Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 25

message: I know that the summary needs to be trimmed, but it should mention the mystery surrounding the Dumbledore family, which does affect serveral charcters' motivations.
CharlesTheBold 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important, but not important enough.  IMO, its place is in Dumbledore's article.  It gives the motivation for Dumbledore's search for the Deathly Hallows, but this subplot (as well as the involvement of Grindelwald) is glossed over in the synopsis.  The important parts are the trio going into hiding, the search for the Horcruxes, an explanation of the Deathly Hallows, and the final battle.  Everything else can be explained elsewhere.  chgallen 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. Dumbledore going after the Hallows with Grindewald lead up to Grindewald getting the Elder Wand, which ended up in Dumbledore getting it, to Draco (Voldemort thought Snape, which lead to Snape's death), to Harry, and ended with Voldemort's death because the Elder Wnad refused to kill its master. That plot is very important as I have shown. (note: the same thing killed Voldemort that created Priori Incantantem in the fourth book, also important) Rembrant12 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is explained that Dumbledore has the Elder Wand.  How he gets hold of it is backstory, and the plot synopsis must be kept short.  From Dumbledore, it's path is described.  By all means put this information in a different article, but it's place is not here.  "the same thing killed Voldemort that created Priori Incantantem in the fourth book, also important."  I don't understand this - the dual want cores were irrelevant, it was the Elder Wand's allegiance that killed Voldemort.  chgallen 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbledore scandal 

message: Did we decide that the word "Horcrux" should always be capitalized?  If we did, why? Is that how Rowling always uses it? (I have no books handy) If we didn't, may I suggest that we place the word into the lower case? I see that the horcrux page itself capitalizes it always too, so maybe we should keep it that way for consistency.  But if Rowling doesn't capitalize it, we shouldn't either, should we? Can someone let me know if she does or not?  Thanks! Stanselmdoc 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that she capitalises stuff like Disarming Spell etc., but having no books handy I can't say about Horcrux.  I'd bet she does though.  Someone with a book, check. chgallen 13:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked, and Rowling does capitalise Horcrux, so we do as well. Lilac Soul 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Wikipedia article pages are limited to capitalized titles, pages with subjects with lower case first letters usually do, and should have, it stated under the title. Paolobueno 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how your comment is relevant here, but it is absolutely possible to create a Wikipedia article with a non-capitalized title. Lilac Soul 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked and confirmed that possibility, it seems it is a Wikipedia feature newer than my last attempts at editing...Paolobueno 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did we Decide... 

message: *Just curious. When I type in "Deathly Hollows" it takes me directly to this page. When using the correct spelling ("Deathly Hallows"), however, it takes me to a disambiguation page. Obviously not a big deal, but it does seem a little odd to me. Shouldn't they both point to the same place? --whit rink
*Cured. Anthony Appleyard 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  those redirects... 

message: Could someone put up the sign that says the text below gives the book away?
I've finished the book already, but I think some people (kids are reading this, remember) might not know what they're reading till it's too late.
Thanks, great book! 68.55.235.179 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That subject has been vastly discussed already, it has been agreed that sections called "Plot summary" or "synopsis" are obvious spoiler-containers and the  at the top that indicates that the article "may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes" is also a spoiler warning. Please look into Wikipedia:Spoiler as suggested on the top of this page. Paolobueno 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not strictly on topic, but here on The Guardian's website is a "digested read" of the novel that made me giggle. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's brilliant :D chgallen 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good to see you're taking Wikipedia:Be bold to heart.  Boom boom... chgallen 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you are so grumpy.  Why are we talking in bold text? --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would hurt if people re-read what's written at the top of this page, namely: "Be polite," "Assume good faith," "No personal attacks," and "Be welcoming." Marc Shepherd 15:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Warning, Spoiler!" Sign? 

message: Hey, the article mentions the epigraphs, but neglects to mention that this is the first and only books to include epigraphs. Anyone want to add a comment after the article becomes unlocked? -- Self-Cannibal
:It's not locked. It's just not editable by anonymous users and users who've recently registered. FallenAngelII
::I've added that piece of info, but I don't know if it will stay in the article, it might get trimmed off.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should mention what these epigraphs are and where they were quoted from. The first one was from Aeschylus and the second one from William Penn. Moonwalkerwiz 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epigraphs 

message: There has been speculation on the subject here in this talk page, and news on this just hit the Leaky Cauldron site moments ago, it has now been revealed that Arthur Weasley was the character who "got a reprieve".  He was actually slated to die back in book 5.  reference.  Don't know if it belongs in the article, but now we know. - Ugliness Man 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs here. Lilac Soul 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would go on the article for book five somewhere, not here. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording in the article given above doesn't make it clear, but in addition to almost being killed off in book five, he was "given a reprieve" in book seven as well.  I finally found a more confirming quote: "Lupin and Tonks were two who were killed who I had intended to keep alive. … It's like an exchange of hostages, isn't it? And I kept Mr. Weasley (Ron's father) alive. He was slated to die in the very, very original draft of the story."  So, yeah, this info is just as relevant to book seven as it is to book five. - Ugliness Man 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The character who almost didn't live... 

message: The section labeled "Deaths," whatever its merits may be, is misplaced. It is at the end of the synopsis, but it is clearly not part of the plot summary. My own view, clearly shared by many others, is that it's just miscellaneous trivia. But as editors delete it, others keep adding it back.
As now written, it says:
* This book has the largest number of named casualties of any book in the series. [Trivia]
* Challenged on this before the book's release, J.K. Rowling had commented  "It's not a bloodbath, but it's more than two." [Merely one of JKR's many pre-release comments]
* In fact, over a dozen characters from earlier books are killed off over the course of the story. [Merely one of many facts that could be stated about the book] 
* In a statement from Harry's point of view, it is said that at least 54 wizards died opposing Voldemort in the Battle of Hogwarts. [Merely one of many statements made from Harry's point of view. Also redundant.]
Can we finally give this section a proper burial? Marc Shepherd 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there is continued interest in the question of deaths in Deadly Hallows, I see no advantage to having less information instead of more. Rick Norwood 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is absolutely relevant, if nothing else then just as a link to the list article. Lilac Soul 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it should be removed until or unless a reference can be found examining the relevance of the deaths in the real world.  chgallen 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we should have it at all, the section is misplaced. It's embedded in the plot synopsis, but it doesn't "synopsize" anything. Editors have been trimming down the plot summary for days, apparently on the premise that it contained too much information. If this is important, why isn't it properly integrated into the plot summary? And lastly, this is simply one of many topics in Deathly Hallows that people are interested in. Why a separate section for this and no other such topic? Marc Shepherd 13:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  As consensus for retaining this section seems to have diminished considerably, I've gone ahead and removed it pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there should be some mention in the article regarding the number of deaths. It is a notable feature of the book, as attested to by its frequent mentions in reviews and press regarding the book. (Do a search for "deathly hallows death" on news.google.com and you'll pull up several hundred such articles.) I agree it doesn't belong in the synopsis section, but mention should be made somewhere. Justin Bacon 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the most asked questions about the book is exactly who dies. I was asked this by a relative, being thought knowledgeable on the subject, and came here to look it up. If there weren't so mant deaths, a table would not be necessary. Sandpiper 08:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That may well be a frequently asked question, but that subsection was placed in "Plot," which it clearly isn't. If you think it's that important, either integrate it in the plot summary properly, or put it somewhere else. In my view, the plot summary already mentions all of the significant deaths. Marc Shepherd 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you would call it, apart from information about the plot. Interestingly, a second person asked me this exact same question today. Not, some detail of the plot, just 'who died'. Sandpiper 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps your acquaintances are of an unusually morbid cast of mind. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And sure enough, the plot summary as it now stands answers that very question. Of course, you do have to read it.... Marc Shepherd 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While it may be a water cooler talking point, that doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. But as has already been stated, the important deaths are already mentioned in the plot summery. If you have no problems with spoiling yourself about who dies, then you shouldn't have a problem with whatever spoilers are in the plot summery. --Farix (Talk) 19:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be a little careful about that. There are 316 Harry Potter articles in English Wikipedia, a great many of them full of unencyclopedic fancruft and speculation. When even Crookshanks, Hermione's cat, has its own article, it's hard to get on a high horse about what's encyclopedic. Marc Shepherd 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more an argument that HP articles need to be cleaned up instead of permitting more "unencyclopedic fancruft". --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, I think it's over. The Wikipedia HP project is very clearly a fansite: how else do 7 books spawn 316 articles? Marc Shepherd 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a WikiProject is no longer doing its job, then bypass the WikiProject and fix the problems directly. --Farix (Talk) 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths section 

message: I know there has already been discussion on this, but I wanted to bring up the fact that discussion has occurred on this question on a different talk page, and they came to a different conclusion: 
On this page, Harry and Ginny are not stated to be married.  On Ginny's page, they are stated to be married.  Harry's page also states that they are married. 
I would like these pages to be consistent. Ginny's page has had an extensive discussion.  Harry's page a small one.  This one a slightly longer one.  No matter what decision is made, I just think we should be consistent in all three.  
Are there any objections to re-opening discussion on this page about the potential marriage of Harry and Ginny? Stanselmdoc 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine they will come into line over time, but the facts do not need to be repeated on three separate pages. We're trying to shorten the plot summary, not make it exhaustive. Claudia 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision does indeed state that Harry and Ginny get married. The discussion need not be extensive in every article. Otherwise, what is the point of having separate articles? It's not surprising the marriage would get the most extensive discussion in the Ginny Weasley article. She's not as important a character, so the fact that she ultimately marries Harry is, in relative terms, a lot more important to her biography than to his. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, Now that I think about it... Rowling does not actually say they got married... only that they have kids. Think about it... we've seen how Mrs. Weasley acts when a wedding is imminent.  Could you blaim Harry and Ginny if they just skipped that bit and went straight to living together and having kids out of wedlock? (ducks while 4000 copies of book 7 get hurled at my head by outraged Harry & Ginny fans)  :>)... OK seriously... Of COURSE they got married.  That they had kids is discussed in the Epilogue section.  The reader can infer a wedding.  We don't need to spell it out.  After all, if Rowling gave her readers enough credit to know that they could figure it out without being explicit, so can we. Blueboar 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be quite sure in Harry and Ginny's case in particular, as reference is made to "five Potters". But it is still more detail than the summary needs. Claudia 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we cannot be sure of that. We are told nothing about naming conventions in the HP universe, so we'll just have to assume that the same rules may apply as in the real world. And in the real world, it is perfectly possible, and by no means uncommon, to have children and for (usually) the woman of a couple to change her last name to that of her partner, without ever being married. So the articles should, in my not so humble opinion, just steer clear of the whole married / not married thing, and state that the characters have these children, and then let the reader decide for themselves if that means they're married or not. After all, there's nothing that can be considered "correct" if it isn't mentioned explicitly (or can be deduced infallably) from the books. Lilac Soul 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree firmly on the end result, at the very least. Claudia 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Harry and Ginny marry, says a Today Show interview with JKR. --Guess Who 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing Potential Marriage 

message: Under plot summary, you have Minister for Magic. It should be Minister of Magic. 205.241.11.6 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe that's an American/British difference there, mate. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Both are correct; this is another British/American editions difference. Claudia 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As per Wikipedia policy, HP being a British series, we following British spelling and phrases whenever there's a difference between British and other types of English. So it's Minister for Magic, as is used in the UK edition of the books. Lilac Soul 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minister of Magic 

message: The review by The Christian Science Monitor seems decent. Anyone looking for something to add to the reception section might want to check it out, especially if you're looking for something representative of the negative reviews. --- RockMFR 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSM review 

message: Instead of the dull little silver lock in the top right, I propose we create a custom template for this article and any other protected Harry Potter articles with a wand beside it that says:
 "Protego! This article has been protected from Muggle edits until further notice! Contact the Ministry for Magic if you wish it to be unprotected, and if you wish edits to be made, you may discuss them by owl post."
And don't you go saying "but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia!". This article is 15 pages long. That's over 5000 words. Our article on macular degeneration is barely 3000. Come now! Embrace the Potter-mania, Wikipedia! Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Laugh! 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No. --Guess Who 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No. --Daggoth | Talk 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No. ~~ THE  DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fun, but no. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 07:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hell yes! :D --- RockMFR 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Very amusing. Claudia 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to protect using charms 

message: would mentioning that the dedication is a lightning bolt shape be unessecary?124.176.91.150 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, it used to be in there anyway. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes you think it's a lightning bolt? Why not a snake? Why not any other similarly shaped object? To note it's a "ligtning bolt" seems very unimportant and borderline original research. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the dedication 

message: in the synopsis it states that after he is (aparantely) killed by voldemort he awakens in kings cross station. this wasnt exactly correct as the place he awakens in just reminds him of kings cross station and dumbledore is actually amused when harry mentions this. dumbledore then says metaphorically that harry could catch a train out of there i.e he could die if he wanted to.124.176.91.150 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the King's Cross Station bit (it isn't important in terms of the plot summary) and clarified that it is a dream or a vision, he doesn't physically wake up anywhere. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 09:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but it is important to mention that the horcrux within Harry has been destroyed. chgallen 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I clarified the issue some. It's important to note that he woke up in a different place, and it's not a 'dream or a vision' had it had been simplified to. --Laugh! 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe it is a dream / vision, but you're absolutely right, that would be my "original research" and has no place in the article. It's better your way. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 11:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kings cross station? 

message: I've got a copy of the Australian children's version, 1st edition hardcover, and it's ISBN is (978) 0747591054, not 0747591059. Maybe the Australian edition has a different ISBN to the UK edition. Perhaps someone can add the AU edition? --58.167.124.170 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those two are effectively the same number.  The 10 digit ISBN is what you get when you remove the new 3 digits of the ISBN-13 number, and recalculate the last digit (the check digit).  See ISBN for more info on the structure of these numbers.  Jheald 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN Numbers? 

message: The plot summary is practically the only part of the article that is likely to endure. Everything else is highly ephemeral stuff that eventually won't matter very much. It is therefore amusing that most of the energy going into the article is directed at keeping the plot summary short. That might actually make sense if there were anything more substantial to say about the book. But there isn't. So plot details keep getting axed—which might or might not be a good thing—but nothing of substance is replacing them. The plot is practically the only substance the article has. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have a point if those plot details were getting axed in favour of other temporary information.  But the plot details that are getting axed are just getting axed to keep the plot summary within acceptable size, not to make more room for other info.  Even if all the other stuff were to be removed and the only thing on this page would be a plot summary, it's still a better summary if it's shorter.212.123.24.90 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the people who are shortening the plot summary have nothing else to say. This is understandable, because the book is only a week old, and the plot is about the only factual information we have. Of course, I am not suggesting that every detail is helpful, and of course some of the writing just isn't that good, and needs to be mercilessly edited. But some editors are clearly proceeding on the premise that brevity is a goal in itself. But brevity isn't the goal; quality is. Marc Shepherd 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Have nothing else to say"? This isn't a fan forum. Brevity *is* a goal inasmuch as we're writing a summary, not a plot outline that explains every motivation in the book. Claudia 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you tossed out that "fan forum" epithet, obviously not pausing to consider what else there might conceivably be to say about a work of literature. If you look the Wikipedia articles for older works — take King Lear, for instance — you find that the synposis is just a starting point. For Deathly Hallows, it is practically all there is, because it's simply too new for much real analysis to have been written. What analysis exists, no editor has bothered to synthesize, because it's much easier to spend hours a day correcting every little comma in the plot summary. Aside from the plot, most of what's in the article is fancruft anyway (spoiler embargo, online leaks, early delivery, price wars). Wikipedia isn't a newspapaer, and a lot of those anecdotes are really ephemeral. They mattered for about 2 days. Marc Shepherd 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're being quite fair.  The most notable things about this book are its pre-release hype, and the fact that it is the fastest selling book of all time.  Even after it's been out for years, these things are still going to be notable.  Keeping the plot section short is to prevent this article being dominated by (really quite unimportant) story details, detracting from the stuff about sales and spoiler embargoes.  ven if you do personally think that it's a waste of time, it seems a little mean-spirited to belittle editors who are trying to do a job of work trimming a 700 page novel into a 1500 word synopsis.  It's much more concise than it was 24 hours after the book came out, and that makes it more encyclopaedic.  If it were not pruned, it would bloat itself up to 4000 words again - and that is not proper.   chgallen 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not critiquing the editors who try to make the plot summary read better (I am one of them, after all). I do think that the stuff about sales and spoiler embargoes will shrink significantly over time. Five years from now, how much does it really matter that a few people got the book 3-4 days early? I do think that some editors have awfully arbitrary views about what purportedly "belongs in an encyclopedia." Just peruse some of the 316 Harry Potter articles in English Wikipedia (that's more than we have on Shakespeare, by a wide margin), and you'll find that the bar for encyclopedic relevance is set rather low indeed. Marc Shepherd 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right.  Give it a few weeks for all the "Looking back on the Harry Potter era" articles to be published and we'll have a lot more interesting stuff about the book's reception and cultural impact to put in. chgallen 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The funny thing about the plot summary 

message: Here's an article from MSNBC that goes into great detail about the characters and expands a lot from what was in the epilogue: click here!
I just figured it'd be a good source to use. The basics are that Harry and Ginny/Ron and Hermione are married, Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter, Harry and Ron are aurors, Hermione is in law enforcement, Luna is out exploring, Neville and Luna are not together, Neville's parents will forever remain in St. Mungo's, Hogwarts has a headmaster that we have not been introduced to before, and there's a DADA teacher that can remain for longer than a year since the jinx on the position was broken. Anywho, have at it. --74.137.227.117 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too excited here, it's never specifically stated that Harry and Ginny are married, and I don't believe she decides either way on Neville and Luna. Anyway, it's inappropriate for the book's article anyway, it should be in their respective biographies.--Laugh! 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: READ THE ARTICLE! This is all ROWLING'S INFORMATION that she gave away during an interview with a group of children. This isn't made up original research by some reporter coming to their own conclusions. It is all straight from the author's mouth! --74.137.227.117 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh... And misinterpreted information is as useless as no information. I advise you reread the article, reread what I said, and then reread the article again --Laugh! 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, its place isn't in the Deathly Hallows page - none of this information comes from the book.  But I've added it to the Hermione Granger talk page, because it probably is relevant to the character articles. chgallen 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just figured I'd bring this up here instead of posting the same message several times on the character pages since most people are currently watching this, rather than the individual character pages and this does directly relate to this book (even if the information doesn't particularly belong here). --74.137.227.117 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article does indeed specifically say that Harry and Ginny are married, and it also says that this information comes from Rowling. Now, just like any media outlet, it's possible that MSNBC got it wrong, but at the moment there is no source contradicting them, nor is there any reason to doubt its veracity. While the exact word "married" doesn't appear in the book, 99.9% of readers would have interpreted it that way. Rowling is just confirming what most people would have regarded as obvious to begin with. I hope we can agree that Rowling herself is allowed to interpret her own text. Marc Shepherd 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple question: Where? The article ASSUMES it, which is no different than any other article assuming it. Unless Rowling says it, we shouldn't bring it up --Laugh! 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assumes?  Ha!  The interviewer is sitting right there with the author (do you doubt that JKR would not correct her??).  You're grasping straws now.  Do you need JKR to call you personally? "We know that Harry marries Ginny" --Cdman882 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (this is to User:L) I admit that I read the Neville/Luna thing wrong. She doesn't go into specifics there. However, you will admit that Rowling is releasing incorrect information about her own book, right? That interviews with statements made BY HER are incorrect? The logic you are suggesting is extremely backwards. She said it, but, since she said it to a news program, it's automatically incorrect and unreliable? You might want to take that up with the folks over at reliable sources who would likely consider this to be a perfectly reliable source by many standards. --74.137.227.117 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh, and again, where? Where does JKR say that Harry and Ginny get married? The author of the article assumes it, which is no more proof than any book review. --Laugh! 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And clearly you need to take this up with those at reliable sources and verifiability because your standards for reliable sources are directly contradicting what they've had for standards for ages. --74.137.227.117 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? One person's opinion on the matter does not canon make, unless said person is Rowling. Unless it is SPECIFICALLY STATED that something came out of Rowling's mouth, it's nearly useless. Hell, the writer themselves says "as we all know", which shows that THEY, THE AUTHOR is making an assumption--- nothing mentioned on Rowling's part --Laugh! 15:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with L that the article as written assumes rather than shows that they are married. I imagine the interview itself is clearer--I'll be watching it tonight, but I expect it's up on youtube or similar if anyone wants to dig for it. How does one cite sources like an interview, which we can't link to? Claudia 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not assuming.  It's relaying, or paraphrasing, information that the author said, instead of quoting each word.  Nobody around here seems to know anything about writing novels or articles.  When writing a novel you don't word it like an encyclopedia article (see Ginny Potter talk page), and when writing a news article you don't just quote everything the interviewee said.  --Cdman882 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a good find and will make things a lot easier - we don't have to be so careful with wording now. chgallen 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you and I'm glad if it can help, even if some are hesitant to use it. --74.137.227.117 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree it's tiresome.  This is a respected interviewer, a respected news coporation, conducting an interview sitting right there with the author, and people still want to argue against marriage.  Silly.  Some people just so want to be right that they can't see the forest for the trees.  --Cdman882 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please "assume good faith" and keep the tone here friendly, thanks. Most of us are referring to the MSNBC article, which does gloss over the point. (Did she say they married? Or did she say he'd created himself a family and the article writer gave background info for that?) If the interview makes it clearer, please do cite it in the DH article and be done with the question! I won't watch it myself for another 3 or 4 hours, or I would. Claudia 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, it's just been frustrating.  It's hard to make things any clearer.  We can't get our own interview with JKR.  If we went through debunking every quality news source that does not include an exact quote, but paraphrases, we would have to shut down Wikipedia.  You should be able to quote an NBC, or BBC, or Fox, or the AP, or Reuters, etc. etc. etc. and trust that they have checked their sources.  This isn't a fly-by-night blogger.--Cdman882 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, for her to be their cousin they would have to be children of a Weasley.  Marriage is never explicitly stated in the book, but has been confirmed by JKR. chgallen 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilogue information 

message: Has this figure been debunked yet?  Seems very farfetched considering there were 8.3M sold in the US and around 2.6M sold in the UK, the two largest markets.  I couldn't imagine 60M+ coming from elsewhere.  --Cdman882 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was debunked in Archive 24, and a few sections above this one ("First weekend sales" or some such).-Wafulz 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Wafulz.  I'm guessing that when all is said and done, 72M may not be too farfetched (as the first six show an average of roughly 54M ea. worlwide), but at this time it's wrong.  Is there a reason why it is still in the article?  --Cdman882 14:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was sold simultaneously in 93 countries, it makes sense that it could have sold the 72.1 million copies. Supertigerman 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, 93 countries, but even if you take the 11M sold in the US and UK, and the other 91 countries average 500,000 each (which is a major stretch), you still do not reach 72 million copies (it's 56.5M).  --Cdman882 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen it quoted in a fair amount of media, so it should be mentioned in the article because it is what many people go by. I have yet to see a reliable alternative figure for worldwide sales. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  72 million copies 

message: I have a Bloomsbury published edition for Australia, of which the ISBN is . This differs from the ISBN listed in the article for the Bloombury edition for Australian distribution. I think it is possible that the ISBNs differ between countries as the prints themselves also differ. E.g. the Australian distribution edition says it was "Printed in Australia by Griffin Press". I would assume the South African addition would not say this. Should the other ISBNs be listed? 
I think this is the Australian Adult Jacket Edition -  Tinkstar1985 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone asked about this above. These are essentially the same ISBNs - the ones in the articles are the old ISBN-10 representations (see ISBN#Overview). Actually WIkipedia:ISBN states ISBN-13s are preferred if available, so now I'm wondering if there's a reason why they're not used here. --Dapeteばか 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: The timing on the bot was not changed so things are still being archived to Archive 22, instead of now 26. Are some of the stuff in 22 (now 69kb) in 23-25 as well? Should tthey have been moved there? Can someone sort this out? Simply south 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - Fixed - moved material archived improperly into Archive 22 to Archive 25.  Also removed the malfunctioning bot.  Thanks.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: This plot needs some serious bulking up. Not very thorough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.30.108.114 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in the United States. Please read that article for an explanation. faithless (speak) 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows