Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 17

message: Should the Patronus link be changed to the "Patronus Charm" article? It is, after all, a reference to the charm and not an ancient Roman social term. DallasEpperson 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  Done.  Thanks for the heads-up.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the "Patronus" link? 

message: Why is the American version longer, is it because its a larger print? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.45.237 (talk • contribs) 
:There is generally less text edited out in the American version of the books. Also, the US version has illustrations, whereas the UK one does not. Brisvegas 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - the US "childrens" edition (as it were), which features chapter artwork and other illustrations by Mary GrandPré, uses a larger font size, thus there are significantly fewer words per page and more pages.  The US edition of Half-Blood Prince also contains some additional text - for example during the dialog between Malfoy and Dumbledore in the Astronomy Tower, but these kinds of editing changes do not fill several pages, much less dozens or a hundred.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK editions have font sizes that differ from volume to volume. In Half-Blood Prince a significantly larger font was used than in Order of the Phoenix. The font size between volumes of the US editions were less markedly so the page count is more directly related to the length of the story in the US editions, although the illustrations are an additional source of bias in this comparison. If the UK edition uses the same small font for DH as used in OoTP this may very well lead to seemingly discrepant page counts between the US and UK editions. AberforthD 22:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between versions 

message: I apologize in advance for this; this isn't really an appropriate comment to leave for improving the DH article. This is more of an FYI for our experienced editors.
It appears that the book has been leaked. So far, nothing terribly significant, but a scanned TOC and chapter image (GrandPre's artwork and matching chapter to the TOC) has turned up online.
If any of you were thinking about taking a wikibreak, now would be a VERY good time to do it! Daggoth | Talk 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up Dagg.  However we have been dealing with all sorts of alleged "leaks" for a couple of months now.  There is nothing new to announce here.  Since any alleged "leaked spoilers" are totally unverifiable, there is nothing open for discussion, and nothing is presumed to be valid or encyclopedic unless it is openly validated by the media (BBC, CNN, The Times, etc.); or at least until 21 July when "everyone" has a copy of the book.  At that time the spoilers that get posted can be either verified or refuted.  There is nothing in the news at present about an "authentic" leak - just a lot of rumours (see this example).  In the meanwhile, there is no point in trying to "warn away" the experienced editors to go on their wikibreak - it would be like telling the vandals and trolls out there that the Sherriff and all the deputies have all left town, and thus it is open season for the outlaws.  Not the best approach for us.  But thanks again - we know your intentions were honourable.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the thing is, I've seen the scans and they actually look like a good try at least, in all the other "leaks" the typeface, spacing, grammar and use of punctuation have been wrong, but this one looks good with the same syntax as the previous books. Also all other websites that "leaked" haven't been shut down, but the LJ that the scans were originally posted on was shut down within minutes. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Maurauth and I certainly admire your enthusiasm for the HP phenomenon and the fan base - but please remember that this is not a forum for discussing the possible quality, validity, or authenticity of allegedly scanned images that you found or heard about, that was posted somewhere online, and whether the site was "taken down" within minutes (etc.); nor is this a place for planting alleged spoilers supposedly taken from such dubious sources.  We are here to discuss the content of the Deathly Hallows article, and making improvements in it.  Thanks for your contributions, but please resist the urge to get off-topic by posting your "fantastic discoveries" here.  I am sure there are plenty of HP fan pages and gossip sites and blog pages that would love to discuss the materials you found.  Just not here - this is not the place for it.  Now - if you do happen find an authentic news report from a reliable source, such as the BBC, CNN, The Times, etc., that reveals information about a true leak of HP7 materials, then we might be able to discuss adding such information in a neutral encyclopedic manner.  Otherwise it is not allowed.  Sorry to disappoint.  Thanks.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it preety integral to the article to talk about how much work people went to, to either get a hold of a leak of the book or to make fake "spoilers" of it? Surely that's an important part of the whole hype that went into the release of this book, probably the most hyped book so far in history? 86.6.17.37 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes - I think it would be proper and encyclopedic and in accordance with Wiki policy to point out the fact that that there have been several reports of leaks, and alleged scans of pages, but none of them have proven to have any apparent authenticity - all appear to be fakes.  If we could find a high quality reliable news source or two that gives a comprehensive overview of the alleged leaks and scans and spoilers, then we could conceivably make mention of that as part of documenting the pre-release phenomenon and hysteria.  We must avoid hiding verifiable facts on the subject, but we also must not get ourselves caught in a trap of posting the latest sensational fake leak that someone found and posted somewhere.  The people who make these fakes are trying to get online publicity, credit, notoriety, and web site traffic (ads!).  We are not required to feed these trolls, in fact we are doing a great disservice if all we are doing is helping to spread gossip, rumours, and fraud.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this article which, at the end, talk about Rowling's upcoming ITV special as well as give the title of the first chapter and a small passage from the chapter. The title matches that of the leak scan. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2126717,00.html 24.90.191.123 04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I managed to get a hold of the supposed leaked pictures, and I have 495 pages of it, seems pretty real to me, each page seems to be different and has real writting on it. Can't be 100% sure, but that would be a lot of work for someone to write 495 pages of their own material and put it together as a convincing looking book and take pictures of it. Follow up on that, chapter name and passage from the above source matches, and after reading over a chapter the writting style seems to match the other books. 74.97.157.108 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a fake, it's a hell of a fake. In fact, I'd like to see this "fake" published along side the real book. The Frederick 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So TDOT time to add it to the article then, as it's been reported on many news websites? 86.6.17.37 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High probability of genuine SPOILER leak 

message: Hi all.  Can someone please replace the book jacket image with the real book jacket image.  What's up there now is fan-art at best, a sarcastic caricature at worst.  EjayHire 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean - the cover art shown at present is authentic and can ve verified at the respective book pubisher web sites.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe.  HP cover art has always contained plot elements, but you still have to read the book thoroughly to pick up on what exactly is going on in the artwork.  For example, in the US edition of HBP there was no way of knowing that the cover image represents the scene where Dumbledore and Harry are working to retrieve a Horcrux from a potion-filled basin, before reading the book.  You don't find out about any of that until very late in the book.  Before it was released, some people swore up and down, speculating that it was a Pensieve scene (the pensieve had already appeared in the previous books).  So, anyway people can speculate all they want about what is going on in the US and UK (children's) cover art.  Doesn't mean a thing here.  You can be confident that J K Rowling would not have approved of cover art that spoiled the plot too much. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Art 

message: Some people are going nuts with alleged Deathly Hallow spoilers on message boards. Has there been any significant plot details leaked? Because I'd be very disappointed if what I read was accurate. - Throw 08:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard so many conflicting rumors I don't know what to believe.--71.113.231.189 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. The Frederick 09:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now 9 major spoilers spreading around the internet. Get ready for the vandals. I, on the other hand, am saving them for the release parties. Mwahahahaha. 24.214.45.60 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any plot leaks? 

message: I saw in a Finnish newspaper a picture of DH cover that I thought was UK adult cover, until I came here and saw what it actually looks like (locket). The one that I saw in the newspaper shows a photo of Harry's face. I scanned the image, here is a link to it (POSSIBLE spoiler?):  (Being a scan from a newspaper, the image quality is not best possible.) Does anyone know if that is real? (I'm new here, this might have been discussed here already though I don't know about it and the image really was in a newspaper, so please don't shoot me.) Music-melody 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper looks like it might be a mock-up  of the cover using the same style.  The offically released "adult" version cover that I've seen is the one with the locket.--Dave. 10:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its probably a mockup. I have a hard time believing its official, as the person looks more like Dan Radcliffe than the portrayals of Harry in the other covers. --soum talk 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That cover's been floating around since before the official cover art was released. Its a fake. 75.53.113.68 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this DH cover? 

message: News.com.au (a part of Murdoch's Newscorp), reported the plot of the final Harry Potter movie here. Here is the original blogspot post of the spoiler.
Does anyone know if there is any merit to it? Is there any need to include it in the article? The only reason I'm mentioning it is because it was on a reputable news site dr.alf 10:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Neither link works; (2) No spoilers, since they can't be verified by the only sources that count (publisher/author/acyual book itself); (3) the final Harry Potter movie is a couple of years off yet - presumably you're talking about the book... --Dave. 10:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the news.com article, "OUR gossip blogging pal over in the US, Autumn, has seemingly got her mitts on how the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows ends". Do you need anything else to doubt its credibility? --soum talk 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The links work, but it's old stuff, and as Soumyasch points out, news.com.au is just the messenger here. (And just the week before that, they were discussing and encouraging people to participate in the lolcats craze on their front page. Reputable they are not.) Daggoth | Talk 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as reputable as anything that comes out of Newscorp ;-) dr.alf 04:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed your links. As the others have said, these definitely look fake. focoma 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News.com.au Spoiler 

message: On J.K.Rowling's website there is a bit of info on her diary that the giant squid is actually the world's largest animagous and will turn into Godrick Gryffindor at the eleventh hour.
is this some kind of joke? Because i think that it's not and that it should be posted on the page because it's technically a plot spoiler that was posted by an official source. 68.117.82.5 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry...she was just being a smartass.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's generally what we call scepticism. She made the comment simply to combat all the theories she was receiving. Gammondog 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The giant squid? 

message: I think it would be a good idea to preserve all the speculation and info leading up to the book's release into a separate article.  Good idea or not? Thanks. Conman33 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after the book has been released, and all the initial furore has died down, I don't think many people will care about what speculation there was about the book's plot. After all, imagine there was a separate article for speculation on the HP and the Philosopher's Stone; it would hardly be relevant, seeing as we all now know the real plot of that book. It does not matter now if there were rumours that Hogwarts, for example, was in fact a giant spaceship conning people into believing they could actually do magic...we know now it was nothing of the sort. Agree? Gammondog 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  What might be perhaps interesting and encyclopedic as a "keeper" would be a comparison of some of the leading fan theories and the "unresolved plot elements" and "hints from Rowling" currently being kicked around, with what turns out to be true in the book.  I personally think it is highly amusing when we have these crazy fanatics earnestly insisting that they have "inside information" or a "scanned copy" they found somewhere, and that claim to know what happens and how it all ends, and then it turns out they didn't know squat.  This becomes strong justification for firmly heading off all such nonsense in the weeks leading up to the release, as we are attempting to do now.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I guess you're right.  I just thought it would be a good idea to preserve all the hype and anticipation that the world is going crazy over.  It's definitely going to be one of, if not, the most anticipated book in quite a long time.  I just thought the hype in itself is somewhat historic. Thanks for listening though. Conman33 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea to split the speculation/"What is known..." section 

message: There are two extensive works of fan fiction that have been circulating on the web recently, frequently mistaken as leaked drafts of Deathly Hallows. I added a small section about this, hopefully to alert anyone who has DLed or been emailed a supposedly leaked draft. And also, I suppose, to alert fans to their presence. I just read The Seventh Horcrux, and the plot ideas in it are suprisingly good, although the writing doesn't live up to JK standards in several spots. Mark.Howison 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is even worth mentioning, let along giving any credence to. Elfich 05:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elfich, could you please back up your above opinion with some form of argument? Why is fan fiction not worth mentioning here? My arguments for including links to these two works of fan fiction are their length (659 and 280 pgs respectively), their quality of content, and their authors' intent to create an alternative canon for Deathly Hallows, therefore making them relevant to this article.  Have you read either work? Mark.Howison 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I would lean towards allowing the article to mention that at least some of the so-called "leaks" scanned or photographs from "stolen copies" turned out to be pure fan fiction.  That is far better than letting people wonder about the authenticity of the things, continuing the legend, and allowing false gossip and speculation to continue to spread.  The legendary scans posted by "Gabriel" were indisputably proven to be poorly written fakes .  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it hasn't been reported by a reliable and verifiable source, then it should not be mentioned. MelicansMatkin 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan fiction and "leaked" drafts 

message: <snipped> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs) 
:My apologies, I've accidentally flagged your notification on this talk page as vandalism here, where I shouldn't have. It's already been removed from the article. It's going to get a lot worse over the next few days. Daggoth | Talk 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone just added another piece of vandalism to the article, as follows 

message: while i am sure that there are a lot of press coverage to the security wrt the book release, this is one article (click here) that puts a 10 million pound cost to the security of the book. Can this information be moved into the article in some shape or form. --Kalyan 11:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it as a one sentence addition to the lead. I'm sure someone can do a better job with it than what I have. Daggoth | Talk 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  security surrounding the book release 

message: "We" are in the news - and all eyes are on us.  It is our responsibility to keep it real folks.  We are obligated to bear down and make it right.  If there are not authentic reliable news sources for your pet spoilers and alleged leaks, then please DO NOT POST IT HERE.  Let CNN and the BBC break the story if there is one - that is not our job.
*The first six books have sold more than 325 million copies and been translated into more than five dozen languages, according to Wikipedia.
*J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels have been translated into dozens of languages - 67 by Wikipedia's count.
*If you've forgotten what's happened up to this point, read the plot summary on Wikipedia.org.
*Good said she discovered last week that the popular, publicly fed Wikipedia Web site is blocking new entries into its Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows page until after the book's release.
Now let's get to work.  KEEP SHARP!  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let me know if you want the article sprotected. Probably full protection cannot be done because there is not too much activity (read insertion of "leaked material") from established editors, but there is lot from anon. So, sprotection can be easily warranted. --soum talk 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already semi-protected from anonymous IP's and "new" usernames and sockpuppets. There might be other HP article pages that may need similar protection though. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't care less about "breaking the story" - I just think that we should fully protect the high-visibility pages. Many of the sites who have access to the leak fully intend to post spoilers in every place possible - some of the low-lifers already plan to hack major fan sites (like mugglenet) and spam message boards with the spoilers. What on earth could happen between now and release date that would be notable enough for Wikipedia? Oh yeah, a mass spoiler leak on the Internet... and if such a leak happens, Wikipedia is bound to be one of the first targets. ugen64 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added  to the header of this talk page. Look alive, folks. :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it sharp people... 

message: According to latest DA news, "HP7 stupid american edition" will see Harry Potter live in the end, while the "HP7 genuine european edition" will have Harry die!
Considering that JKR has said in interview she really regrets allowing the first volume Sorcerer's Stone name change for US market, the above news bomb feels like very far-fetched. And what about the poor net-aware fans, who will develop a split mind due to this? 82.131.210.162 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdest allegation of the decade 

message: Is this credibel enough to ad to the article on deathly hallows?
<snipped>
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  83.233.169.8 (talk • contribs) 
:It is not a reliable source and even if it were there are possible copyright violations. I would not include it and finally, couldn't you wait 6 days until the book comes out? Simply south 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize you snipped it and then mentioned it, right? Kinda defeats the purpose... Gscshoyru 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High quality scans of the epilouge 

message: THAT EPILOGUE IS REAL...SAME PERSON WHO LEAKED OUT THE FIRST 495 PAGES...i think it should be included in the article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.141.65 (talk • contribs) 
:Sign your posts using ~~~~, please.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above it's starting to appear in the news, won't be too long before some editor decides to add it to the page in a way that's pleasing to enough others that it'll stick. Just be patient, wikipedia doesn't exactly lose out by waiting. Mallocks 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGES 496-END HAVE LEAKED 

message: I haven't seen any vandalism on this page as of now. However, not to be cynical, but might I suggest that this article be locked from editing for the next few weeks? Just a thought. Crushedmidnight 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can completely understand. I don't want another "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE :DDDDDD".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only suggest as above, then, that a request is made at WP:RFPP. Mallocks 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the thing is, we only want to get rid of vandals; most would be IPs, and we don't know what kind of actual improvements would be made to the article without disclosing the plot. A semi-protect would probably be fine. In any case I'm going to avoiding the actual page for a while since the whole book's been leaked now and the dam will break any minute.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit suprised it hasn't already, the sites it'd been cropping up on I expected considerably more 'traffic'. As regards semi-protection, I'm sure it'll be considered. Mallocks 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lock this page from editing? 

message: Under the "Unresolved plot elements from previous books" section, it is stated that "It is still unclear if Sirius Black, Harry's Godfather, is indeed dead or just trapped behind the arch. (He was not hit with the "Killing Curse" as shown in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix)."
This is incorrect. Sirius is definitely dead, as stated by Rowling herself. Rowling interview
Faithlessthewonderboy 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirius Black 

message: If the illegal photographs that are out are ever officially confirmed, the page count will need to be changed. Adding in every single page of the book is some 10 pages less than what was previously announced.67.187.126.52 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On my count, it's 700 and whatever it was, but that's including blanks, TOC and other crap. The Frederick 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Count 

message: with the leak it is only a matter of time until someone puts the ending on the page so it needs to be locked so people dont ruin it for others.--Jwein 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing the need for a full-lock.  We've got the page semi-protected as it is and that seems to keep out most of the vandals.  It's already common knowledge that <snipped>.  A complete lockdown of the page is completely unnecessary.  76.173.68.45 05:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You underestimate the tenacity of trollers. Northridge 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not our job to assume what will happen.  If what you say happens, then the article can be nominated for full protection. Miles Blues 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Artical Needs 2 be locked now! 

message: In Tales of Beedly The Bard, JKR mentions that Minerva McGonagall is now the current Headmistress of Hogwarts.  Shouldn't this be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.44.253 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless it's in this book.VatoFirme (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headmistress of Hogwarts