Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 11

message: Does anybody feel that :Image:Hp dh hangman.JPG should still be on the page? This was put up when the article had no images; now it's yet another FU image which I don't feel is as necessary as the covers. Thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I think we have now passed beyond the need to show that image.  It was the original "canonical proof" that this was indeed the title, and also served to show to all that it was "Hallows" and not "Hollows" as some press reports stated (thus confusing some editors and readers).  Since this canonical proof could only originally be accessed by "finding the easter egg" and completing the puzzle, it was felt that posting the image would also meet the requirements of serving those using incompatible web browsers, and those - umm - less skilled website users.  (I for one have still have not been able to draw a proper workable lightning bolt on that note pad on her "Extra Stuff" desktop to win the item there...).  Anyway the Hangman Game title can go.  It served it's purpose.  If there is a wiki-article on J K Rowling's Web Site Easter Eggs or something, then perhaps it could go there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it is an actual real world out-universe fact about the publicity used to promote the books, and really ought to survive right through to the final DH article after publication. It is just the sort of real-world information about the books which tends to get completely lost. The build up to the books ought to be preserved in the future. I would imagine that what is now the introduction will become lumped into one section about the build up, and this might end up there. Sandpiper 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought I can accept that.  I think that it would be good to have a perpetual "special section" in the article somewhere recording the extraordinary level of pre-release anticipation, which started essentially the day that HBP came out and everyone began screaming either Y killed X or X is not dead!!!.  I'm sure there will be all sorts of claims that this was the most anticipated book to come out ever (and maybe it is), and the little easter egg hangman would be a nice existing image to capture a moment in the time of the build-up.  I still worry that the Fair Use deletionists will continue to find all sorts of reasons to declare copyvio wars on all the copyrighted and otherwise promotional fair use images in the HP project, and strip them clean; so we need to choose our images carefully with moderation, and have very well documented fair-use rationals on each one we choose to support.  It might be difficult defending the hangman game - which is clearly using a copyrighted image, even if it is a screen capture.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. I think the difficulty arguably lies in the fair use tag being applied. It says it is a screen shot (which it is), but we are not using it to talk about the website, rather about the event of publication of the title. It is appropriately fair-use because we are talking about the actual event uniquely depicted in the shot, and no other free image of the event is available (by definition, really, since this was the first release of the title). So arguable the tag is misleading, but I'm not sure what would be better. Sandpiper 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary image 

message: I think the article needs images of the full bookjacket, currently all images of the UK and US book jackets depict only the front. The US edition has a depiction of Lord Voldemort on the back section, as well as it appears "ghosts" or "hallows" as an editor mentioned above which ties into the title. Thanks. Zidel333 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's a source:  Maybe we can just post the link and let it be.  Adding more and more "Fair Use" images to the article becomes a problem of copyright abuse - see Fair Use Images; and we'll have the "Fair Use Inquisitorial Squad" all over the HP article deleting images before you can say "Promotional Image!"  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, the might contain images that are just as ugly and silly looking as the cover. John Reaves (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Better Images for the Article 

message: This text was recently added to the #Unresolved plot elements from previous books section, and promptly removed as it was "irrelevant". It seems very relevant to me (even if it's not very well worded), especially when Snape's true loyalty has not been revealed. Brian Jason Drake 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snape 

message: I do not think that fulfil (jacket text) should be written as fulfill or fulfil[l] as fulfil is the correct spelling from an UK English point of view - where the book (and the quote) has originated. --soum (0_o) 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fulfil or fulfill 

message: I am going to replace the picture of the cover we have now and put in the US childrens edition. If you would like to see it click here: For the UK childrens cover click here:
:Why? all the other articles use the UK childrens cover for the lead picture, because the convention is that it is a british book so the british artwork takes precedence. Sandpiper 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You basically, no you're not. John Reaves (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Announcement 

message: Seeing as how most of the article is speculation, the official jacket cover blurbs released today should have a place in the article. Hopefully an admin can add this, or else unprotect the article - 2 weeks is a very long time for such a high traffic article.
"Harry has been burdened with a dark, dangerous and seemingly impossible task: that of locating and destroying Voldemort’s remaining Horcruxes. Never has Harry felt so alone, or faced a future so full of shadows. But Harry must somehow find within himself the strength to complete the task he has been given. He must leave the warmth, safety , and companionship of The Burrow and follow without fear or hesitation the inexorable path laid out for him…
In this final, seventh installment of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling unveils in spectactular fashion the answers to the many questions that have been so eagerly awaited. The spellbinding, richly woven narrative, which plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace, confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose books will be read, reread and read again."
and
    "Harry is waiting in Privet Drive. The Order of the Phoenix is coming to escort him safely away without Voldemort and his supporters knowing – if they can. But what will Harry do then? How can he fulfil the momentous and seemingly impossible task that Professor Dumbledore has left him with?"
Taken from http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9653. GrahameS 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that directly quoting the entirety of the jacket summaries is appropriate, but taking information, putting it in your own words, and citing the summaries is. I think the direct quotes of the art director make sense, explaining the covers, but not the word-for-word entries that appear on the books themselves. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (I moved this discussion down because it had received no notice higher up on the page due to the large number of sections.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries 

message: Why is the US version longer then the UK version? At 608 pages for the UK version of Deathly Hallows thats around the same as the half blood prince wheres the US version is around 180 pages longer.User:Arlika1507 14:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US version uses larger font than the UK version and has those chapter pictures that are inserted in. dposse 14:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just about to say that and when I clicked the edit button your comment was there¬ :) -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. I'm just too fast for ya. :p dposse 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. If you want extra infomation, i suggest checking out websites like Mugglenet.com. dposse 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some debate that the extra length in the US version is not quite consistent with how much longer it ought to be judging from the previous books. People are still thinking about that, but these are the figures we have at the moment. Sandpiper 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost certainly the US  version is the same as the the UK one, with a few words changed here and there. The US books use bigger print so there are less words on each page, and so more pages are needed. Also, it has illustrations which take up more space. Sandpiper 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can wait a few more months. dposse 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the US version longer 

message: If so, why are Anonymous editors able to edit it? If not, please semi-protect this article asap. Madhava 1947 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no overwhelming vandalism, certainly nothing to warrant semi protection. ViridaeTalk 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it still semi-protected? 

message: The quote I added is from this month's issue of More Magazine, a magazine for women over 40 (before you all freak out, I am a guy, my mom showed it to me). Was I allowed to do this? If so, I am sorry there is no citation...Quatreryukami 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as being not notable and having no citation, per WP:A. dposse 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable? It is! This establishes that she could still write stories about Harry, contradicting previous quotes. Maybe that is not notable....Quatreryukami 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, why hasn't the media or anyone on the internet picked up on that story? Why is it only in this one magazine? Also, this supposed interview contradicts what even JK Rowling herself said on many occasions, including on her own website, in front of fans, in front of the national media of two different countries, ect. dposse 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More magazine quote 

message: is probably the same one from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, it's silver and has rubies in it. This should probably be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - we don't really deal with "probably" here.  We can say that the UK cover shows a sword being held in the air, and it appears to have something red on the handle.  That's about all we can say.  We do not know if those are rubies, and even if they are - if it is Griffindor's sword, as seen in Chamber of Secrets.  I expect we'll find out in July.  Until then, unless Rowling comes out and says something like - "yes those are rubies there on the handle of Griffindor's sword that you see there on the UK cover", then we just can't say.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in this case. It is quite likely the same sword, but it might just be the artist getting carried away with the general theme of redness, so we can't really say that it is.  If the man from Bloomsbury admits it is, or if the fans as a whole come to some consensus that it is, then we could report what they have said, but they havn't.Sandpiper 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: as others might imagine, my view is that when some of the fan sites get round to publishing an article on the collected opinions re the cover pictures and their interesting content, then we can comment on it here. Sandpiper 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sword on the cover 

message: Just a thought. What should we do with the information on this article post-release? I think it might be interesting to archive the article a day or two before the release, and in some part start over, but keep the archived article for history. Yes, I know, you can go through the history and pull up the same thing, but in this case, I think it might be better just to archive the whole page and leave it be. Thoughts? Tuvas 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you already asked this question? John Reaves (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I made mention to it, but in a only semi-related post, I thought though the idea deserves attention in it's own right. Tuvas 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's an interesting idea.  Sometime around July 21, we can get the permanent link of a the current version (e.g. today's is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows&oldid=120327738) and post it in the archive box of the talk page. John Reaves (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Post-release 

message: amazon.com has added a "muggle counter", which contains the amount of books that have been pre-ordered so far. I think that should be added to the article. (The current number is 468,628) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.87.212 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Almost half a million books already? dposse 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  amazon.com adds a "muggle counter" 

message: Has anyone noticed that in the "After Deathly Hallows" section, JKR is quoted as making a reference to "Harry's upcoming death" as though it's an established fact?  She never said any such thing, as anyone can see by clicking on the link to the text of the interview this is supposedly taken from - someone must have put this in as a joke.  Someone with more Wikipedia experience than me needs to fix it.  Rebecca  206.21.128.67 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Jeremy Paxman interview? Because that text seems to be in the interview. I did removed a bogus quote with no source this morning, but I don't think it's still there. Leebo T/C 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, where do you see that? I do not see any such quote in this article. dposse 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  completely bogus quote 

message: It is possible that the table of contents was leaked online through a bit torrent server and posted online at http://deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com. It may not be real, but shouldn't we maybe make a reference to it in the article?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.17.114 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I promise you, for one thing, that this is not valid, unless somebody is one good guesser. And in any case, thanks for alerting us to this, but it's really not that unusual for something like this to be "leaked." I got at least three chapter lists emailed to me before HBP. I could make one up right now and send it to you. It's not notable enough. Thanks for asking though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and if other "leaks" turn up ... we'd be obligated to report all of them. I remember before HBP came out, there were three or four lists doing the rounds. One of them was genuine, but there's simply no way of telling this far out. Unless it gets picked up by the media or something. Daggoth S 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And JK doesn't do titles like that. Most of the chapter titles are names of characters. It's obviously "made up". Berserkerz Crit 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to understand that a website like "deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com" is a totally made-up freely-hosted fan web site, and not in any way any sort of reputable source.  If the Mugglenet and other well known semi-reputable sites, which Rowling has at least acknowledged as useful or interesting on her website, take up the cause and can provide some reliable sources for their information, then we can discuss posting it as an encyclopedic entry on the Wikipedia.  Otherwise we damage the reputation of the Wikipedia by posting the latest unsourced nonsense made up by the crazy fanatics out there.  That's not what we should be here for.  The Wikipedia should strive to have a bulletproof reputation, given the policies and guidelines.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think mugglenet et al have adopted a policy of not posting, and removing on sight, any information like that unless it comes e.g. from the publishers. Some chapter titles may be officially released before publication, it happened before. On the whole, as a matter of not spoiling the books for people, I think we should only be hosting information based upon things which have been officially released. It is fair game to report what people are saying about it based on official information, but it is not our business to release anything before the publishers do, and certainly not if it is wrong. Sandpiper 08:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked Table of Contents 

message: I want to add a very brief "Criticism of North American Launch" section as North America is receiving the book several hours (depending on time zones) later than the rest of the world.  I will write it, I just don't want to write it, then have people delete it and have it go to waste.  So feedback now would be appreciated.  Many wikipedia pages have various criticism sections so i think it would be fair.  And it doesn't have to be big, just a little paragraph at the end of the article.  --Mariokarter
:You will have to source it with reliable sources that are not fan created websites or personal blogs or it will be deleted as original research. If this is your own personal opinion, then it has no place here on wikipedia. dposse 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. dposse 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and write it down, and we'll critique it once you've written it. As long as it's sourced, it should be fine. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the criticism is just this only, it should better be inlined (provided it comes with an acceptable ref). --soum (0_o) 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of North American Launch 

message: I think someone should include a description of what a wraparound cover is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? dposse 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a brief description of a wraparound cover. Does it make sense? Squidward2602 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wraparound Cover 

message: I think some discussion on the matter of the films article being redirected to this page is needed. There is info about the film from reputable sources (See  & ). --RockerballAustralia 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, the extrapolated date for the release of a hypothetical film version of DH is Summer 2010, unless Warner Bros. chooses to accelerate the HP production schedule.  Similarly HBP is anticipated to be late November 2008.  Any speculation outside of what Warner Bros. has officially announced would be highly suspect, and probably disallowed - WB has not said much about HBP yet, much less DH.  We are not required to report on the ramblings of folks at low-credibility news ragsheets who know less about the subject than most of the semi-respectable information gathering depots - like the Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron.  I expect that when there is sufficient notable information available at the usual sites, and WB has at least acknowledged the intent to produce the film, then we can start an article on it.  Until then - probably not.  Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that this will be made a film; in fact, it's been confirmed that the actors will return. But see WP:NOT#CBALL. With information only that those three actors will return, and David Heyman back as producer, it's such little information for something so far in the future that it just doesn't meet the guidelines for the existence of an article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in apropriate to redirect  films article being redirected  to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article.  So, if they get to  films article, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production, not information about the book.  Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details. -12.218.155.57 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that if someone types …Deathly Hallows (film) they're looking for the film and not the book, but the film is too far in the future for it to be an article now. Consider that pre-production is only just beginning on Half-Blood Prince. By redirecting the film article to here, we're saying that they're such little information about this for it to be a real article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I think there is enough to have an article, but even if there isn't, a better redirect would be to the article Harry Potter (films); and whatever is known about the seventh film should be included in that article. -12.218.155.57 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont think it should be a redirect. It should better be deleted, for now. --soum (0_o) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, probably the best place to post the bits and pieces of info on the hypothetical DH film might be at Harry Potter Films, until it can grow well beyond a 2-sentence stub on when it might be targeted for release, and who might be returning as actors and crew.  Perhaps the redirect should be sent there.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the redirect should be sent to Harry Potter Films. After both the release of the book and the availability of more information about the film, then a separate article should be created. Tuyvan 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As most of the discussion on this page suggests, I have added a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) link to the template, and changed the redirect of that page to Harry Potter (films).  Please DO NOT undo these changes without posting here first.  As for the article, I also feel that there is enough information on the film to constitue a separate article.  It not, we could try adding a Film section here, and change the template to redirect there. Lutherjw 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - and if anyone wants to expand on the scant information posted on the Deathly Hallows (film) entry at Harry Potter (films) as a sort of a stub-section, I think that would be fine.  The current format of the (films) article includes some history, especially of the early films, along with some basic information like release dates and such.  The latter films are basically just listed, along with links to the main articles for each of the respective films.  In the case of Deathly Hallows, until there is enough reliable information to post beyond a stub, I think we can break with the convention at the (films) article and allow a special section for what little information we have (confirmed returning or new cast and crew members, pre-production information, locations, etc.) as it comea available.  I agree there is no sense in denying what is known (and can ve verified with reliable sources), but having a separate "full article" on the DH film, but presented as a two-line stub, seems to me to invite more vandalism and trolling, along with the honest-to-goodness good faith edits from the kids that heard something from a blog page somehere, and have just GOT to be the first to post it in order to inform the rest of the world.  Once the (films) section for DH grows to resemble the HBP film article, then it is ripe for converting to a separate article.  I guess however we will have to watch out for back-door editors who may try to create and build surrogate articles like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - The Movie".  Oops - did I just feed the Trolls?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)]] 

message: I'm sure that most people would agree with me that the phrase "she doesn't plan on further Harry Potter books" refers to Rowling's current plans. This can only be justified using an interview from 7 years ago if you also provide evidence that her plans have not changed since then. Lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. The quote says it all:
At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book. (emphasis added)
I have already edited the article in the past over this issue and been reverted. Brian Jason Drake 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking, right? She has said it many times that this book is the last one. On her own personal website, she stated "I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be. Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years." That's from the author herself. How you can argue with that or speculate about it on an encyclopedia is beyond me. Anyway, you cannot add speculation to this article, we can only report what we can verify. For now, what we can say is that JK Rowling has no plans to write anything after the series except for, perhaps, "an encyclopedia in which I could have fun with the minor characters and I could give the definitive biography of all the characters."  dposse 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that she plans for this book to be the last. I am disputing the use of interviews from so long ago to justify such statements. We should at least add a better (more current) reference alongside the Scholastic interview. Brian Jason Drake 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave you two. The most recent one is the blog entry she posted on her website. We'll use that. dposse 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the blog entry as a reference. Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, that's nice, but her comment from her website is already quoted in its entirety as the last entry in that section. Has been throughout this discussion. Does no one read the articles? Sandpiper 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us from referring to it! However, I am happy with the current state of that section. Brian Jason Drake 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholastic interview - further HP books 

message: There has recently been a good deal of edit warring on this article, including at least one violation of the three-revert-rule. Note that the rule prohibits any one editor from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, no matter how the reverts are spaced out within the 24 hours. Not also that any change that effectively restores a prior state of the article, or re-inserts or re-removes disputed text counts as a revert, even if done in conjunction with other edits. Note also that edit warring is a very bad idea even if the 3RR is not technically broken. Please try to come to agreement by some means other than edit warring. I have closed a report on the 3RR noticeboard with a strong warning, because the reverts involved stopped 2 days ago. But further violations of the 3RR are likely to result in a block for any and all editors violating the rule. Thank you and happy editing. DES (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: Although the number of 608 pages for the UK version of DH can be found all over the Internet, it is based on wrong information. Bloomsbury have never confirmed the number of pages. The source of this rumour is probably an erroneous entry on amazon.co.uk which has been copied by numerous other sites. The number 608 should be removed from the article and it is perhaps worth mentioning that this unconfirmed information is based on a mistake. AberforthD 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Leaky and Mugglenet reported when the covers were released, that they confirmed the 608 page count with Bloomsbury somehow. That's good enough for me. Daggoth S 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaky reported that 608 first turned up on a bookseller's website, and the number was then confirmed with Bloomsbury on the day of the cover release. There's no link to a Bloomsbury announcement or anything , but I don't see how we can remove the info from the article when there's nothing in the media (that I can see anyway) saying "Amazon probably got the number wrong". Daggoth S 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the statement of 608 pages is too strong given the weak basis of our sources. I don't want to cast any doubt on Mugglenet's or Leaky's sources, but I can hardly see how a statement on their site that they checked with Bloomsbury can be taken for an authorative confirmation. In my opinion there is still no official confirmation of the UK pagecount and the article should reflect that. I propose to formulate it as follows: "The book will be 784 pages in the US edition and is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition". AberforthD 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagenumbers of UK version based on wrong rumours 

message: There were seven pieces but two got destroyed, weren't there? Simply south 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His soul was split into seven pieces.  Six were used to create horcruxes.  The 7th piece was the one which never left Voldemort's body.  We assume this one "was destroyed" (at least as far as we of this plane are concerned) in the incident in which Harry received his scar.  At least, if I am interpreting this all correctly (haven't re-read HBP since it came out).  I also assume that one horcrux was "used" at tis point to bring Voldemort back in diminished form.  We are also led to believe that Tom Riddle's diary was a horcrux, and was destroyed in Chamber of Secrets.  Then there is the ring that Dumbledore found and destroyed.  So, 3 horcruxes down, 3 left (which, including the soul piece that is Voldemort's current incarnation, still makes 7).  We know one of them is an amulet.  That leaves two unknown, one of which may be that giant snake (but we don't know for sure).  So, there you go. --Reverend Loki 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that's wrong... That's the same thing I thought at first, but after re-reading it, it states that Horcruxes act like anchors, they keep the soul here. So Voldies soul wasn't destroyed in the incident at the beginning of the series. That piece can't be destroyed until every other piece is destroyed. So the correct count is, two down, 4 to go (The soul in Voldies body isn't a Horcrux). Tuvas 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's right. Harry has to find the horcrux's and destroy them before he can attempt to take out the seventh and last piece of his soul, which is in his body. dposse 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for clearing that up you two.  --Reverend Loki 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, sorry.  If you look in ch. 23 Horcruxes in the book Half-Blood Prince, roughly halfway through, Harry asks Dumbledore: "He made seven Horcruxes?", and Dumbledore replies: "... no Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six.  The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body."  Dumbledore goes on to tell Harry in the following pages that, with the destruction of the Riddle Diary and Marvolo's Ring, what remains are four:  the two "probables" - the Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff Cup Horcruxes, which Riddle stole from Hepzibah Smith; and then two uncertain ones - "something of Ravenclaw's or of Gryffindor's", and perhaps Nagini, as Dumbledore explained to Harry.  While Dumbledore could have gotten it wrong, this is the ONLY source we have for canonical information from Rowling, and we will not know the "truth" of the matter until July 21.  There is no basis whatsoever for the occasional claim from some speculators that Voldemort "lost" a portion of his soul when he first attacked Harry.  Quite the opposite.  Voldemort's "body" may have been destroyed, but his soul fled to a Forest and resided there, to be found by Quirrell (Book 1) with Voldemort's "body" becoming a face on the back of Quirrell's head.  After the second disasterous encounter with Harry at the end of Philosopher's Stone, Voldemort's soul fled back to the Forest, to be found again later by Pettigrew (Books 3 and 4), and placed first into the crude baby-like creature, and then to his "current" form, reformulated with Pettigrew's assistance, from his Father's bone, Pettigrew's hand, and Harry's blood.  The point is, the soul goes on, whatever happens to the body: the remaining soul "in his body" or otherwise, lives on until all six fragments stored as Horcruxes are destroyed.  Please feel free to read the books again before July 21 to get properly "caught up" with what we "know".  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks - but this is all pure speculation and unsourced original research, which does not conform with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  We can post what Rowling said, and possibly what a renowned expert in Horcruxes and English Literature might have to say, but beyond that, sorry.  The many Harry Potter fan sites and blog pages absolutely rejoice in such speculation however, and expound on it - perhaps you can present and debate your theories there?  Thanks again!  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, and these things are discussed at the respective articles on R.A.B., Horcruxes, and Regulus Black - at least to the extent allowed.  If you have some notable, reliable, verifiable, and neutral information that does not constitute original research to post there, then please feel free. Thanks!   --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, there has been lots of talk about Horcruxes. Now, I would like to point out, ==Harry is NOT a Horcrux!!==. Lots of people think that the spell rebounded and made Harry a Horcrux. JK Rowling has confirmed that this is NOT the case. I would also like to point out that there is a fake version of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows has been released. Having downloaded and read some of this fan-fiction version, merely speculation of what COULD happen, I have realised that this is not correct as it supports the "Harry is a Horcrux theory." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -x-Bekah-x- (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcruxes 

message: The entire Translations section of this article appears to be copied directly from the page Harry Potter aur Maut Ke Tohfe - Hindi Verison of the Deathly Hallows. It appears to be unabashed plagiarism. I propose that this section either be rewritten properly or immediately removed. --N-k, 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but extremely doubtful.  Chances are it was exactly the other way around.  Lots and lots of outside web sites that provide information such as this start by quoting and mirroring entries from the Wikipedia; and they often show our previous versions due to continual updates at the original Wikipedia source.  You can examine the history of this article to see "which came first", and you will undoubtedly find that the wording has evolved just about continuously for the last year and a half - from when the name of the book first was announced, along with (eventually) the translated titles.  Many many editors (including this one) have worked on and revised and improved the article, and supervised the editing of others, to make sure that original research by "us" and uncredited research by others is strictly excluded.  That said, if you can produce clear proof that "we" copied the information from your source (and not the other way around), then please either provide that proof, or be bold and delete the offending section as plagiarism.  Those that created the latest version can defend it if they wish, or they can provide counter-proof to salvage the content as appropriate.  Thanks for the heads-up though!  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked to see which came first, but it really doesn't matter. Even if the external source copied Wikipedia, we use that as our sole citation, so this information is essentially unveriable. --N-k, 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I misunderstood!  Are you saying that "we" copied and pasted the Translations materials, verbatim from the INDORE360.com web site, and then provided that site as a source?  If that is the case, then you are probably right.  We should not be blithely slapping on amateurish copy-paste operations of copyrighted materials from other web sites, unless we need to directly quote something - and then the quoted material needs to be inside some quotation marks or a separate text box or something, so it is clear that we are using someone else's material directly.  We are absolutely not in the business of copying other people's work.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism