to how badly a list is needed...were all major characters and have been in the series for a minimum of three books, seven in the case of many characters, a list is warranted. 21:04, 13 August 2007 User:209.169.97.84
:There was such a list: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter. This list is now in http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_deaths . Anthony Appleyard 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no, no, no. the list of deaths was unencyclopedic for the article and was deleted as a seperate list at AFD twice. Will (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think we need to keep in mind as well that it does not all depend on how important these deaths are in the book series, but we also need to think of their universal importance. If you think of thing universally, it might help to decided what should and shouldn't be considered fancruft.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a good case for a 'death' list in the series article, but not the individual book articles. Carcharoth 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there's anything wrong with linking to the article on Wikia in "External links". --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure I posted this before: by now three people have asked me exactly who died. This specific information is way up there in the list of things the public wants to know about this book. Why would articles deliberately exclude information the public wants about a topic, that's daft. Sandpiper 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're more than free to read the plot section. ' 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but some people don't want to read the entire plot section just to find out who dies. 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death List Necessary 

message: What happened to the section I added about what was known before the book was published? It was very beneficial to this page! I won't start an edit war, but I hope it is replaced soon. Dewarw 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed here See edit summary for who and why.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dewarw just added it back, and I have removed it again. The sections in question were part of the article before the book was released. Those sections presented everything that was known at the time about Book 7: plot strands unresolved after the first six books, and hints Rowling had provided. Although copiously sourced, those sections became obsolete as soon as Book 7 was released. We don't need a section called "Unresolved plot elements from previous books," because we now have a plot section that explains how they were resolved. We don't need the hints that Rowling dished out in advance, because we now have something better—the book itself. Marc Shepherd 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see the  article needs a little polishing here and there. But I also think dewarw is correct. There ought to be a section mentioning the pre-release hype and speculation amongst fans. This was one of the most remarkable things about the launch of this book. Sandpiper 10:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with "Sandpiper." Do others think that something should be added? As I said, I do not want to start an edit war! Dewarw 10:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not be opposed to a very few paragraphs, in a special pre-release section, documenting some of the notable pre-release fandom hype, faked (or at least unauthorized) "spoilers" and alleged leaks, the "status" of the characters as of the end of Book 6 (uncertain loyalties, whether Dumbledore was really dead, etc.), the elusive interview comments from Rowling, and also the rampant predictions from fans which are (hopefully) well-documented somewhere.  It seems to me the duty of an encyclopedia to focus more on "the big picture" regarding the book as a significant cultural global phenomenon during it's writing during 2006, and publication and release in 2007, and less on the shocking!, stunning!, and amazing! plot summary itself. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: Regarding a recent edit somebody made to the title of the Minister, I believe it's "Minister for Magic" in the British edition, but "Minister of Magic" in the American edition. *Dan T.* 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it always been like that? I've never heard of this difference before, strangely.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't either. But Dtobias is correct. It is called the Minister for Magic in England, and therefore we follow suit. i said 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've changed it to 'Minister for Magic' at least once. Somebody must keep changing it back.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: These are just the usual minor translations that are normally made when preparing a British book for American publication and vice versa.  Turning them into annotations would be pointless. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather agree with Sidaway here. To do so is to suggest we should also address the different spelling of words like 'instalment' vs 'installment' and so on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minister of/for Magic 

message: Last time I cleared out the Crit. Recep. section I shortened it and made it more balanced (e.g. writer's from different countries). I also chose the crit. recep. entries that were equal in length. One important thing to note is: Just because they are a well known author (Such as Stephen King) does NOT mean they may are allowed more space. Everyone's crit. recep. opinion should be counted as the same. Everyone's opinion is equally as valid. We are not looking for giant paragraphs of information from writer's. Just the "meat" of how they feel about the book. Now, what do other's think of this (Specifically the size of King's quote in the Crit. Recep. section.)? ScarianTalk 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Sandpiper said about the balanced reporting, Commentary from different countries doesn't provide balance (believe me on this - I personally witnessed the angry swarm of pro-Iran trashing the movie 300, citing the Iranian gov't's freakout about the protrayal of Persians). Two problems present themselves: first, the book hasn't been released worldwide as of yet. Secondly, we categorize those reviews and commentary from English language sources - this is the English language wiki, after all. We add what we can vrify, and is notably and reliably sourced. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, we seem to be arguing over Crit. Recep. again 

message: I've changed the HP7 page to a disambig page so that this notice:
:“HP7” redirects here. For the UK postal code, see HP postcode area
at the top can be removed - I think it's unnecessarily intrusive. Ta. --82.148.54.182 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Why did HP7 redirect here in the first place?  It's hardly a verifiable abbreviation. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that HP1 -> HP7 direct to the relevant Harry Potter Books. To be honest, it makes sense to me; more sense than directing them all to the HP Postcode article. Regardless, either HP7 should be de-disambig'd, or HP1 -> HP6 need to have the same done to them. TheIslander 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the folk who originally assigned the HP redirects are either not around to discuss this, or aren't really going to want to undo their efforts to make HP7 and whatnot the only HP acronym that matters, we are going to have to go through and remove the DAB references, esp since Sidaway already rendered most of them obsolete (I nominate him for the job, btw :P). This should be addressed ont eh wikiproject page, so that it can happen in all of the Harry Potter-related articles where the acronymic references occur. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Tony. I see from the history on the HP7 page there's even been a bit of an edit war about this! ;)--82.148.54.182 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article locked, so can some do quick and simple edit for me please? 

message: :I am still waiting for someone to cite some policy - any policy - within Wikipedia that says that current fiction tags are to be removed after 30 days. My argument that the book - which I am presuming had to be translated after the English language release (to prevent internet spoilers and piracy) - has not been released worldwide yet. I am not advocating utilizing the current fiction tag as a de facto spoiler notice, but a book with as much interest in the release (far more than other - and to my reckoning - far more deserving novels) should be treated as the odd case it is. I have emailed scholastic's PR department, and I should be hearing back from them early next week, with something citable to quote a release date in places where HP7 (dear god, now I'm doing it) hasn't seen release as of yet. My neighbor, who is Cebuan/filipina says that the book is not to be released there until mid-September. An edit here implies that the Hungarian version of the novel isn't due until February, 2008. 
:Of course, i am unwilling to wait that long. I think 45-60 days seems to be a good length of time to wait to remove the current fiction tag. In the absence of a set policy regarding length of time, 45-60 days seems to allow for the majority of release to occur. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is a policy or guideline as to how long the tag should remain. A month just seems like a good enough time to myself and other users. i said 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that, i, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution and await the practical release of the novel. It should pretty much have saturation and whatnot within 45 days. As well, this needs to firm up into some sort of standard rather than a 'seems like' arrangement. Let's wait the 45 days. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what do you define as the "practical release" of the book? i said 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scarian, my previous comment was not specifically aimed at you, in case it came across that way. It was also not meant to be derrogatory; it was meant to convey my opinion that if you don't want the plot spoilt for you, then coming to Wikipedia is the last thing you should do, which I feel is a perfectly justified remark. I'm sorry for any offence caused. asyndeton 10:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't think a few more days will kill anyone and so we could wait until Scholastic reply to Arcayne, at which point one of our arguments will be solidified and end this. asyndeton 10:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia. In articles about books, we have plot summaries. That is not going to change. What we are discussing is the use of a current fiction tag. i said 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds to me like a fair compromise. 45 days sounds like a nice, round number, and although it seems possible that the book has yet to be released in some places (though we still await references to that effect), it has been released in most places, so this seems like a fair time to remove the tag. TheIslander 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I just thought because the book was so popular as a series that it might take people a little longer to get over it's new-ness.  It took me quite a while. 45 days sounds good. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 00:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we still need to lock this down into some sort of  policy, but as 45 days is pretty reasonable for the release of a book, I will go along with it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The release in other languages is the reason the tag is going to exist for ~a week more. And you can find them by looking at :Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention shows you all articles marked with a  tag. i said 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Spoiler 2 (Arbitrary Break)

message: Just wanted to make a comment on how Harry became the true 'master of death' - the article suggests that it is because he united the hallows. The real reason he is master of death is because he has learnt to not be afraid of it, and walk into it with his head held high. In addition, he has learnt to conquer the lure of the Hallows (which Dumbledore did not, that is why Dumbledore respects and loves him so much. Dumbledore tried to make Harry learn from his own mistake and Harry did), and Harry never had the lure for the horcruxes anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.131.130 (talk) 06:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Thank you for your insight.  Now, is there something notable in there which you needed us to add to the article for you in order to improve it or expand on the existing information?  Just not sure what your point was.  Of course you must know that we cannot post speculation, or otherwise unsourced information; that would violate Wikipedia policies on verifiability from reliable sources and prohibitions against original research.  So we would need some sources for your statements in order for them to be posted (eg:  book, chapter number, and page  if it is in one of Rowling's books; or a web link to a documented interview with her or a link to the page on her web site, etc.).  If you were simply letting us all know what you think about the subject, then please note that this is not a forum for fan speculation, as clearly stated at the very top of this page in the banner, and it is therefore subject to deletion.  In any case, thank you for your contributions, and please let us know how we can assist you.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master of death 

message: I have a question about Mad Eye Moody. Was his body actually found? I know his magical eye was at the Ministry (on Umbridge's door), but was there any mention of his corpse being retrieved? I don't remember reading that in the book. PNW Raven 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a specific improvement to the article that the answer to this question will address? Ronnotel 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think he's alive. Rememeber in the book where they find a guy with a bandage on one of his eyes? I think that's Mad Eye, but that's just my speculation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.145.228 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad Eye Moody 

message: I think the character is fascinating, but he doesn't yet have any real world notability, so his article is just an in-universe plot dump. His notability is totally dependent on this book, so his article should be merged in here. Judgesurreal777 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. He's character enough for me to have his own article.  BlueCanary9999 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the merge tag. I do this because I have been planning to propose a large merger into a List of Harry Potter Characters page. Gellert Grindelwald would be one of them. I will update my proposal in a few days. Until then, I would leave the merge tag off, since there would be two merge discussions. If you feel strongly enough, you can restore the tag. i said 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yeah.  That would be a better place for him.  BlueCanary9999 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have preferred to be asked about removing the tag first, but it's fine, go for it. There are still many HP articles in need of merging. Judgesurreal777 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We should probably go right to a characters article, minor characters would be much harder to defend. Judgesurreal777 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Grindelwald isn't a Deathly Hallow.  BlueCanary9999 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he is a key figure in the whole plot element of the Deathly Hallows. I'd merge him to a minor characters article, if it were me. i said 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with...um, 'i'. Merge him into the minor characters article and right quick. He doesn't belong here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in Grindwald 

message: The movie is not only planned but in the making, see IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/
85.24.168.123 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie is not only planned..