Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 5

message: It was apparent that there was another "order of the phoenix", but was scrapped later and entirely rewritten. However, there are clues from the scrapped manuscript that may be reused, including that the Dudley that bullied harry is the person that could have been very powerful because a person's power potentially increases as he/she does not perform his/her first spell until later years. Second, it was rumored, at least in the scripped copy, that Lily was indeed Voldermort's offspring, sort of illegitimately produced with a normal human. That was all I think.
:Any proof? The original of the scrapped edition or something would be nice. Otherwise I think it would just be fan speculation. - Redmess 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnoted Spoilers 

message: PeaceNT recently removed my addition of the 7/7/07 theory. This would generally be acceptable, something I myself would endorse -- I am strongly for the removal of fan theory stuff. However, I chose to cite this theory with a reference from the New York Times, which goes on to suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. I don't personally subscribe to this theory even, and had it been something like "BOOK 7 IS BEING RELEASED 7/7/07" I would have reverted it immediately. But suddenly the case is very different when the NYT talks about it. I'm just reporting the facts here, and I feel this is important and well verified enough to merit its mention. (Please note I'm on vacation with limited access to internet and may not be able to respond quickly.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no point in having a fan theory cited. Being mentioned by NYT doesn't mean the theory has to be true or notable. If you notice, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/weekinreview/31bosman.html has clarified the matter by using the word speculation. NYT simply stated a popular speculation, not suggest that this date is very appropriate for the release. And even if they do, it's still a fan theory that remains unofficial. Feel free to mention it when the info is officially confirmed. Until then, please don't add more theory about the release date. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you understand, I'm not doing this because I like the theory in any way -- for one thing, she can't finish the book by then. But if the theory is notable enough for the New York Times to publish, still classified as speculation, but important enough for them to mention nonetheless, then it's important that we do the same -- mention that this was widely speculated upon for some time. Otherwise, I think the Bloomsbury editor who "hopes" for it to be released next year should also be removed. Didn't get too much out of the words "hopes" and "likely." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NYT only mention the theory for its popularity, this is not as remarkable as you think. Fan theory is not supported here, no matter how widespread it is. The question of release date was done a few days ago you could see that topic "7/7/7 release" in this talk page for more details. Thank you. Hope you enjoy your vacation PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a one sentence mention would be fine, especially with the ref. If there are facts to back up the theory, it seems appropriate. Popularity seems to be a factor for inclusion of theory in many articles.  Take a look at all of the theory at Regulus Black.  There is the beginnings of a debate at the talk page, please comment.John Reaves 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the theory being included because it's thought to be true, it's the fact that the theory is relevant to the topic to which we are reporting on. There is a slight difference between saying "A popular fan theory was 7/7/07.[ref]" and "Fans think that 7/7/07 will be the release date.[noref]" WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:OR would both prohibit the second one, as it's an unpublished theory. Suddenly the NYT publishes the theory -- not saying that they side either way with the theory, but they publish it -- and it doesn't fall into that not allowed by those policies. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anybody else have anything to say on this one? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's out there and there is reason to think that plenty of people are discussing it, the fact that the theory exists (together with a explanation of what the theory is) should be included in an article. If a reputable (I think, anyway: is it the New York Times or New York Post which has the bad reputation) newspaper reports on the theory, I'd say you were venturing towards POV by NOT reporting it in the article. Michaelsanders 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After some consideration, I  would agree that we can mention that there have been rumours circulating for some time in support of a possible release date of 07/07/07 for "Book 7", with Verifiability provided by quoting the New York Times article as a Reliable Source, to avoid Original Research claims.  However this should be provided ONLY in the main article under Writing progress section and made very clear that this is a "popular candidate" for a release date, and not by any means a hard target.  It can be mentioned along with the traceable and documented quotes attributed to the publisher-gal's "hopes" that the book would be published in 2007, and Rowlings atatements that she planned to get the writing underway in 2006.  The 07/07/07 date should NOT however be included in the "infobox", because the infobox by its very nature is a summary of the facts - and there is no room to spell out all the NYT quotes and conditionals that make it clear that this is popular speculation and not by any means a hard fact.  In general, I rather prefer the approach of carefully controlling and closely fencing off in proper "rumour corrals" the hard to ignore and "necessary and hardly avoidable" stallions of speculation of this nature, held tightly in the barnyard fence to keep them tamed, horse-broken down with carefully worded explanations of pedigree, rather than letting the wild speculators keep insisting on throwing opinions in just anywhere in the article like so many feral horses and mustangs running around loose and breeding uncontrollably in the bush.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I've been trying to say: not that the theory has anything to it, necessarily, but the fact that there is a popular theory, now cited by the New York Times. (Michael, hehe, the New York Times is one of the most reputable papers in the world, if not the most; the Post is… well… ;-)  ). Nice linking, by the way, T-dot. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know, I read the Guardian. Michaelsanders 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited fan speculation 

message: Please Note: I have included promotional cover art for the UK version of the book, as seen on Amazon.co.uk - Hpfan9374 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Costco.com has a different promotional image. Search for the book title or type "11175034" into the search dialog. Here is a link to the picture - Davandron | Talk 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read a bit further up the page? I am about to remove it and tag the image for deletion like was doone with the other! It serves no purpose!  Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davandron, thankyou for pointing out that, though for all previous books it shows UK cover art, as this promotional artwork is designed to mimic the UK cover, while Costco.com's is designed to mimic the American covers. Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Flutefluteflute, I see your reasoning for deletion, though isn't a promotional cover, better than no cover? Hpfan9374 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the person further up the page who says it serves no real purpose. Do you agree with that fact. I agree it would be nice to have an image but I don't think there is any point when the final book will not have that cover. Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hpfan, thanks; I hadn't looked at the WP's entries for the other books so when I saw the current "promotional cover" topic I thought I'd leave a note for you dedicated editors that there was another promotional image in case it was usable. - Davandron | Talk 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Cover Art 

message: I've seen this a couple times now, on this page and others, so I thought I'd start a section on it here on the talk page. My understanding is that there is no confirmation on Fawkes being dead, that at the end of HBP the only hint at him being dead is the ambiguous thought of Harry's that the phoenix had "left Hogwarts" or something similar. Am I missing something? Is there any canonical reason to believe that Fawkes is actually dead? Scharferimage 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you saw is a piece of inaccurate information added by an IP, which has already been reverted . And no, for your question, his death hasn't been verified in the canon. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, that's what I figured. Thanks. Scharferimage 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering why you keep referring to Fawkes as a "he." I think nothing was ever said of "it's" gender. Moonwalkerwiz 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple. Fawkes is referred to as "he" in the books. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fawkes 

message: I have been looking at this edit to see whether it was good faith or not, as there was not comment and a large chunk of text removed. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails. I am tempted to revert it and ask that if anyone wants to reapply this edit it be done in smaller pieces , but most of all that it be discussed first here. Seems that many interesting tidbits were removed, even the ones that had citations to this interview or that one. Anyway, it is not my article, just one I ran into yesterday while on RC Patrol, so do what you will. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much change, too fast? 

message: In the Wiki article, it says that Harry was born one day after Neville, who was born on July 30th. However, I thought they shared the same birthday. I'd edit it myself, but I've kinda been scared into not editing things anymore.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.234.172 (talk • contribs).
: I'm not sure whether or not it's considered canon, but Rowling's website has a desk calendar, and on that it identified Neville's birthday as 30th july and Harry's as 31st July.  --Dave. 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Born on July 30th? 

message: Can we/should we include in the plot details list of rumors that when the 6th book was translated to multiple languages, Regulas Black was the only name who's initials translated correctly as well? Whether or not this actually means it is 100% Black for sure is still debatable, but this information seems like it would fit in well. Brett 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave this to the R.A.B. page, and only include an idea here. Tuvas 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.A.B.? 

message: Can somone clear up when the referance to 2010 was made as teh article states March 2007.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.208.77 (talk • contribs) 
:Can you clear up what you're referring to? There's no mention of either 2010 nor March 2007 in this article… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time treavel?  Or incorrect date? 

message: Why does this title need a pronunciation guide?  And why were the accessed dates removed from some of the sourcing tags?  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized how pointless it is, I'll delete it.  I don't know about the  dates. John Reaves (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: I can't find any other reference to this movie, including on All Movie Guide. Brian Jason Drake 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because this is far too crystal ballish to know anything. IMDb is user-submitted, like Wikipedia, but without references, unlike Wikipedia. Thus we cannot say anything about a movie until more details are heard -- which probably won't happen until HBP is in at earliest pre-production. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie? 

message: I just got an email from Barnes and Noble about a pre-order. Can we use that cover image? image -Searles2sels (PJ) 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a cover. It's an advertisement. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I thought it was a sweet new dark cover. Ah well, thanks. -Searles2sels (PJ) 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its just a picture, not a cover.  It in no way follows the style of the other covers.--Andy mci 19:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Cover 

message: I've requested semiprotection for this page for a couple days, meaning that anonymous users and new users won't be able to edit it.  Hopefully if it's granted it will cut down on the adding and reverting of info already in the article.  We'll see what happens.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much it.  The protect only blocks IP and new users (I believe those registered less than four days), regular editors can still edit.  Hopefully those who have been here will read before editing.  I notice there's also been a fair amount of vandalism at the main Harry Potter article, anyone think it needs a similar temporary semiprotection?  I assume we may need to do similar things when the movie and book are released, I can just imagine all the HAGRID KILLS RON!!!1!!1!! spoilerspamming the articles will get.  Requests for protection can be made at WP:RPP.  Anyone here when the last book was released, how bad was it?  I'll probably stay away from wikipedia entirely for a week or two before the book's release until after I've finished it, people will be set on blurting spoilers everywhere.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm contemplating the same.  You have to assume the HP SuperFans and trolls are going to go absolutely bonkers, starting on July 20th if not sooner - running wild and naked through the wiki-streets, leaving little piles of doggy-doo-poo everywhere.  It will be a race - a competition for them - to post as many outrageous spoilers and plot details as possible.  Meanwhile the legitimate HP Project editors will likely be in hiding for several days, reading and re-reading the text to absorb it properly, before they dare to come out to battle the trolls and set the facts straight.  This problem alone would be a very good reason to place the entire set of HP articles on at least some sort of semi-protection from anonymous edits for perhaps a week or so, starting at noon on July 20th.  Properly registered editors can still add (and then be accountable for) their edits; and various anti-vandalism robots can be designed and set up in advance, and let loose to run on auto-pilot on July 20, to beat down the most outrageous of the trolling vandals, at least until the legitimate editors can properly prepare themselves to take on the trolls without having the plot spoiled in the process.  I think this event will prove to be one of the worst for the wikipedia - a true all out DEFCON 1 battle for several days.  As to comparisons to Book 6 - we are STILL battling the Dumbledore-Snape spoiling trolls, and it was just awful for several days that summer.  This one could be orders of magnitude larger.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it might be hard to get admins to agree, it would probably be good to propose a plan ahead of time, and include a LOT of pages.  Unfortunately I bet there will be plenty of spoilers posted even on completely unrelated pages as well (was there any of that with book six?).  Might want to do it even earlier than July 20, the movie is on the 13th in the USA and a couple days earlier in other countries.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie isn't really sensitive information though, we have a pretty good idea what the plot will be and who dies. But I agree, I am not likely to be having a look anywhere here untill I'veread it, and while there will likely be a couple of copies around, I'm not going to get to read them first. Sandpiper 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I find this sentence to be a bit ridiculous:
However, she has said that an encyclopedia of the Wizarding world based on her copious notes may be published in the future, possibly for charity similar to her two other Harry Potter charity books.
The term "two" has nothing to do with Quidditch Through the Ages. The term "other" has nothing to do with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Brian Jason Drake 08:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It should say something like:  "...possibly for charity, as she did with her other two charity books, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.  Please feel free to make sensible changes of this sort which improve the article.  If the person who posted it the other way objects, then they can feel free to discuss it here and explain why they think their way is better!  This is how you reach a proper consensus.   --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably should have mentioned that I changed the sentence myself at the same time as posting that comment. Brian Jason Drake 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity books 

message: I wonder if the "Writing progress" section should just go away now.  Most of the information in it is rather dated and no longer of any real interest.  The Airport Fiasco may be of some interest to keep, perhaps in a trivia section, but the rest seems forced and breathless "news as it happens!" cruft.  The only reason for having it in there in the first place was because we wanted to have SOMETHING there in lieu of a firm release date, a surrogate as it were, something more encyclopedic than the date speculations posted at the fan forum sites.  The section simply provided some sort of reliable evidence that the book was being written mostly during 2006, and was expected to be released in 2007.  
By the way - where are all the bookshop owner assistants and stock boys who had absolutely reliable "inside information" from their suppliers that the book would come out on 07/07/07 (due to the "magical nature of 7"), or 3/31/07 because Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com posted that target date for pre-orders, or 07/14/07 because the riots were on 07/07/06, or on JK/Harry's "birthday" on 07/31/07?  Funny - I don't recall anyone insisting that they heard it was 07/21/07.  Wherever those folks are hiding now, I hope that now they can understand and respect why it is that we refused to allow them to post their speculations and false gossip here.  Even if they had guessed right, or if JK had told them directly herself, it would not have been appropriate to post that information until it came out publicly.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard it from a stock boy in Stockholm who heard it from a buzzard in Bulgaria who heard it from a pelican in Peru who heard it from JK herself that the the date would be 7/21/07 because the 21st was three times as powerful as the 7th. 67.88.29.58 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  John Reaves (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Progress 

message: Hi! I've just read this article and I must tell you that someone edited it writing nonsense; here it is:
"harry potter 7 is going to be about Ron, Hermoine snd Harry Potter eating horcruxes. They discover that Dumbledore did not die...he only passed away.Then they discover a horryfying discovery to discover...VOLDERMORT IS A GIRL!!! AHHHHH!!!!"
Perhaps because I didn't sign in, I'm not able to edit that part of the article, so someone help me! Edit it and cancel those stupid news!
Thank you very much
87.24.15.6 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The main article certainly needs a major cleanup and rewrite, to bring it up to date and to mop up the remaining fan cruft, speculation, and occasional trolling vandalism.  As an open-edit system, the Wikipedia sometimes becomes vulnerable to immature vandalism by trolls who are begging to be fed, especially on topics of particular interest to children and adolescents.  Please feel free to register yourself with a proper login ID, and start to boldly make some sensible edits, and join the Wiki Project as a productive member to guard against such vandalism and to "keep it real".  Due to the recent rampant vandalism and unexplained reversion battles, this article may have been temporarily disabled from editing by the administrators.  Please feel free to contact an administrator, or in particular the individual who disabled the article from editing, with your concerns.  Thanks for the alert!  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, help! 

message: Could somebody add the release date, July 21st, 2007, to the article? It would make it more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halleedwards (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, hang on...getting out my wand...waving it around...saying the magic words...*POOF*.  There it is, in the article, in two places!  And what's really amazing is that I went back in time and added it before you even asked.  Isn't that awesome?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're good! Now while you're at it, could you please add the title of the book somewhere into the article, I think it's important to mention somewhere what the book is actually called. ;-) (I'm not the only one flashing back to the identical spree of redundant edits we suffered back then, am I? Why do people think it's a good idea to edit an article without at least giving it a quick readthrough first?) --Maelwys 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add release date! 

message: My question revert's to the fact that it is widly spread that Harry Potter will die in the seventh book. i wonder if that is true just out of curiousity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.65.49.221 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody knows but Rowling, and I don't think she's about to spoil something like that. You'll have to wait until July 21st to find out, sorry. --Maelwys 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We will find out on July 21, and if so you can bet that it will be posted then, and not before.  We do not deal in "widly spread" rumours and gossip here in the Wikipedia.  That is what the fanatic sites are for.  The Wikipedia only allows neutral and verifiable facts taken from reliable sources, and strongly avoids speculation, rumours, gossip, and fan theories on what might happen in the unpublished book.  We also do not use weasel wording to try to make something we heard about somewhere seem encyclopedic somehow by shifting the "blame" to unnamed sources.   Please feel free to share your thoughts and questions at one of the many HP fan forums - see the Harry Potter fandom article for some examples.  --T-dot (Talk | 
contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's death 

message: I just reverted an edit by 82.206.131.163 as follows:
:Trivia
:oN fEBUARY 6TH 2007,J.k Rowling stataed in her official website that Dealthly :Hallows is her favourite and its a wonderful way to finish the series.
Obviously the edit needing improvement to stay, but it seems like an interesting point and I've verified that she has said this at her online diary. The precise quote is:
:"While each of the previous Potter books has strong claims on my affections, 'Deathly Hallows' is my favourite, and that is the most wonderful way to finish the series."
However I can't see how to reference this properly, as she seems to replace the old text with the new each time she updates the diary, with no permalink.
Any ideas?
: You could always take a screenshot of the diary quote and have it hosted online (like on Photobucket or the like). Provide that as an external link to follow along with the reference, but don't make the image the reference itself. The correct reference would need to be Rowling's site. Even though it might change, that is why all website references need an "Accessed" date. This makes it clear that, though the website may have changed, the information was there and accurate at the time and date the web page was originally accessed. The screen capture will just provide readers with a visual image to go along with it in the event of the change. Sage of Ice 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted cite of Rowling's online diary 

message: I just reinserted some of the stuff pruned from the article recently. This mainly seems to have affected the section on ongoing plot. While I did not think it sensible to put back half of what had been removed, we do need to have a section which states the straightforward bits of what has to happen because of events already begun in the last book. It may seem obvious to say that Harry has to fight Voldemort and destroy his horcruxes, but the article would be seriously incomplete without explaining this very basic part of the plot.  Sandpiper 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent deletions 

message: Where the article has it that Dumbledore
says that just as Voldemort cannot die while his soul fragments remain, Voldemort cannot kill Harry because he used Harry's blood (which carries the ancient magical protection his mother gave to him through her sacrifice years before) in his resurrection
--can someone with the book before them confirm this?  Because if that's the case, then the final confrontation between the two was a sham - there was no way that Voldemore could've killed Harry then, either.  Don't want to get into a discussion of the book per se, just don't think this is accurate.  --Andersonblog (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what that says is correct. Jammy (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in summary?