Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 15

message: For instance, scholastic is launching a multi--million dollar "there will soon be 7 campaign" and sending a 'knight bus' around the country to visit certain libraries. Should we mention any of this?
:It was mentioned, where did it go? Sandpiper 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was always there and seems to have spawned a section, see below.Sandpiper 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do You think that the Marketing campaign behind deathly hallows should be mentioned? 

message: Should something be said about the delux american edition of the book? The new pictures (outside and inside), limited copies etc, etc. Jammi568 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I rather thing it should. Not to mention the section about the other covers which seems to have quietly been deleted by an anon withou anyone noticeing Sandpiper 11:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delux cover 

message: Say if someone had a transcript of the real book can they post the spoilers without needing to post the pdf as proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.219.150 (talk • contribs) 
:No. And even if they did post spoilers with cast iron proof I'd still strike it out as 1) inappropriate and 2) a copyright infringement. I can't see how anyone in a position to legally release details of the book would do so before publication day. Sandpiper 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Even if some people have physical posession of a real copy of Book 7, which perhaps they swiped Mission:Impossible-style from the locked stock room of the neighborhood Borders Books by hiding out in the ventilation system over the Starbucks kiosk and crawling through the firewall and bursting through the back door in a great Fast and Furious-style escape with the goods; without fully independent reliably-sourced verifiability available online from a major news outlet, or otherwise available to the average reader, we still cannot post information allegedly extracted from said stolen books until July 21.  Verifiability trumps "the truth", and certainly gossip, speculation, and dubiously ill-gotten information spotted online somewhere, every time.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding?  90% of what they show on CNN isn't verified or verifiable. Djdowns 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is illegal to post spoilers and not in the spirit of wikipeida to do so even if it wasAngielaj 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: DJdowns - you may have confused truth and verifiability as it applies to the Wikipedia.  Whether CNN or BBC or The Times or The Post might be correct or truthful is frankly irrelevant.  It is the fact that something is published and reported on that makes it verifiable.  The Wikipedia requires verifiability from external reliable sources.  Suppose it happens that CNN reports that a shipment of copies of Book 7 was hijacked, and then crashed on the freeway, spilling hundreds of copies of the book on the highway, and that in the rush hour traffic, all of the spilled copies were snatched up by passing motorists.  Then some of those motorists came forward to the press announcing the spoilers, even showing the pages.  If CNN covered those spoilers in the course of their reporting, right or wrong, good or bad, legal or illegal, for better or worse, in theory we could and probably should post that information, and provide verifiability links back to CNN's reports as references.  Now it could turn out that the copies were elaborately prepared fakes, and that CNN and all those motorists were duped by an elaborate plan and that it was all a wonderful joke.  Undoubtedly we could post that as well, and maintain the "faked" spoilers as part of the phenomenon of the closure of the series.  It does not matter if CNN is right or wrong in their reporting or the conclusions, it is that something happened, and that we can verify it with a reliable source.  See WP:V for more information.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Deathly Hollow Spoilers 

message: I wonder if the current lock on editing should be extended until July 21.  I suspect this article will become the target of vandals and thouse releasing unauthorized spoilers as the release date for the book approachew.  68.252.95.208 13:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't locked, just semi-protected, which prevents unregistered users (IPs) and accounts of less than three days of age from editing. As for extending it, wait until the protection expires.  If there is a large amount of vandalism, then semi-protection can be requested again. MelicansMatkin 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are only suppossed to be protected based on vandalism, not to prepare for vandalism... although I believe you're right in thinking it will be needed sooner or later.Miles Blues 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 5-6 IP vandals since it's been unlocked (~18 hours). I'll give it about 8 more hours - if it keeps happening I'll request protection again. Daggoth | Talk 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for locking it for a few days on July 21, for obvious reasons. --Kizor 21:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite.  HBP's article was nightmarish for weeks after it was released. —Cryptic 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To me this is a no-brainer.  Look at the edit history.  Has ANY recent anonymous edit been constructive?  Not that I'm aware of - they're all either vandalism or speculation.  It's just going to get worse as the day approaches.  Why suffer the headaches?  We should do ourselves all a favor and semi-protect this thing until about August 1.  If a non-user really, really wants to make a constructive edit, they can register and wait three days.
--NetherlandishYankee 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Or ask a veteran to post that constructive contribution. I vote for semi-protection, FWIW. -- Jokes Free4Me 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Support semi-protecting the page. Od Mishehu 10:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking of editing until July 21? 

message: I think we need to modify the subsection head under "Bookcover artwork release" from "UK edition" to "UK childrens edition" and add a new section titled "UK adult edition" with a description of the adult edition book cover.  I propose this because the adult edition cover art is sugnificantly different from the childrens edition cover art, and the publisher always released distinctive covers for the childrens editions and the adult editions of the books in the Harry Potter series, even though the text of the book itself is identical.
I also think examples should be shown of the cover art that is described.  I realize this was a long and controversial discussion recently, but since we are describing the cover art, we should at least have an example of what we are describing.  68.252.95.208 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Hardcover edition and the US Deluxe Edition  are very different as well.  Should we have them described and illustrated as well? We still have to watch out for fair use abuses of copyrighted images.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add section for UK adult cover artwork 

message: I wonder if we should think about moving the sometimes controversial "Unresolved Plot Elements from the previous books" section over to the Half-Blood Prince page.  It seems to me that it keeps coming up as "original research" and "crystalballery", in the context of Book 7, since it is being implied or could be inferred that the issue "will" be dealt with in Book 7.  It seems to me it would fit better at Book 6.  Besides presumably the whole section will become obsolete on July 21 and replaced with a plot summary.  I think the material in and of itself is interesting and encyclopedic, but it makes sense to remove it from Book 7 with a forwarding link to "see Book 6 for information regarding...".  Besides, based on some of Rowling's comments, there may come a replacement section in Book 7 called "Unresolved Plot Elements from the Series" where some loose ends were never really conclusively resolved; or maybe that belongs at the home-base Harry Potter page.  Just thinking ahead here.  I don't want to jump on this until there is a clear consensus to do so, since it may aggravate some folks.  RfC - anyone? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs in the HP7 article.  It is not original research, because those plotlines are unresolved - no one ever said they'd be resolved in HP7, just that if they will be resolved, it will be in this book (which is completely true, not original research).  Putting in HP6's article wouldn't make sense, because none of the other HP books' articles have a section mentioning unresolved plotlines.  After HP7 is released, I think all unresolved plotlines should be moved to the main HP article, since they will remain unresolved forever. Miles Blues 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved Plot Elements Revisited 

message: I know it was talked about, but I have a small question about the so-called "spoiler" currently making the rounds. I lurk the SA Forums and first noticed a link to somebody's LiveJournal in the HP thread a few weeks (at least) before the spoiler hit YTMND, which supposedly contained DH spoilers. I didn't click it but the fact it came from LJ made it a bit less credible anyway (especially considering it was 2 months before release). Is this "spoiler" (which I am refusing to believe or visit the YTMND page) the same one that was on LJ? WorldsTallestMidget 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed above. most think it's fake.Angielaj 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "spoilers" 

message: I removed the bit about the missing girl: the parents say in the article that "we are thinking about getting bookmarks with Madeleine's photographs and getting authors agreement". Now, the "we" in the beginning of the article is indeed the parents. Not the parents and J. K. Rowling. And so far the parents are only "thinking about it", there's no direct quote that would implyt Rowling is thinking about it. There's no quote from Rowling or her publishers, and the name of the article is what it is just to catch people's attention.--83.145.240.253 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing girl 

message: We now have a section on marketing campaigns. I am of two minds what to do about this. Logically, all the marketing stuff ought to be in the same place. So the mention of the natural history and Carnegie hall stuff ought to be in that same section. On the other hand, I quite liked mentioning them in the introduction. It struck me that it might give people a more sporting chance to notice that there are events open by ballot, so if they are interested they can try for tickets. Any comments? Sandpiper 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  marketing campaigns: where to mention them? 

message: I'm not too involved with this article, but I noticed a claim on the Inquirer that some hacker got into the publisher's database and downloaded a copy of book 7.  They proceded to post spoilers from the book on a webpage.  The motivation apparently comes from the "hacker's" desire to ruin the series due to the many themes which Christians could find offensive.  I didn't check out the link, (don't want to ruin it for myself just in case!) but the Inq article can be found here.  I'm personally skeptical about the claim, and would probably suggest waiting until the publisher issues a statement before throwing a paragraph in the article.  However, the Inq (despite it's tabloidy nature) is generally not too far off concerning tech news, and hence I would view the article as a reliable source.  Anyway, I'll leave it to the editors who put more blood and sweat into this page to make the right decision. →Bobby← 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it, i think the person who wrote that spoiler is just trying to stop people from reading Harry Potter. Also I've read somewhere that the publishing company is deleting many of the spoilers. So if that is a true spoiler i think it would've been deleted by now.  MamaMia22 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Purported Spoilers 

message: Anyone know if this is real?
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jun/0380.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurauth (talk • contribs) 
It doesn't look real, or sound real. Most/all of the spoilers, as stated above, are fakes. They claim that they got the information by hacking into the accounts of a Bloomsbury worker, yet they fail to see that not everyone who works at Bloomsbury has a copy of the book. From what I've read, the only people who have read the book are the editors, JK, and the artists, all of whom are responsible enough not to leave a copy of the book so accessible. It's hogwash. Tynedanu 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw it too (look at above comment).  I have the same feeling you do, which is that it's unlikely anyone at the publishers was so dense as to leave one of the more anticipated novels of our time lying around (either digitally or physically) where it could be accessed.  I'll keep an eye on the Inq, since they are following up with Bloomsbury.  →Bobby← 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The single sentence the purported hacker Gabriel has on the hacking's tech details is full of abbreviations, but it is quite believable, such directed attacks have been trivial in corporate hackings since at least two years. But I still think the very sad story ending disclosed by the hacker Gabriel is a fake, as it contradicts the leak published by the Daily Star tabloid in April. That one has a more positive oucome and that came from a verified informant and JKR's cohort tried to squash that story, which lends credence to its genuinity. 82.131.210.162 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ohh okay, well I reported it to Bloomsbury too anyway but it really sucks if that is how it turns out anyway, the week before the actual release onto after I finnsh it I won't be going on the internet or watching the news anyway so that I don't get spoilt by people who work at bookstores or get pre-orders sent early. 86.6.17.37 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that, at the very least, the subject of all of these alleged spoilers should be addressed in its own section of the article. Reuters went so far as to report on it, at least:  Sidatio 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Wikipedia is not a news/media organization.  This is an encyclopedia.  We shouldn't report unfounded rumors.  If we did, I could get my "everlasting" fame by posting an entry in my blog saying I read the book and expose plot elements, then link to my blog entry in this Wiki article.  Regardless of whether or not Reuters reported on it is irrelevant. Ccrashh 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand. I'm not saying we should post every spoiler that comes down the pike. I'm saying the fact that the hype surrounding this book has generated so much attention that people are allegedly trying to hack into the publisher's computers looking for the ending should possibly be addressed. Sidatio 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Okay.  I think that would be a good idea.  I think there is consensus below as well. Ccrashh 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that we should have an article dedicated to spoilers, but we could take a section of this article to talk about all the hype, not the content of the spoilers. Any article that's written now will probably be deleted once the book comes out anyway. Tynedanu 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that if Reuters and other news agencies are reporting on the Hacker-Spoiler story and making it newsworthy, then we can certainly have a section that discusses that event as part of the larger story of the pre-release cultural phenomenon.  What we should NOT be doing is randomly posting links to (for example) the Hacker's web site, whether intentionally as "vandal-trolls" might, or in passing as "naive newbies" might, and thereby promoting his work and increasing his notoriety (and his ad revenues).  The reliably verifiable News is what it is, and it would most likely be considered a POV problem to ignore it entirely.  That said we are not required to promote it, beyond a simple mention that it happened; we can legitimately omit the links to his web site, and any others that may come along in the next month.  Let Reuters and the fan-blog sites do that important work.  If in the near future it is judged that the Hacker-event warrants an encyclopedic Wiki-article on its own, then we can deal with the notability of that when we get there, and provide external links as part of the documentation.  For now however, it appears that this is just another minor twist in the story that really started and gained traction on Dec 21 when the Title was released.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 00:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link to harry potter hacking leak news. I too think we should have a section on all the reported "leaks" and hype surrounding the book. Berserkerz Crit 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone else is going to have to write this, if they want to - I can't edit it as a newbie. :-( Sidatio 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are right that there ought to be a section discussing noteable leaks and scares (assuming there is in fact enough material, but I expect there will be before we are finished). However, We need to steer clear of reporting the details of those 'leaks' since either they are 1)wrong, or 2)right, and either way I would not want to be reading them here. Sandpiper 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I can edit it either, but I'd be willing to help in any way, shape, or form. (ie. collecting information, ect...) Tynedanu 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with THIS article? --Dave. 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think about it, everything that happens in history at one point is news. However, some news will be remembered, and some won't. But that has nothing to do with this article. Perhaps you could ask that question at the village pump. The whole  point of this discussion is whether or not we should talk about the hype over the internet spoilers. Tynedanu 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: The article states that the symbol on the spine of the UK children edition has appeared on all other covers. It is true that all previous books had a symbol on the spine, but the way it is formulated here makes it sound as if this specific symbol (split triangle with inscribed circle) has appeared on all other covers. It should be reformulated or deleted. Also, the remark that the symbols happen to look like the greek Phi and Delta is also not of an encyclopaedic nature. It can have many interpretations. I propose to reformulate the paragraph as "Cover Spine: The top of the cover spine has a symbol of a vertically split upward pointing triangle with an inscribed circle; The meaning of this is unclear at the moment, but symbols on the spine of previous releases were always closely related to the central theme of the story".
AberforthD 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got that impression too, it does need changing. I saw someone explaining what the symbol meant recently, but can't remember now what it was. Sandpiper 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter much what explanation can be given to that symbol at the moment, unless it is Rowling herself or the editor giving additional details. Any explanation at the moment belongs to the realm of speculation and has no place in this this article. Forums are the place for that. AberforthD 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well not really, if the symbol has a recognisded meaning, then it does, and we are entitled to say so. Now, why it is there, that would be rather harder to comment on. Sandpiper 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely until someone can say what the symbol actually means, then there's little point in speculating in an encyclopedia? --Dave. 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i don't remember what it was now, and I'm not going to make anything up  or bother hunting for it. But it was something relevant and made me laugh. Sandpiper 11:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was not that there would not exist commonly recognized meanings of that symbol. My point was that Phi and Delta are interpretations that have no basis. The description of a "split upward pointing triangle with inscribed circle" is objective and therefore appropriate. To see a Delta and Phi in it is not objective. I can also see a sun and a pyramid in it for that sake. Besides, the vertical stroke of a Phi extends below the circle, which is not the case in this symbol. The Phi and Delta remark should be deleted from the article. AberforthD 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Updated the description, removed OR as recommended.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover spine image 

message: this thing needs to be completely locked down from the 20th of july to the 23rd at least. when HBP was released, the page was vandalized so much, it looked like wiki editors were completely unawares. Skhatri2005 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you have a good idea and i agree with you but i think we are in the minority --munkee_madness   talk 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am usually not in favour of locking an article as a precaution. If excessive vandalism occurs it can be locked at that moment. However, I can see the point that the core editors of this page will not likely be monitoring the article for vandalism in the first few hours after release. It may therefore be wise to lock the article for about 24 hours after release in the UK. That will avoid editing of the page in the 8 hour span between release in California and the rest of the world, which is a perfectly acceptable period of time given the fact that this is not a news medium. An additional 15 more hours would be nice to give everybody the chance to digest the book without worrying about vandalism of the article. I am not in favour of a lock for longer than 24 hours though because the article should also be kept up to date. A 24 hour lag in being up to date is acceptable in my opinion. AberforthD 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked 

message: Why is this section here at all?  It has nothing specifically to do with the Deathly Hallows.  It should be in the Harry Potter article. Ccrashh 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it like this: you want to know what the fuss is about this forethcoming book  so you look at the wikipedia article. Surely you need to be told  that it is part of a series and what the series is about? The whole of this article is essentially a quick summary of background information about this book. Sandpiper 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason it is here is so that this isn't essentially a stranded article.  FYI, it isn't wise to delete entire sections of articles without an extensive discussion and a conventional decision to do so.  It rather irritated me to see that.Phoenix1304 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  Stranded article?  What do you mean by that?  Do you mean this section is essentially there to fill out the article so it doesn't seem so sparse?  Or do you mean to add that same "Background to the series" to the articles of the other 6 books? Ccrashh 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means, the other six books have been released.  This one has not.  We have to connect this article to the others somehow.  I imagine that once the book is released, it will be replaced by a plot summary.Phoenix1304 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So it will be removed once the book is released?  To match the articles for the other books in the series? Ccrashh 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it doesn't belong here. Same reason we don't have an "Overview of the United States" section on every state article. TheCoffee 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But presumably you know quite a bit of definite information about each state? The basic information about the story in this book is that it will follow the existing story. It will be a traditional school story. It will be a whodunnit. It will resolve mysteries set out in the earlier volumes. Rowling has siad this will be the case. This is all known stuff immediately relevant to the issue of what is in this particular book.  Sandpiper 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Background to the series" section 

message: Can people stop making massive changes to the article without building a consensus on the talk page, please!Phoenix1304 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but as things stand, you never know will disappear next. Sandpiper 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caps lock makes people notice.  Especially the vandalizers.  I apologize if I offended you.Phoenix1304 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted to regular now that people have had ample opportunity to read.Phoenix1304 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sometimes a bit of shouting helpsSandpiper 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeping changes 

message: The seventh harry potter movie will be split into two parts. It was decided that the first part of the movie will be scheduled to be released sometime in 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.244.182 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We know, and it is addressed in the article. — chandler — 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I may be thinking far ahead, but should we make a single page or two separate pages for the duology? 
DarthBotto talk•cont 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends he much info there is I think. I don't know, Heyman says its one film released as two some I'll be treating it as one article. Gran2 07:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing happened with the movie Kill Bill, it was just so big they had to split it into two pieces. The way they decided to do it was put both of the movies in one article, which might be what they might end up doing with the movie, but whatever they decide, there's going to be one heck of a debate about it. ~ Bella Swan? 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Discussion