Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 4

message: Where does it 'suggest' Flitwick will be deputy headmaster? Kochdude388 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere. It's just more fancrap. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flitwick??? 

message: I just reverted the removal of practically everything except the first paragraph in each section. Someone either vandalizing or attempting to shorten the article. Sorry if I'm treading on anyone's toes with this. Daggoth S 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  verylong template 

message: Sorry to make another post, but I couldn't help but notice the constant use of "it is expected".  Unfortunately, that falls under weasel words, unless sources are provided (NOTEWORTHY sources!). 199.126.137.209 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words? 

message: I removed the bullet point about how Hogwarts will "of course need a new Defence against the Dark Arts teacher" per WP:V and WP:RS - there is no source, and the only results for this quote on Google are this page, and a page that has mirrored this page.  0L1 Talk Contribs 20:14 16/12/2006 (UTC)
:And Hogwarts will only need a new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher if it re-opens, which is far from certain at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, so it isn’t even something that can be inferred. David Arthur 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New DADA teacher 

message: I've requested that this page be semiprotected, due to repetitive vandalism by IPs. See WP:RPP if you would like to see the entry.  0L1 Talk Contribs 11:29 19/12/2006 (UTC)
:Update: The page is now semi-protected.  0L1 Talk Contribs 20:09 19/12/2006 (UTC)
::Is it protected? I edited a minor section correcting some grammatical mistakes. Just want to check if it's properly protected ir not.Zuracech lordum 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's semi-protected meaning only registered users can edit it. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for semiprotection 

message: I found this on the Internet:
"Harry Potter awoke to the sound of birds gleefully chirping in the wild of their makeshift campsite.  Hermione and Ron had already yanked themselves from slumber and were daintily cooking the chosen one's breakfast.  The three heroes needed their energy if they were to destroy Harry's immortal enemy who gets discussed a lot, but never really does anything and will never really die until the money dries up.  Harry, Ron, and Hermione must band together as vicious vigilantes and harness Professor Dumbledore's dying gift, a purple AK-47 that fires magic bullets and wizard lightning if they want to destroy yet another outlandish reincarnation of Voldemort once and for all."
It is an excerpt from the first chapter of Book Seven.
Is it fake or real? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.105.107.36 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fake.  But even if it was "real", it still does not belong here.  The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for posting the latest rumours, gossip, and unsubstantiated tripe that you found on the internet on some idiot's blog page, or that was made up out of thin air, or whatever.  The rules for the wikipedia are clear.  Verifiability, and traceability from Reliable Sources, is far more important than an unverifiable "truth".  Original research, speculation, and other such material that "other people" made up is forbidden.  In addition, we avoid weasel wording like "some fans feel" and "experts agree" - if the statement cannot stand as verifiable truth without adding the "some people think" part, then it does not qualify.  Anyway, thanks for playing.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol. That's a pretty funny passage... the first sentence I wondered if it was at least a well-written forgery... then I read about Ron being "dainty" and cooking for "the chosen one", and knew it was a joke. But then all the stuff about "immortal enemy who gets discussed a lot but never does anything", and the purple AK-47 just had me laughing out loud. I really hope the original questioner wasn't really serious about asking... --Maelwys 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If HP7 or most of it publishes on the web in spring 2007 it may be under the title "Harry Potter and the Grottner revelations". Some russkies simply cannot forgive Ms. Rowling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First chapter excerpt 

message: I removed information recently added about her dream about being in the seventh book . She said that, being the narrator, she knew the Horcrux was in a hidden nook in the fireplace. However, I think this was in a dream, rather than in the book. I may be wrong here - if so, please reply.  0L1 Talk Contribs 21:04 20/12/2006 (UTC)
:Agreed.  First of all - this was NOT an interview.  It appeared on her web site, and the Edinburg paper picked up on it.  She clearly stated she was dreaming, and found herself in the role of the "narrator" and as "Harry" in the dream.  Things happened in the dream and she described them.  The full text reference is on the front page of her web site or on the text only version:
::For years now, people have asked me whether I ever dream that I am 'in' Harry's world. The answer was 'no' until a few nights ago, when I had an epic dream in which I was, simultaneously, Harry and the narrator. I was searching for a Horcrux in a gigantic, crowded hall, which bore no resemblance to the Great Hall as I imagine it. As the narrator I knew perfectly well that the Horcrux was jammed in a hidden nook in the fireplace, while as Harry I was searching for it in all kinds of other places, while trying to make the people around me say lines I had pre-arranged for them. Meanwhile waiters and waitresses who work in the real café in which I have written huge parts of book seven roamed around me as though on stilts, all of them at least fifteen feet high. Perhaps I should cut back on the caffeine?
:Rowling would not have revealed a crucial plot element of the "real" HP7 story, especially not on the front page of her web site, without specifically saying that this was what she was up to.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edinburgh interview 

message: Don't revert the move! http://www.mugglenet.com/ -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we find the original post (by Rowling herself)? This article only references mugglenet. Michaelsanders 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/550 -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6200000/newsid_6200500/6200573.stm
Should we not move the article?--81.236.17.8 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has been moved. AxG</font>  (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's absolutely official, now scholastic.com is listing it on their front page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Revealed! 

message: The Title Has Been Revealed On http://www.jkrowling.com/ as:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows
:A bit slow on report, the page is already called that and the section above says the exact same thing. ;-) --Maelwys 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title For 7th Book Revealed. 

message: J.K. Rowling's site has what looks like the title of the seventh book: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I'd cite Leaky or HPANA but it looks like they're both down...
Sigh... Wiki-newbie 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So anyone want to start a betting pool on how many times someone starts a new "the title was announced!!!" section at the bottom of this page today?  My money is on 27.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced the MuggleNet cite with a Bloomsbury Publishing cite.  No offense to MuggleNet, but I think the UK publisher of the series is a better source.  Also, couldn't find (let alone link) the source at the Rowling site. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author's site has it as the reward in a Flash-based game, so it's not a suitable source just now. The publisher, of course, works fine. Radagast 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title! 

message: Confirmed by the publisher of Harry Potter. The title of the seventh book is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows.
Actually, take a closer look. It is Hollows, not Hallows. Sewnmouthsecret 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. Sewnmouthsecret 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Should the archives be renamed with the proper title of the book. AxG (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: The way to find the title is to go to jkrowling.com, click on the eraser, you will be brought into a room with a mirror and a hallway.  You then click on the farthest door handle, then a christmas tree pops up.  Click on that, and then click the middle of the door next to the mirror.  A wreath will pop up.  Click on the upper portion of the mirror and a some garland will pop up.  Click on the spiderweb and it will dissapear.  Then click on the second to right chime and hold it down.  It will turn into a key, which you will use to open the door.  In the door will be a wrapped present.  Click on the present twice, and you will play hangman.  The correct answer will be "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"
Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.36.175 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is too fancrufty to be included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- if people want to find out they can go to Wikipedia, which is not a fan site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangman at www.jkrowling.com 

message: I mentioned this previously under a different topic, but decided ultimately that it should be it's own based in part on discussion that followed that topic.  So, here we go. 
It is important to note at this time that "Hallow" means a saint or holy person, or to sanctify, make holy , whereas "Hollow" means a sunken valley or an empty space .  --Reverend Loki 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallow vs Hollow 

message: Other than the phrase being the answer on a hangman game on J K Rowling's website, is there definite confirmation that it's the title?  Or are we all just assuming that it'll be the title? Proto::► 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been confimed by scholastic.com and bloomsbury.com and widely reported by mainstream news media.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  It's just that Scholastic, Bloomsbury and the mainstream media's entire definitive source for this is all just the one flash Hangman game.  I've added a screenshot of the game. Proto::► 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since they're the publishers, I would guess they know what the title is.  They probably don't use flash games to figure out what their author is writing. --Phoenix Hacker 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Will the content of this page remain in some form? Even though some of the speculation will inevitably be proven incorrect, will there be some way of Wikipedia acknowledging what the popular theories were about the novel's content? Cherry pizza 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this problem strongly illustrates exactly why it is that speculation about a future "reality" is to be avoided in "just the facts please" encyclopedias, and the Wikipedia, and why so many editors have been working so hard for so long to stamp it out.  Theoretically, the only thing that should be required to change in the article after the book is released, is the addition of a plot summary, and perhaps some information about book sales and public reaction to the conclusion of the series.  Everything else that has to be changed should probably have never been there in the first place.  Unfortunately that constitutes the majority of the article, which is why it cannot be a "Good Article".  The HP fanatics insist on constantly adding to the Wikipedia all the latest theories and speculations that show up on their favorite web sites and blog pages - primarily because they are somewhere halfway between bored and excited about the prospects of the next book, searching for their own answers about the fate of Harry et al.  And with a practically unlimited base of fans, the theories and speculations are practically unlimited.  It is a terrific cultural phenomenon, but also a major pain in the neck for the more mature Wikipedians.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with wikipedia... and it will most likely be deleted by then. But if you are interested, you can dig the history (going to the date right before the release) and read it yourself.--70.187.163.141 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only speculation on the page is cited speculation. Minor fan theories should not be there, and if they are, remove them immediately. But if there is present "speculation", as in "Rowling has stated this will happen or something about this will be relevant in the seventh book", then it definitely belongs there, as those are facts, with references, which are relevant at this point in time to the book, despite its not being published. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  What we can and should allow in the article is direct quotes or paraphrases from the HP books (with citings of "chapter and verse", as they say...), information from the HP films (with a "canonical asterisk" wherever they might contradict the books), information posted on Rowling's web site (with a direct link to the text-only english version), and quotes from Rowling interviews that are Verifiable from Reliable Sources.  Fan-based Interpretations and projections into the unpublished "future" should always be avoided, except perhaps in the context of a separate "fan reactions" section, and those should preferably be documented and cited from the reputable Press organizations, in order to Avoid Weasel Wording, such as "Some fans feel..."  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Circumstances alter cases. But in this case there is a lot of information from Rowlings which has collected over the years about her books, and logically everything she has mentioned which hasn't happened yet, has to be in the last book. So there isn't much need to include fan speculation, there is plenty of Rowling teaser information to make up an article. Geting back to the issue of content, once the book is out and people can read for themselves what is in it, and indeed we will no doubt have a summary here, then the pre-release tips become considerably less important. What may remain of interest would be a comparison of the final work with any statements she has made beforehand which contradict what actually is in the book. That sort of thing might be of interest where it sheds light on how the books were written. But I would imagine that after publication Rowling herself will be more willing to talk about the writing process, and any plot changes she had to make. So again, the existing information may be overtaken by new stuff and be removed as no longer important. But anyone wishing to see what is here now, can always go back through the page history. Sandpiper 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After it gets released... 

message: than why isnt it on the main article? are we getting slow here?
strange 2 secs after i post here it appears?
:You posted your message at 3:54 UTC, December 22. The article was moved to reflect the appropriate title some 14 hours earlier, and 10 minutes later it was inserted into the main body of text. If you didn't see this before you posted, you may have needed to purge the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if the title is known 

message: Rowling has stated that,more so than the other books in the series, the final volume is a continuation of the story line from the sixth book of the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
This suggests that the other books in the series could and have followed book six.  I think what someone is getting at is that the seventh book is more of a continuation from the last book and that the other books in the series have not followed each other as closely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fruitjunk (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence structure 

message: Anyone else think we could use this image as a placeholder for the book's cover: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000818XA0.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_V49844226_.jpg
It's from Amazon.com (obviously) --Brand Eks 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Amazon crated it, it would be copyrighted. I don't see why we need to use a fair use image to demonstrate a cover that doesn't exist anyway. —Cuiviénen 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholastic created the image, Amazon just uses it. --Brand Eks 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know for sure that Scholastic created that image?  Is it available somewhere on the scholastic website?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Even if we were to use a placeholder image it wouldn't be that one. The picture that goes in the infoboxes are the Bloomsbury covers, not Scholastic ones. If you still want to add one you should be using the one on amazon.co.uk, here. But like I said, I'm just pointing that out (I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with the proposal) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Brand Eks 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added the Scholastic image. Now that I see what it's like in the article, I've decided it shouldn't be there (not even the Bloomsbury one) cause, let's face it - it doesn't serve any real purpose does it? I've nominated the Scholastic one for deletion on the grounds that it's unencyclopaedic. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 12:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Image 

message: 'On National Public Radio's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" News Quiz Show, the Fill in the Blanks Question on December 24th, 2006, was phrased:"An online puzzle revealed to readers the title of the soon to be released book, BLANK and the Deathly Hallows."'Is this a legit Surce? Or Relevant? I'm inclined to answer no to both my annoyingly retorical questions. But am open to imput.
Eldonkeyo 05:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is your question?  The "HP&the Deathly Hallows" title for Book 7 was revealed on Rowling's web site on the 21st of December.  All the major news media carried the story extensively.  Who cares what NPR's quiz show did 3 days after that?  The truth was already out there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this doing here? 

message: At Information from J. K. Rowling:
When further questioned in June 2006 about authors who kill off their main characters, Rowling said "I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks, well, I'm going to kill them off because that means there can be no non-author-written sequels'".
I suppose who=why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.69.229.66 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. John Reaves 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes in the page 

message: IMO this page would be just as satisfying if it simply stated 'DH is the announced title of the seventh HP book, which has not yet been published,' and included links to the (four or five) most relevant fansites. This is not an article about DH; it's an article about speculation on DH, whether there are supporting statements in JKR's chat transcipts or not. It's quite an interesting compilation of info, and harmless, as it's time-limited, but it is not what I would call encyclopaedic. Njál 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say there's a fine l ine between speculation and what JKR has said will be in the book, which is certainly encyclopedic. People come to the article to learn what the book's about, JKR has said this, this and this, so we "report" that, as it were. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia and the Over-extensive Speculation 

message: Go here and read this. I removed it, but it is absolutely amusing if not disgusting. --JohanTenge - /spit 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did that come from??? What an imagination..lol. KathzzZzcHat | siGn heRe 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, I'm sorry but this has to be said. 

message: "With the departure of Severus Snape,HBP Ch.28 a new teacher is needed in the Defence Against the Dark Arts postHBP Ch.8 and Head of Slytherin House.PS Ch.8 With the death of Albus Dumbledore,HBP Ch.27 a new Headteacher is needed. In the time that he was dead in Half-Blood Prince, Minerva McGonagall, Deputy Headmistress, took over this position.HBP Ch.29 If she succeeds Dumbledore, the positions of Deputy Headteacher,PS Ch.4 Transfiguration teacher, and Head of Gryffindor HousePS Ch.8 are vacant."
As you can see, the title as referring to specific people has been left gender-appropriate, as used in the books: thus "Minerva McGonagall, Deputy Headmistress." But it is thoroughly inappropriate to use those terms when not referring to specific people. First, it is politically incorrect. Second, since we know that the two posts are open to both men and women, without prejudice, it is unlikely that the official post is 'Headmaster'. Third, it is misleading: it implies that Dumbledore's replacement will be a man, and McGonagall's (if necessary) will be a woman. Headteacher (or head) is a perfectly acceptable and accepted title when referring to the position (as opposed to a specific person), so why complain? Michaelsanders 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try and denfend it with P.C. b---s---.  Surely you don't need to stoop to that, see WP:NOT#CENSORED.  The books use the terms "Headmaster" and "Headmistress", so this is what we should use.  And 5 or 6 words is hardly "unecessary elongation". John Reaves 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polite today, aren't you? And it is unnecessary: what is the point of saying "Headmaster or mistress", when one can simply say "Headteacher" or "Head"? If you already recognise that both options need to be acknowledged, it is far simpler to use the non-specific term. Michaelsanders 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't know how sensitve you were with the political corectness and what-not - I've edit my comments so that they may not offend you anymore. "Head" could be confusing to an American or other non-British nationality.  "Headteacher" simply doesn't reflect what J.K. Rowling has written, if 'Headmaster' and mistress where not so frequently used throughout the text, I would not be opposed. John Reaves 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt all the lack of 'z's is confusing to Americans. Since we use British English in HP articles, however, that really isn't an issue. Michaelsanders 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Crafty enough? Not judging by the editors who repeatedly hypercorrect 'recognise' to 'recognize', 'realise' to 'realize', etc. I have linked head to Head teacher, which begins, "A head teacher, headmaster or headmistress (all often referred to simply as the head)...". It also, incidentally, states, "The terms "headmaster" and "headmistress" used to be the standard throughout both the state and private sectors, with "head teacher" usually only being used to refer to them collectively.In recent years, however, it has become usual to officially use the gender-neutral term in state schools." Michaelsanders 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on the idiot editors, they're the ones that give us a bad name.  You have to consider the ones who don't change the spelling too.  Despite what the article says, it doesn't regulate which term is used in a fictional, private magic school.  I say it's fine the way it is.  John Reaves 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume you mean 'the way it currently is' (my fault here: I'm too tired to work out if you mean 'is' as the way it was before we started fiddling, or the way it currently is). Incidentally, if I were to describe Hogwarts according to British standards, I'd call it a state school (if one accepts the state to be 'The wizarding population of Great Britain and Ireland'): it doesn't restrict access, it takes everyone, and it is non-fee paying. That's better than a grammar school. Michaelsanders 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headwhat? 

message: To be quite honest,this entry on Wikipedia reads more like a poorly written supported opinion paragraph than an encyclopedia. I don't see other encylopedias using the term I as if it were a person refering to themself. (note that I am talking about the Con sections) if the sections written like this could be cleaned up this could be a much better article.
On an unrelated note, I tried editing out some things on the page ( A small comment "the longer the better, lol") on the article page, and yet when I went to remove it I couldn't find it on the edit page.74.119.210.239 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "longer the better" comment was among about 40k of speculation put in by an anonymous user, which I reverted - you probably tried to remove it at the same time. Robin Johnson (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic content 

message: the following is from http://www.evannalynchfans.com
"Well guys you will get the news first. Today I went down to Millennium Bridge to check out the filming for HBP. They were set up at the base of the bridge, there was quite a lot of equipment. I got speaking to one of the crew who was really friendly. There were about 120 extras standing on the bridge. There was a helicopter that was filming it all and coming down right close to the bridge to get the shots. The crew member told me that they will have stunt men jumping/falling into the Thames from the bridge later on (shame I couldn't stay to watch it). 
They closed off the area when the scenes were being filmed but you could still see everything. They are only allowed to film every half hour, so as to allow members of the public onto the bridge. I then started speaking to the crew member about filming, I asked him about Deathly Hallows and YES IT WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO MOVIES!!! which will be shot continuously. There are also still location shoots to be done in London but he said he's not allowed to tell me where."
shall we mention this or wait for someone else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  film split confirmed