Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

message: Could someone do a really good proofread/edit of the entire plot section? At the moment it reads really badly, with grammatical mistakes etc. aplenty. 202.46.136.129 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "numerous unexplained elements" haha, well that's just like the movies are, aren't they? ;) — chandler — 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot editing

message: Okay this article looks pretty good, and, once it becomes more stable over the next few weeks, could become a GAC. I strongly suggest you make a few changes first though. 
*Plot needs a little shortening, not much though.
*Infobox flags - I removed the clearly non primarily English speaking ones, but it still looks ridiculous. As the rest are primarily English speaking, you might get a backlash, but in a few weeks you should think about removing all of those there apart from UK, USA, Aus, New Z, Can and Ire. Because it doesn't look very good at the moment.
*I'd remove the ratings box, unless there was a controversy over the ratings it is not notable and the main USA and UK ratings should be given in the text, there the only cited ones anyway.
*The cast list - I'd prefer this in prose - like HP1 is now. But if you want a table like this, with all of the cast, you'd probabky get away with it.
*Marketing section could use a little work, for example, the large amount of toys that were released. The one Lego set, and the action figures, should probably be mentioned.
*As for the Awards, as its only one thing, and it didn't even win it... I'd move the sentence into the release section.
These are just my (crazy) suggestions so you can just ignore me if you want, but I do think this is very near GA class, and (I think) with my proposed changes, could be there. Gran2 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I shortened the plot a little. I'm going to wait until about a week or so to remove all the flags; I agree, it's ridiculous, but technically most of those have English as an official language (though there are others that don't which I'm going to remove). I've removed the ratings box. As for the cast list: I can understand the rationale behind having a prose list, but I think that the table is much easier to access, visually. However, if the GA reviewer suggests that it's important to list the role of each of the characters, then I guess I'll convert it. I'll work on the marketing section. As for the awards – it's bound to be nominated for a few more awards somewhere down the line, so I figure it's not worth it to cut out the section now. Thanks for your comments. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that (for the cast list), so we'll have to wait and see what a GA reviewer says. Anyway, The Simpsons Movie is out now and all that's left to on it (aside from the odd source addition here and there) is wait for some stability in a week or so. So until then, I'll give you a hand here, as it does actually seem pretty stable at the moment. Gran2 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible GA

message: Order of the Phoenix: Escalating Potter VFX -- Part 1 - Use BugMeNot to access it if you are unable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, great articles, thanks for the link. I'll try to start adding in some of the information. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone explain why they used a different (and less effective to my mind) visual effect for Sirius speaking through the fire in this film? Lee M 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a guess, because there hasn't been any statement from the producers why it was done so. However, in the books Floo powder communication is done through flames, not through embers, so going by the book, the fifth film was accurate and the fourth wasn't. I know a lot of fans complained about the way that was done in the fourth film, so they may have done it to follow the books; I don't think there was a technical difference. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: I've seen claims that the London Eye features in the movie somewhere, but I've seen both UK prints (35mm and IMAX®) and saw it nowhere in either. Is it one of these blink-and-you'll-miss-it things, or is it perhaps present on some prints and not others?  Or has someone made a mistake? 193.122.47.170 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Eye? 

message: Perhaps something could be said in the article about the anachronisms in the opening sequence.  Since the books mention the series chronology at least three times, it's clearly important, hence presumably important for the movies as well.
The opening sequence is supposed to take place in the summer of 1995, yet when Mrs Figg brings the boys home, Mr. Dursley's car can clearly be seen to have a 2006 numberplate (NX06zzz, where the last three are letters I don't remember).  The Dursleys also have a widescreen TV, and I'm sure we in Britain didn't get those until the 2000s. And shortly afterwards, Harry (in escaping) is taken down the Thames, and Canary Wharf is shown as being far more developed than it was in 1995 (IIRC only 1 Canada Square had been built by then).  That sequence is also said to include the London Eye, and although I for one haven't seen this (see above section), if true it's another anachronism; the Eye wasn't erected until late 1999.
193.122.47.170 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the mention the London Underground and the clothes Dudley and his gang wore. And of course the biggest one of all, the 2005 classic Boys Will Be Boys clearly being played... But the point is, the films don't follow the timeline of the book, because it isn't important that they do. The exact year where the story takes place doesn't really matter, as it doesn't affect the plot in anyway. So its easier if its just set in 2007. Plus adding this to the article isn't a good idea, unless a reliable source to support these points is produced. Although they are true, they would need to be sourced. Gran2 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to get technical about it, there's no indication that the films follow the same timeline as the books. They could be taking place 10 years in the future, for all we know. In any case, Gran has said it: there's really no need to add it, and it's rather trivial, which is not encyclopedic. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronisms 

message: I'll be the GA reviewer for this article. If there are any questions, please ask them. Regards, Daimanta 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I'm waiting for any comments for about 8 hours. After that, the article will pass. Daimanta 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And thank you a lot. It's been nearly a year and a half since I started editing this article, so it feels great to have it be paid off with this. Off to PR, I'd say! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You certainly earned it. The fact that there is some vandalism in this article is a shame though(and it will probably prevent this article from becoming FA). Daimanta 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review, although I don't think vandilism will affect any chance the aticle has of getting to FA, because we can just remove it. Almost evey article gets vandilised, and there are easy ways of dealing with it, so its not that big a problem, just an annoyance. Gran2 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I added "Canada" to a report of the domestic box office: U.S. and Canada combined is the "domestic" market in Hollywood terms. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted. in Box Office Mojo Key Terminology. I know. It sounds odd but Hollywood distribution considers the U.S. and Canada as one ' domestic' market. Movies released in the U.S. are released in Canada on the same day and the box office receipts are combined. If you look at this wire story  you'll note it says "U.S. and Canadian theaters" or this wire story  and it says "Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I knew about this practice, but didn't notice that the article needed to be changed to reflect that.  Thanks. Green451 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic box office

message: Here is something to add mention of... it was part of the queen's birthday party . Judgesurreal777 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been covered at Children's Party at the Palace. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For Featured Article status...

message: Don't have the time now, but there's a great detailed article on the visual effects in this film here. Here's the citation:  --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on visual effects 

message: Someone just added information about the DVD release in India, Japan, and Korea. Should their DVD releases really be covered in the English article? The only releases that make sense to me are the UK, US, and Australia releases. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is the English Wiki, so I'd delete them. Gran2 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of other countries DVD releases 

message: Can't anyone put the dvd cover since its already been released in the UK? The Dvd cover should replace the current picture on the info box.4.90.32.146 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, the picture in the info box is the theatrical poster (see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film)). It's just often times the image on the DVD cover is the same as the theatrical poster. The only time I can think of that the DVD cover is used for a movie is if it is a direct-to-DVD movie (like Mulan II). Anakinjmt (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep we don't use the DVD cover unless there isn't a film poster, or its a direct to DVD release. Gran2 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can't the picture of the dvd be put next to the dvd sections of the article?4.227.111.51 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time, can you add colons before your comment? That will help prevent your comments appearing in a weird way. As for your response, it's really not needed, as the DVD cover is just the theatrical poster on the DVD, and including a fair-use image of the DVD cover wouldn't hold, because the picture is exactly the same. But, if you take a picture of the DVD cover, then feel free to put it in, as that'd be a free image. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Cover 

message: :Image:Potter-bus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Potter-bus.jpg

message: In the cast list in this article, Luna is described as a "classmate".  Can we confirm this as accurate and specified in the film please?  In the books she is a year below Harry.  --Dave. 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Classmate" is being used in the general sense as "another student of Hogwarts," not "member of the same year" here. Do you think it should be reworded? --Fbv65edel — t — c // 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just change it to schoolmate. That's more accurate. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luna Lovegood 

message: I've only looked for it in the scene with Sirius and Harry in the room with the family tree and in the immediately following scenes, but I think that in several of the scenes Harry doesn't have his scar on the (his) right side of his forehead. Just thought I'd bring it up.Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if he didn't, you'd need some sort of source to cite it and discuss why it's notable that he doesn't. I'm sure it's there but you just can't see it -- that's probably the first thing the make-up artists do. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's only in the scenes where you'd obviously see the scar, as I've seen a few times where the scar would hidden under the hair, but you'd at least be able to see something, but you don't. Regardless, that would be trivia and not notable, unless you had a cite and could fit it in production. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scar 

message: Some of the things that it says wasn't in the movie I saw when I watched the movie in theaters, but I did not see on DVD. The original theatrical version is different than the DVD. I think that should be on the page somewhere.--Brownga (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? I've seen the movie twice in theaters and twice on DVD, and they seem the same to me. What things exactly were changed? Anakinjmt (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're completely wrong. Rita Skeeter wasn't in the movie, she said she wouldn't be since she did the previous film! St. Mungo wasn't included at all! What are you talking about? No, no... Do not insist on this. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, but Rita wasn't in the movie, nor did they go to St. Mungo's. That was the book, not the film. On another note, why did you name this section "differences from the book" if you're talking about "differences" between the theatrical version and the DVD version? Anakinjmt (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, I know St. Mungo's was not included. It went right from Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape to being at Grimmauld Place with Mr. Weasley there having Christmas dinner (remember, in the book he spent Christmas in St. Mungo's). Sorry, but nothing got changed from theater to DVD. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but unless you have proof, it can't be put in, especially when other people clearly recall that they're the same. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from the Book 

message: I think those page numbers mentioned under Differences are wrong, at least for the UK edition. I have the Canadian printing of the UK Bloomsbury paperback edition, and it's a full 956 pages, not the lower number cited. And the hardcover I believe is the same. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly possible that the page numbering shown is incorrect - perhaps by typographical error, vandalism, or otherwise.  Or it could be that the page numbers shown are based on the US Scholastic edition rather than the UK Bloomsbury edition.  If you have the truth of the matter on hand (a copy of the book, so you and anyone else with a copy can check your figures), then please feel free to make the corrections.  The article is currently not semi-protected, so you are free to edit away and be BOLD about it.   Or it might be helpful to everyone if you simply add in parentheses after the "current" page numbers something like: (959 pp., Bloomsbury ed.) or (p. 356, Bloomsbury ed.) so it is clear that you are distinguishing between published editions or versions.  If the issue is indeed US vs UK editions, then it should probably be reversed - eg:  page 395 in the Bloomsbury edition (p. 375, Scholastic ed.) since the Bloomsbury is arguably closer to "canonical".  The US Scholastic editions have various word and syntax changes (eg: Philosopher's stone), and other changes related to British vs. American grammar, spelling, and vernacular; and more importantly, different typeset fonts which lead to changes in page numberings.  If someone challenges your changes, please refer them to this talk page section for sorting out the truth of the matter - please do not engage them in an edit war over page numbers.  Thanks for the heads-up!  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that the American editions have illustrations at the beginning of each chapter. TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbering

message: Is it worth mentioning in the "Differences" section that in the DA classes they use the "Levicorpus" spell, which Harry doesn't learn until book 6? Another difference which doesn't seem to be mentioned is that in the book it was Cho's friend who betrayed the DA and in the film it was Cho herself. TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it is yes. Jammy (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spells 

message: I read earlier that someone said there should only be the "main three" and the "five main adults" on each of the harry potter movie pages...but as I browsed all the other movie pages they listed the entire cast.  I think this one, too, should list the entire cast, out of respect of the producers, or at least make the other movie pages uniform.  At any rate, I feel Luna Lovegood should be included as well, since she played an integral part in this story and was first introduced here.  Small5th (talk)
:The main three and five others thing is just for the infoboxes, the cast section should have more. Luna should be included here, I don't know why she isn't. As a side note, I'm not sure Wikipedia has to write film articles "out of respect of the producers". But anyway, I'll add in Luna. Gran2 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast Listing 

message: Just found an interview with David Yates from aintitcool.com that probably has some useful stuff (I don't think it's already been used). Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found an interview 

message: This article is unreadable as it is with too much detail in both sections which don't contain useful subheadings. Spanglej (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 'plot' and 'differences from the book' sections 

message: IMHO: Listing ANY unadjusted monetary figures for the purposes of comparison - let alone ranking - is absolutely absurd and uninformative.
This citation should be changed to an ADJUSTED ranking. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 03:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion about this at Talk:List of highest-grossing films BOVINEBOY2008 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unadjusted 7th highest grossing film" 

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Rather than issue  warnings, I've protected this article for the shortest I deem appropriate for the two edit-warring editors to come here, rather than use edit summaries. We are using a source, not a direct quote, and therefore do not need to render the numbers "as cited" in the source. We are free, per WP:MOSNUM, to take the sourced numbers, and apply that guideline here. If anyone has a differing point of view, they are free to argue it here and I would prefer to see consensus develop. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short-term protection 

message: In this book Harry has a date with Cho, but in the movie it said "Harry has a new love," Who could Possibly be his new love? The only new character is Luna?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.229 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's new love? 

message: See . Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List Changes 

message: This article is currently semi-protected but either the expiry date is extended but with an overdue date or it may be indefinite.
69.122.190.4 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The date was extended. But the year was wrong. I fixed that from 2013 to 2014. Thanks for your help to fix this mistake.  --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it indefinite? What's the date?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114004342/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/international/news/e3ia6dc904e032a3e877d2b41d8a4597f20 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/news/e3ia6dc904e032a3e877d2b41d8a4597f20
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929082227/http://news.homesandproperty.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/reviews.html?in_article_id=468093&in_page_id=1924 to http://news.homesandproperty.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/reviews.html?in_article_id=468093&in_page_id=1924#StartComments
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While places like boxofficemojo have the estimated budget at $150 million, trade publication Deadline, in an article written by their chief editor, obtained a balance sheet for the film showing the true negative cost (the production budget) to be just over $315 million.http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/  The same document was covered by Slashfilm, Techdirt and a number of other reliable sources.https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122/hollywood-accounting-losing-courts.shtml    http://www.slashfilm.com/insane-studio-accounting-warner-bros-claims-167-million-loss-over-harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/  Unless the other editor has an argument grounded in rules, I would ask that he refrain from edit warring.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely remarkable. Depauldem has bragged that he himself supplied figures to Deadline. Doing WP:SYNTH analysis of complicated tax-rebate figures and interpolating how they fit into a budget, and then doing an exchange-rate calculation that may or may not represent the rate at the proper given time, and then shopping it around to various sites until you find some to publish it, is doing an end-run around OR. And your interpretive analysis absurdly gives a budget of phantom dollars that were never spent. On this and at least three other film articles, you seem to be on a crusade to insert inflated figures that do not represent the out-of-pocket costs of these films — and edit-warring to do so, despite multiple editors not agreeing with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the numbers I gave to Deadline were based on the numbers in the filings (for The Force Awakens, not HP).  They confirmed the numbers themselves and corrected based on what I told them. They looked at the same filings and, with math being what it is, got the same amounts.  Again, routine calculations are not OP.  As it turns out, BOM also made the change based on these filings, I have learned.  I am still waiting to hear back from them on why their amount differs to Deadline, but I suspect they used the exchange rate right now instead of what it was when they got the rebates.  Analysis of tax rebate amounts may be complicated for you, but they are not for me or people versed in them, like the editors at Deadline and, it seems, BOM.  And I don't shop anything around or crusade to report inflated budgets.  I rarely reach out to news outlets, as more often they approach me.  They often report what I say because 1. they know me to be a top expert on it (and I know this means nothing on wikipedia) and 2., I back up what I say with the source(s), which they also verify. I don't think its fair to insult their integrity as journalists by insinuating that I somehow forced my will upon them to carry out some sort of agenda.  After all, Deadline changed it to $259 million, not $300 million. Depauldem (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point. You're doing original research and then taking it to a friendly journalist for the sole purpose of getting your analysis cited in Wikipedia. Again I ask: If that figure were so normal and routine, why didn't anyone publish it until you did your own analysis and convinced them to use it? Why are other Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

text: And oh, my God: "The same document was covered by Slashfilm, Techdirt...."  No. Both are simply re-reporting what Deadline says, properly attributing Deadline. That's not the same as your implication that these sites are doing original reporting and independently coming up with the same figure independently. All they're doing is repeating, with attribution, what you told Deadline. I find that less-than-honest behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your manor and tone are getting obnoxious.  The article and document are from 2010.  I updated Deadline, with the Politico peice and the filings about ANOTHER FILM.  This article is about Harry Potter.  You still have yet to give a compelling reason to edit war on the actual merits of this case.  It's clear you don't like me, but that is no excuse to block legitimate editing that is wholly supported by reliable sources.  In any event, I will agree with Betty's points below.  Let's use the range solution to Avengers and The Force Awakens, and I will leave this one alone per Betty's points (at least she is making actual arguments)  Depauldem (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My manner and tone are obnoxious? That's your opinion. My opinion of your manner and tone is supercilious, combative and insulting. Are we done slapping each other? It seems to me the last thing I said to you was, "We've found an area of agreement." Oh, yes, that's so obnoxious. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

text: However: You suggested a compromise at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron with which I certainly agree. Would it not be productive to use that as a shared foundation from which we can move forward?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I don't agree that $315 million represents the budget. When we talk about the budget we essentially mean the "negative cost" i.e. the amount specifically spent on production itself. The budget clearly states that the $315 million figure represents the negative cost and an advance. The advance is probably a pre-negotiated upfront payment to Rowling set against her share of the profits. This is probably done as a tax evasion tactic i.e. they write off a large chunk of assured profit as a cost simply by paying it upfront. The fact that the accounts don't go into specifics means we don't really know, but Warner are bundling two separate costs under that $315 million figure. Audited HMRC figures are one thing, leaked dodgy Warner accounts are something else. If we take that document at face value then the film lost $167 million! Do we honestly believe a Harry Potter film lost money? We have to be careful to not perpetuate Hollywood Accounting here, so for that reason I oppose the change because that figure is clearly a fudge of two separate costs and it has not been audited. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wholeheartedly with Betty Logan: $315 is a misleading figure. Let's say I want a $315 coat. But my coat budget is $245. Whether I wait for a sale, haggle or get a rebate, I'm not going to go over my budget of $245. It doesn't matter if I pay $$3156 upfront and I have a contractual agreement to get a rebate that keeps me within my budget. My budget is $245. Complicated tax-rebate issues can be explained in the article body. But Disney budgeted $245 for that coat and paid $245 for that coat. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: An anon IP has begun edit-warring to restore a more than 700-word, not well-written version of the plot, as opposed to the stable version that respects WP:FILMPLOT. I have noted in an edit-summary that per [{WP:BRD]], the anon IP should not edit-war but discuss his issues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon IP WP:FILMPLOT vios

message: For years the Cast section in each of the films' articles lists only the main cast: those who appear in the posterS and in the film credits individually. Those like David Bradley, Natalia Tena, Mark Williams, etc. who do not appear in the posters and are featured alongside other cast members after the main cast are secondary cast members. To avoid excessively long lists, the "Do Not Add More Cast!" legends were added at the end of this section in each article. I have removed the secondary cast for years in the HP articles, but the last time in this article, my edit was reverted by User:Tenebrae. Therefore, I start this section to discuss the inclusion of secondary cast (or not). Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to support your desire to keep the shorter version of the list, and I believe WP:FILMCAST supports that as well, but I would like to hear Tenebrae's opinion on this matter. DonIago (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Not sure that was me. My last edit on the article, I actually added back some cast members: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)&diff=737300031&oldid=737261645. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's our point...that those cast members aren't top-billed for this film and consequently shouldn't be listed this time around. DonIago (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure anything says that our Cast lists only include top-billed actors. I'm not sure I'd argue that Warwick Davis and Tom Felton, for instance, would not belong here. Who would you suggest removing?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most/all of the Cast lists for the HP film articles say not to add additional cast members, which suggests there must have been some criterion in place for determining who should be included. Typically, in my experience, that would mean top-billed. , any thoughts? Perhaps there was a discussion of this previously? If not, I think we should probably (re-)establish a consensus for the HP films. I've asked about this at WT:FILM as well. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. There may be some consensus involving the huge-cast HP films that I'm not aware of. As far as I know, we don't have a guideline in general, with non-HP films, limiting casts to top-billed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember there was a discussion on this topic a long time ago, when the WikiProject HP existed, but it would take me ages to find it. I think it was a good idea to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film.--LoЯd ۞pεth 23:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/Saoirse-Ronan-admits-disappointment-over-Harry-Potter-Luna-Lovegood-role-126725153.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVJFbu3?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2008-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2008-hugo-awards/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626042023/http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003600960&imw=Y to http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003600960&imw=Y
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108155847/http://www.mugglenet.com/chat/transcripts/mattlewis250805.htm to http://www.mugglenet.com/chat/transcripts/mattlewis250805.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202093551/http://thestar.com.my/youth2/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F11%2F16%2Fyouth2%2F12553500&sec=youth2 to http://thestar.com.my/youth2/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F11%2F16%2Fyouth2%2F12553500&sec=youth2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018212527/http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10724 to http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=10724
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710195657/http://media.mugglenet.com/movie5/redcarpetvideo/ootpredcarpet.mov to http://media.mugglenet.com/movie5/redcarpetvideo/ootpredcarpet.mov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724193232/http://video.the-leaky-cauldron.org/video/show/295 to http://video.the-leaky-cauldron.org/video/show/295
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102222427/http://www.mugglenet.com/newsfusion/fullnews.php?id=752 to http://www.mugglenet.com/newsfusion/fullnews.php?id=752
*Added  tag to http://entertainment.oneindia.in/hollywood/reviews/harry-potter-order-phoenix-review-200707.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106220641/http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/250 to http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/250
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724184656/http://www.filmmusicweekly.com/issues/FM_Weekly_050807.pdf to http://www.filmmusicweekly.com/issues/FM_Weekly_050807.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011192757/http://figures.com/databases/action.cgi?setup_file=fignews2.setup&category=actionfigures&topic=155&show_article=388&nl=1 to http://www.figures.com/databases/action.cgi?setup_file=fignews2.setup&category=actionfigures&topic=155&show_article=388&nl=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528064915/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/e8ea0df3a881175480256d58003cb570/54810dfdf91b90db802572e6006306a0?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/e8ea0df3a881175480256d58003cb570/54810dfdf91b90db802572e6006306a0?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923042931/http://www.noblepr.co.uk/Press_Releases/warner/harry_potter_phoenix.htm to http://www.noblepr.co.uk/Press_Releases/warner/harry_potter_phoenix.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330182531/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60460 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60460
*Added  tag to http://ukfc.artlogic.net/information/news/?p=D4A157781b2cb1C3C4XXTuF1E11A&skip=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229214344/http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/david_yates_harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince_20090708/ to http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/david_yates_harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince_20090708/
*Added  tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911045150/http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/942 to http://mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/942
*Added  tag to http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYW14905092007-1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022032517/http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYSA00220102007-1.htm to http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYSA00220102007-1.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.vesawards.com/documents/pdf/6thAnnualVESAwardWinners.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2008-hugo-awards/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/Saoirse-Ronan-admits-disappointment-over-Harry-Potter-Luna-Lovegood-role-126725153.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303004931/http://www.mugglenet.com/movieViewer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.mugglenet.com%2F20051127-gofredcarpetinterviews%2F20051127-gofredcarpetinterviews.mov&w=320&h=240&l=Goblet+of+Fire+Red+Carpet+Interviews%2C+Part+2&c=Interviews+filmed+with+Tolga+Safer%2C+David+Heyman%2C+Miranda+Richardson%2C+and+Dan+Radcliffe+on+the+red+carpet+of+the+US+premiere. to http://www.mugglenet.com/movieViewer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.mugglenet.com%2F20051127-gofredcarpetinterviews%2F20051127-gofredcarpetinterviews.mov&w=320&h=240&l=Goblet+of+Fire+Red+Carpet+Interviews%2C+Part+2&c=Interviews+filmed+with+Tolga+Safer%2C+David+Heyman%2C+Miranda+Richardson%2C+and+Dan+Radcliffe+on+the+red+carpet+of+the+US+premiere.
*Added  tag to http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/409873
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/662qUu2zg?url=http://www.bafta.org/film/awards/2008,2380,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominees-in-2008,224,BA.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2008-hugo-awards/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714025535/http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2007/07/11/goldenberg_qa/ to http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2007/07/11/goldenberg_qa/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218104200/http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4193 to http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4193
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627140350/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/25/kreacher-comforts-mtv-solves-a-harry-potter-mystery/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/25/kreacher-comforts-mtv-solves-a-harry-potter-mystery
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a notice not to add more cast, therefore I have deleted the following cast: </br>
→″Mark Williams appears as Molly Weasley’s husband, Arthur, a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Warwick Davis plays Filius Flitwick, the school’s charms teacher, maestro and Head of Ravenclaw House while David Bradley plays Hogwarts caretaker, Argus Filch. Tom Felton, Jamie Waylett and Joshua Herdman play Slytherin students Draco Malloy, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle. James and Oliver Phelps, Bonnie Wright and Chris Rankin play Ron’s siblings, Fred, George, Ginny and Percy while Devon Murray, Alfred Enoch and Matthew Lewis play Gryffindor students, Seamus Finnigan, Dean Thomas and Neville Longbottom. Katie Leung plays Harry’s love interest, Cho Chang. Robert Hardy plays the Minister for Magic, Cornelius Fudge. Harry Melling plays Harry’s cousin, Dudley Dursley.
→Evanna Lynch joins the cast as Ravenclaw student, Luna Lovegood. Timoth Batesam voices house-elf, Kreacher and Tony Maudsley plays Hagrid’s half-brother, Grawp. Kathryn Hunter plays the Dursley’s neighbour, Mrs. Figg.″
Which also did not comply to the list format.Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That tag is like 10-years-old and it wasn't the result of clear consensus I could find, plus I'm sure it refers to the bullet points. I've seen it as a common practice to list the billed actors with bullet points, and the other actors in prose. There are many, many notable actors and characters being left out. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I'm not sure I understand your point, do you suggest that I put the rest of actors in bullet points? I am unsure what exactly you suggest done. Also in addition, of course the tag is gonna be 10 years old. The movie itself is more than 10 years old. Regarding the actors written in prose as cited on the MOS:TVCAST "Such as unscripted programs with few cast members, or series where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form" Chefs-kiss (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm suggesting to leave it as it was: billed actors in bullet points, the rest in prose. The age of the hidden note is important together with the apparent lack of consensus for adding it; at least I couldn't find it when I searched for it across all Harry Potter film articles' talk pages. Being ten years old instead of recent makes it more likely that it was added without consensus. I also think the hidden note was added so editors would stop adding multiple bullet points with more and more actors, not considering that they could be added in prose. —El Millo (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed it to what it was before. Are the changes satisfactory? Chefs-kiss (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With a little bit of work, it is. All done. —El Millo (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of additional cast 

message: change "and the Order of the Phoenix" to "" in name property in infobox 24.250.63.221 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022 

message: In overview, add link for the series next film: “It was followed by ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’” 208.59.159.70 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The lead already includes a link to the next film. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022 

message: This film has been noted as a case of Hollywood accounting, as Warner Bros. claimed the film lost $167 million, despite its total gross. This statement was removed from the lead section. The first paragraph of the box office section includes multiple references to clearly support this statement. See . Please restore the statement[ (diff)] that this film is an example of Hollywood accounting to the lead section. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: —El Millo (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood accounting 

message: it has made as of april 11, 2024, according to box office mojo, 1,003,123,328 dollars due to rereleases. see for yourself. Google up the internet to see why this happened please. 24.45.1.15 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? If you feel the article should be updated, update it. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its current film gross as of April 2024