Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 7

message: Now, I would be interested in discussion of whether the explanation of hallows ought to be inside the spoiler warning, beause I am minded that it ought. Rowling chose obscure words to set people a puzzle, and they may want warning that the meaning is going to be explained. Normally I am rather sceptical about spoiler warnings, because I feel people looking at articles about a book deserve to find what they are looking for, but they might not be expecting an explanation of the title. Sandpiper 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, to a point.  If I hadn't read "...and the Half Blood Prince", I know I'd be peeved if I read the article and it explained who the title referred to (if I was the sort bothered by spoilers, that is).  Still, the section is almost as much about what has already happened/background as it is about what will happen.  Man, looks like I'm being indecisive today...  --Reverend Loki 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler position 

message: In a separate dispute, an editor complained about my earlier restoration of the information to this article. An admin replied (he seems to think I had added the information, which isn't true, but never mind for now):
"As for MichaelSanders efforts on Harry Potter, his edits are fully sourced, relevant, and generally add to the topic and content, and should be restored.ThuranX 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because this editor doesn't seem to have thoroughly investigated the issue. The OR and RS problems are definitely real issues that have been pointed out by 3 different editors. Folken de Fanel 11:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the dispute 

message: In recent interviews with Stuart Craig, Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe, there are so-called hints that they will return in this movie. I think Struat Craig will definately reprise his work as Production Designer. Even Rupert has given some hints about returning.  So, what about a section in this article about the movie? I know it'll be foolish because even book has not released yet and movie has not yet announced. But only one section might be good enough for information we have. User:Bunty01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunty01 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Warner Bros. and other reliable sources start to release properly sourced and official information from the Producers, Actors, Actors Guild, Directors, or Crew about the film version of Deathly Hallows, and an actual article for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) is made, then we can start to assemble information on that movie.  Actors and crew members dropping hints about a theoretical movie that might be 3 to 4 years into the future (estimates of a Summer 2010 release for "Film 7" at the earliest are common, based on the current release trends) is  crystal balling and is not permitted here.  Where will you be in the Summer of 2010, and what will you be doing?  It is however juicy material for all your favorite HP fan sites and blog pages - so feel free to publish your thoughts there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the movie? 

message: I would be grateful if whoever gets the chance could amend the text in the section on 'information from Rowling', fourth entry from the bottom 'Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead..."' with the following extended wording:
*Rowling clarified that "Dumbledore is definitely dead", when asked by Salman Rushdie and others at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. Rowling answered the same question three times, each time with increasing conviction.. However, on the set of Order of the Phoenix film, She remarked; "Dumbledore's giving me a lot of trouble". When asked by Daniel Radcliff, surely he was dead, she explained; "Well, yeah, but it's more complex ...".
:Done. Proto::► 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well, technically that information belongs on Albus Dumbledore's page, and it is most likely posted there unless someone deleted it recently.  A very brief mention of Dumbledore's status is probably appropriate here, but there is no sense in deep diving on the subject if it is already well covered elsewhere, and easy to find.  That horse is dead; continuing to beat it more and more on every conceivable page in the HP project is not helpful; and if the motivation is to make a point because of ongoing arguments with the Dumbledoreisnotdead.com crowd, then that is not proper either.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather a strange reaction. Surely the point is that he, somehow, will continue to have an effect on the plot of this book, somehow, because, despite being dead, the issue is more complex. That is, unless you are suggesting that the trouble he was giving her will not be related to this book. Michaelsanders 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is nothing easy? And I thought that one was business as usual. You are surely not suggesting that what part Dumbledore is going to play in the final book is non-noteable and not relevant to an article which mainly consists of comments Rowling has already made about the book? Please think calming thoughts. I had no idea there is an ongoing argument with Dumbledore is not dead. This quote also says he is dead. I put in the last one that said he is dead, too.  User:Sandpiper 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was that comments regarding Dumbledore's status, including Rowling's comments reconfirming it, belongs on the Dumbledore page.  Rowlings comments on the OOtP set might belong also on the OOtP (film) page, or perhaps more properly on the HBP page, since that is where the events unfold.  I cannot think of any reasonable justification for noting it on the Deathly Hallows page.  The only explanation I could come up with as to why someone would want it "here" is to help spread some "strange and fantastic news", as if this was a fan forum or blog page.  I don't mind the information being posted in the appropriate places where it is relevant.  I just do not think it is proper to slap up the latest "news" on "popular pages", like so many flyers nailed onto lamp posts.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She remarked, whilst writing Deathly Hallows, that he was 'giving' her a lot of trouble, because, despite being dead, the issue was 'more complex'. That being the case, it is entirely relevant to the seventh book - there will of course be some sort of fallout from his death in this book, and whatever it is, she was finding it troublesome, and it will be of more relevance in this book than a simple "yep, he's dead, move on." How on earth can you think that shouldn't be in this article? Michaelsanders 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description, of it being improper "to slap up the latest "news" on "popular pages", like so many flyers nailed onto lamp posts" is flawed. If it was something like 'Rowling says that she's planning to celebrate finishing the book with a bottle of tequila' or 'the book will be published on this day which makes it exactly five years since a book was published on the fifth day after the week after the Vernal Equinox' or 'Daniel Radcliffe hopes his character doesn't die' or 'whilst writing the book, Rowling dreamed she was in the Hogwarts Great Hall searching up a chimney for a Horcrux' (and that last one was genuine!), you'd be right. But this is something directly connected to the plot of the book. Michaelsanders 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What was the context of her remarks to Radcliff?  I am not 100% convinced that we could absolutely assert that she was referring specifically to her writing progress on Deathly Hallows.   In fact, I initially took it to mean she was referring to a scene they were developing for OOtP or something - perhaps they were having Dumbledore do something on screen that contradicted her vision, and that Dumbledore was giving her "a lot of trouble".  If however it can be proven that she was revealing plot information to Radcliff about Dumbledore's "more complex" involvement in Deathly Hallows, then certainly that is of interest in this article.  I would agree that anything Dumbledore "does" in Deathly Hallows, whether while in his Portrait in the Headmasters Office, or elsewhere, would presumably be a notable part of the continuing storyline.  Still the "hint" she may have given here seems to be a little bit sensationalized now and tantalizing, and starts to have the feel of fancrufting.  That is what I was concerned about.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK well thanks - that's completely different.  The only setting information described in the article, for establishing proper context, was that she was on the set of OOtP (film) with Daniel.  There was no mention in this article of whether she was referring to Book 7, or something happening on the set, or if she was having more nightmares where she was being chased around by Dumbledore with his charred smoking fingers and hand bones crackling in her face as he slaps her silly.  This shows exactly why any of her important and hint-revealing quotes always need to be carefully set in the proper context, along with proper foundation within the article.  It should never be left up to the poor wiki-reader have to look up and study the reference links, and try to sort it all out and arrive at the proper interpretation what she was referring to.  Besides, that reference link may or may not be "active" tomorrow, so the foundational context could be lost forever.  In any case thanks - and I agree that is a facinating (if foggy) glimmer of a window into Dumbledore's possible role(s) in Book 7, and would be of interest to readers.  All your quote needed to include was mention that she "needed a break from the book" along with how Dumbledore was giving her "a lot of trouble", and we would have sufficient foundation to understand the context, with or without the reference link.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, well it's a judgement call. I wanted to keep the entry as short as possible. Once again, I don't think it really tells us anything surprising. Headmasters portrait, pensieve...... Sandpiper 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumbledore not forgotten

message: 
Ok, I am suggesting pruning the external links section to the version below. I am even going to ask someone to please do it for me, despite the fact that somehow I can hear complaints already. Anyway.  Could anyone with mystic powers please replace the existing external links section with the one here. The deleted items are either not very informative, or not very relevant. I have also amended the descriptions to be more informative. But I will understand if anyone responding to my quest to insert this feels it is too hot to handle. This is a pruning of items, so I hope the deletionists will not be upset.
* Quick Quote Quill, collected statements by J K Rowling
* Continuing storylines from previous books from Harry Potter Lexicon
* Issues unresolved at this point in the story from the Harry Potter Lexicon
* Articles on aspects of Deathly Hallows from Beyond Hogwarts: the site formerly known as Dumbledoreisnotdead.com
* Plot Analysis for book 7 from Mugglenet
*   Information about Deathly Hallows from The Leaky Cauldron
* Information about Deathly Hallows from Veritaserum
* Speculations on possible plot lines in Deathly Hallows from book7.co.uk 
* The latest news, rumors and confirmed information on Deathly Hallows from HPANA 
* CBBC Newsround reports on Harry Potter
* Deathly Hallows rumors helpfully refuted by J K Rowling (text version) 
* J.K. Rowling's Official Website (Animated version)
Sandpiper 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that's questionable is the book7.co.uk link. I've never heard of the site before, and I consider myself pretty active in the fandom (the rest all seem pretty notable to me). Has anybody else heard much of this site? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree. I left it here, however, because it was the first time I had seen anyone have a go at writing the next book in advance. I have severe doubts that the plot will go as they suggest, but it was a novel approach. But I also felt that you might find this more acceptable than the previous list? I'm sure it is not going to be the last word on the subject. Sandpiper 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (although I moved JK Rowling's official site to the top). Proto::► 10:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that. Thanks. Sandpiper 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to provide the link you want it replaced with.  Seeing as the site is run my Flash, I'm not sure you can bypass the front screen. —Doug Bell talk 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Perhaps we should be researching Hallows.
What do people think of this as a possible reference?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I think we should go ahead and make an independant article on Hallow (the word as a noun), or perhaps Hallows or Hallowed objects, where the general meaning of Hallows and numerous historical examples can be explored openly and freely, without engaging in original research or speculation or other controversy with regards to Rowling's particular usage of the word.  Editors can add all sorts of Hallowed relics of the Saints, including the Holy Grail and other items supposedly recovered from the Holy Land during the Crusades by the Knights Templar or whatever, the Aurthurian Legends, the origins of the Tarot suits, the four elements, and yada yada yada, along with similarly hallowed religious relics of past generations.  Gosh I wonder of the Magna Carta would be considered a Hallowed object and thus a Hallow?  Anyway I believe if we separate a hypothetical Hallowed Objects article from the Deathly Hallows article, and just let the articles refer to each other as appropriate, and avoid speculating specifically what exactly the Deathly Hallows might be, then I think all the major issues over OR and fan speculation and reliable sourcing would tend to evaporate.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I hear what you're saying, which is in part why I was looking for things like this. Only...its kinda a list, and there weren't any more google refs popping up fast. (mentioned wiki HP&DH!). I don't fancy writing an article on the basis of just this. Its one thing to create a section here, quite another to give decent coverage of an open ended subject. 'Hallows is a virtually unknow term, save that the forthecoming publication of HP7 has brought the topic to public attention....' Somehow I doubt mention could be given to magna carter without a reference, though I suppose it is no more controversial than stating that the founders relics are an example of hallows. If that ref was an article here, then I would be quite pleased. Unfortunately it isn't, doesn't have any references (who's gonna bet that people will argue?}, and, er, is copyright to someone else. Sandpiper 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Deathly Hallows" that the title refers to could be the hallows, or relics that Voldemort uses as Horcruxes, that eventually cause his (or Voldemort's) death. Deathly (causing death) Hallows (Horcruxes). I will PWN 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions of Hallows 

message: From going through the debate above and researching Hallows a bit, it seems to me that in fact the word as used by Rowling is only extraordinary because it is archaic. The fact that most people had no idea before she used it about what it means does not change its established meaning. It might mean the remains of saints their surroundings, etc, or it might mean revered artefacts. I'm afraid I don't see this as OR at all. In fact, i really don't see the explanation in any way reliant upon the contents of book 7, or even really the other books. If the exercise had simply been, 'write a short essay explaining the meaning of hallows', then it would still have included arthur, Mr fisher king, and celtic heroes. None of this relies upon the plot of HP7 at all. Hallows is not being explained by use of the arthurian example because of HP7, but because it is the pre-eminent example. Views? Sandpiper 08:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, listing all the meanings that the word "Hallows" had with time is not OR, and picking up one of these meaning and saying "this is likely to be the meaning of Hallows in book 7" is OR. I don't think listing all the meanings was ever disapproved by anyone...Folken de Fanel 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion point 1

message: That's why I'm getting rid of all of them in the article, except titles!  208.126.51.37 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Happy‑melon 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wth do thata men!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.51.37 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...he agrees with you? (Heard of Dictionary.com?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "s are unencyclopedic! 

message: Is it really necessary to have a redirect page titled "Harry potrer and the deathly haallow"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.53.21 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. But chances are, in a room full of monkeys searching Wikipedia by typing randomly on a keyboard, the page will be found. I guess it's not entirely useless after all. :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well turns out there ain't no such page. Don't create it, not even to save the monkeys some time. Instead go teach them how to touch-type. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect page? 

message: The phrases "HP1" to "HP7" redirect to the corresponding Potter books, but HP8 does not yet exist. I recommend creating it. A true eight novel (not a background book but a story) is being created by JKR. The only thing currently known about it is a chapter title: "First clash of the monolith". It is theorised to refer to the Ayers Rock, as Hermione still needs to go to Australia to recover her parents. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Give us a link of the press release and I'll get right on it for you. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a prequel, which is meant to be set 3 years before Harry's birth. Would that really be classed as HP8? Jammy (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it's not an actual book, , so I'm not actually sure whether an article is appropriate. Maybe a section under Harry Potter? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: T-dot: It's got one, and a sourced and referenced one at that. See Harry Potter prequel. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, I've clearly been away too much.  Be interesting to see how it holds up in a deletion debate (eg: notability is not inherited, etc.)  I guess since it got "considerable press coverage" with "multiple Google hits" that it would end up a "keep", since this is a common argument for "keeping".  Never mind the question of how does an 800-word essay, not even a chapter's worth - barely a scrap amounting to two page's worth in fact, come anywhere close to constituting a prequel to a 4100-page series.  And I was wondering if the "plot summary" would end up exceeding the 800 words of the essay...  Thanks though.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 07:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To create HP8 article