Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 24

message: Where has the speculation gone (things like "plot details known form book 6, and what JKR had said about the book)?
Wouldn't this be useful for the article.
Finally, I would like to know what things were put into the third film, which apparently foreshadow events in this book. Shouldn't these be mentioned?
Is there a web page where this mentioned? That could be added as an alternative. Dewarw 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: such things are discussed extensively on forums found at websites such as the-leaky-cauldron.org and mugglenet.com.  A far more extensive coverage than what is appropriate for wikipedia of this book will evolve on hp-lexicon.org in due time.  These sites are under lockdown this weekend for obvious reasons. Bryanc 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but since the article had them previously, it would be better to include the answers- if necessary in a different article! If the material was "forum stuff only", why was it on the page to begin with?Dewarw 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Why in the bloody hell am I seeing the sentence "Perhaps some egyptians believe" at the end of the Epilogue, yet when I attempt to view the editing screen for the section, it's not there!? Edit Centric 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it on the page. Try doing a cache dump reload? crtl-shift-r Lynnae 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errant Code... 

message: I think it's editorializing to change every instance of the second to the first. The stated goal of the search was to find Mudbloods. Note that "blood traitors" is equally as tricky a term. Claudia 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muggle-borns / Mudbloods 

message: I was wondering... even though it is generally preferred for the UK covers to be in the lead in the infobox for each of the books' wikiarticles, why can't the US covers be in the article in some way? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be shown somehow, since the amount of books sold in the US is probably either comparable or greater than the amount sold in the UK, therefore earning it a rightful place. Miles Blues 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but the British version is also sold in most other English-speaking areas, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, throughout Europe, South Africa, and so on.  It's likely that in terms of raw numbers, the British version wins out.  Exploding Boy 01:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The cover was there, further down in the article, at one point, along with the deluxe edition artwork. Apparently someone removed it. --Guess Who 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the regular edition is from the climax of the book, with Harry's hand reaching out for the Elder Wand. It mentions the sun rising in that passage, so the lighting seems appropriate as well. The deluxe edition is Harry and company on the dragon heading to Hogsmeade. --Guess Who 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you can see shadowy figures lining the background, which I would take to be all the spectators watching the final showdown inside the Great Hall.  There are also bits of broken stone and wood lying around, which are presumably debris from the battle earlier that night.  --Nothlit 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of the cover, I notice it's actually changed a bit from the original artwork released by Bloomsbury. For a start, the synopsis on the back is different, but that doesn't affect our art here in the article. What does affect it, however, is the change from purple to black. The cover on the books themselves have a black bar at the top and a purple bar at the bottom, contrary to the original purple on either end.  I think we should change this. --77.107.193.110 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Cover 

message: There is no mention of Rufus Scrimgeour - the Minister of Magic in the list of characters killed. The book does not go into detail about his death by the hands of Death Eaters, it is merely mentioned. For further inquiry look at the last sentence of the chapter entitled "The Wedding".
Yes it is posted and sign your posts! Rembrant12 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added Rufus,Crabble is already there. Denisa hime 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Forgotten Death 

message: Should there be some mention of the links between a lot of the book and links it has to nazi germany?  such as nurmengard/nuremberg, muggle registration, etc? I think it's fairly central to it, because it comes up alot in the book flagitious 03:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a notable connection to Nazi Germany, it should be cited to a reliable source.  17Drew 04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious there's a connection, but as it's never stated in the books (nor has Jo ever referred to it in an interview, as far as I know) I don't think it belongs here. Unless the author brings up the connection, it's just fan speculation, IMHO. Faithlessthewonderboy 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would be original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. Not that I disagree, the Nazi germany parallel is obvious, whether important to the interpretation of the story or not. Lilac Soul 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What utter bollocks.  Just find a reliable secondary source, if one can be found, and cite it. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurmengard 

message: The second sentence has two problems: first, it's not a sentence. Secondly, it's not true - in Christchurch, NZ, the book was released at 11:01 AM, not "a minute past midnight local time". What's the real story? Stevage 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release time 

message: The article says 55 people died yet only 22 people are listed.  Where did the others come from?  There is no reference. --Phoenix Hacker 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preumably, the 50 that died at the battle of Hogwarts, and the people that died before that --Laugh! 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book never gives a definite death toll; we're told which of the main characters have died, and then it is mentioned briefly that over fifty people had died in the Battle of Hogwarts, but that is only on the Good Side. We aren't told how many Death Eaters and their ilk have been killed, so unless we are given a definite set number, I think that a general "over fifty" type detail is good. Vaguely 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They also mention at least two muggle families being murdered for sport. I'd say it's fair to say "over one hundred", although we need a source of some type --Laugh! 05:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On pg. 745 (U.S. Edition) it states that "They moved Voldemort's body and laid it in a chamber off the Hall, away from the bodies of Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Colin Creevey and fifty others who had died fighting him." The other fifty are not mentioned by name, and the 22 listed are those mentioned by name and those that could have either supported Voldemort or the others. Reputation 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "fifty others" along with the main characters are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of body count. Numerous muggle families are killed who are mentioned throughout the book, plus Death Eaters, plus all that. That one line does NOT constitute a full count and therefore shouldn't be used at all, except maybe as a mention as how many people from the good side died during the final battle. But an overall death count, we've not seen yet. Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it probably is Dolohov but as it isn't clearly stated they could have also died from explosions etc.So it remains unknown. Denisa hime 12:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since they're simply there one moment, then pages later they are laid out, looking peaceful on the floor, we can't say for sure if Dolohov did it. There were way too many things going on during that time; for all we know they got hit in the head with a rock. Since there is no definite, canon source for their death, we leave it as 'unknown.'Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: He isn't an idiot, don't attack. Vaguely 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Count 

message: What exactly is the point of the Horcrux table, especially when the Horcrux article exists? 72.208.25.18 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point.  It's listcruft.  But however many times it's removed, it's always reverted.  chgallen 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it isn't necessary.  I support the inclusion of the deathlist (as long as OR can be kept out of it) but the Horcrux table should be removed.  PageantUpdater • talk • contribs •  10:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, count this as another vote to remove this entirely superfluous and un-useful table. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's your reason, then why not go to the horcrux article and edit it properly? Marc Shepherd 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horcrux table 

message: What happened to this section?—Wasabe3543 10:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you reffering to the Sabbath controversy in Israel?Denisa hime 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole section on controversy. I renamed it Pre-release events and controversy, but that's still kind of clunky. For example, the Madeleine McCann appeal doesn't seem like either an event or a controversy. Maybe just call it pre-release?—Wasabe3543 10:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-realease controversy 

message: Currently, only US numbers are listed, which is bound to be way short of actual sales figures. I can't find any global figures, though, but would much appreciate help in this - remember though, sourced figures, and no original research. Incidentally, I also removed the 2.2 million preorders info from the infobox, as that was based on amazon.com alone, from what I could gather from sources already cited in this article. Lilac Soul 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of books sold 

message: Presently in the Epilogue section on the page, it reads that Harry called Severus Snape "possibly the bravest man I ever knew." The word he used was "probably." This may be an unimportant distinction, but then again it may not.
:Considering that there will be no more books (therefore it can't pertain to other books in the future) and the words are synonyms, it really doesn't matter.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. Possibly means something with an unspecified, but not overly high probability of being true. Probably means something with a high probability of being true. These are not synonyms. 91.65.0.182 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in changing it, but I'll do it anyway, seeing as no one will really know the difference and I don't want to argue.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilogue 

message: Surely the kids names are a reference to Victor Hugo? Should it be mentioned? 83.70.60.99 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoire And Hugo 

message: Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere.
I don't know how widespread this phenomenon was, but there have been many copies released with a major misprint. That is to say, a large part of the book is missing, replaced with a section from earlier in the book. (eg. you reach page 312, and the next page is 217).
I work in a bookstore, and we've had at least 1% of our sold copies come back to us with this defect.
StuIsCool 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really that should be mentioned, but if you don't have any proof (something said by the author or something on a reliable website) then you shouldn't put it in the article. IamHermionie 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the news media seem to have picked up this story so far. That suggests it either never happened at all, or its scope was so limited as to be non-notable. Feel free to come back if you have a verifiable source for this information. Marc Shepherd 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there has not been media publications of defective copies have come out yet, then there is no point to citing something without references. Reputation 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such binding problems are not unknown.  You just take it back to the shop and they replace it. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, they're not unknown, not even uncommon. This information should only be included in the article on two conditions: It quotes reliable sources, and it establishes its notability and importance. For instance, standard binding problems should be included. Binding problems of a massive amount of books, say, 5 percent, should probably. Riots breaking out due to Harry Potter fans getting angry over binding problems should also be included ;-) Seriously, though, if you find some sources, feel free to post them here first so we can discuss how appropriate it will be to include the information. Lilac Soul 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defective copies 

message: Chgallen has removed the subheadings from the plot. I think it is too difficult to read without them, but then, that may just be my opinion. I do not, however, want to start an edit war. Better to try and obtain some sort of consensus, or at least let the majority decide. Should we have the subheadings, or shouldn't we? Lilac Soul 09:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they've been readded by FeralDruid. I agree with readding them, but let's still have the discussion, shall we? Lilac Soul 09:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind- I only removed them because there was a stink when they were added, and it was resolved that they would only be temporary until it had been reduced appropriately (unless I'm imagining that).  None of the other HP books have subheadings either.  I though removing them would discourage embellishment of the plot - makes it look like it should be a shorter length.  But as I said, I don't mind.  If people want them in, then they should be there.  Sorry - was maybe too bold. chgallen 09:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting people would complain about adding headers.  As I mentioned in my edit comment, a wall of text is hard to read.  Headers break up the text, and summarize what's next.  -FeralDruid 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, you're right, none of the other books have subheadings. While I find it much easier to read with them, perhaps they should be removed in the name of consistency? Lilac Soul 09:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I prefer them.  Was just trying for consistency.  Maybe we should just concentrate of trimming the length for the moment.  chgallen 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion, of course, but I'd suggest readability is more important than consistency.  The style guide recommends the use of headers for this purpose.  -FeralDruid 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want consistency, maybe the other articles could eventually have headers added too? Brisvegas 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was thinking that.  I took a quick look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and IMHO, its summary should be broke into sections.  My general rule of thumb is, if it's larger than a single browser page, it's too big.  :)  -FeralDruid 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the headers until such time (if any) that we can get the summary down to ~1000 words. Until then, they improve legibility and really, they aren't causing the length problem. Claudia 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot subheadings 

message: This figure seems very suspicious to me.  The figure seems to be generally agreed of 11 million copies on day one (2.7 million in the UK, 8.3 million in the U.S.); and today is still only day 4.  So 72.1 million might be a plausible (if over-precise) projection of a possible total final sales number by, say, 12 months time.   But I can't see any plausibility for it as an indication of current sales.
AFAIK, only one source has this number.  Do editors agree that it seems likely to be a journalistic misprint?  Jheald 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how accurate the source is, but it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me. There are a lot more countries in the world than the UK and the US, many of which have English as official language, and many others in which people buy the original language version because it was released first. Until someone actually falsifies this source, or finds a better source for worldwide sales, I think this figure should be allowed to stand. Lilac Soul 14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently this is a provisional number- the official number will be out later today.Also, here's a more detailed story on The Guardian.-Wafulz 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So (from the Guardian article) the 72.1 million number is for worldwide sales of the Harry Potter series as a whole.  Jheald 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian is incorrect, the first four books alone sold over 200 million copies . Lilac Soul 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dubious? The one thing we can be sure of is that the guardian use of 72.1 million is wrong, since most sources prior to HP7 count worldwide series sales at about 300 million. I am rewording the factbox to say 11 million in the first 24 hours in the UK and US. But the source originally reporting 72.1 million should definitely be in the article, though perhaps with a wording to the effect that it is not a certain number. Lilac Soul 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally posted this...I cited Business Week. MSNBC also reported this number. I agree, it's sort of strange, but isn't an AP report reliable- at least reliable enough to be posted?152.3.8.235 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  72.1 million copies? 

message: The "After Deathly Hallows" section feels a bit out-of-place in this article to me, since it, by definition, exceeds the scope of the 7th book; moving would help make this article a little lighter.  I believe it would be better suited as a subsection of the Series section of the main Harry Potter article.  Could somebody please move if (s)he agrees?
:I agree, and have been thinking along the same lines myself. I won't move it just yet, though, let's see if someone has good reasons for leaving it here. Lilac Soul 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current form, the first two paragraphs of that section concern the possibilities for a sequel. They are unrelated to Deathly Hallows, and should move to the main Harry Potter page. The remainder of the section's contents are specific to this book, but they belong somewhere else in the article. Marc Shepherd 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the section to Harry Potter, removing the last 2 paragraphs as it cites revenue info and considerations related exclusively to the seventh book, I think it can definitely be removed from this article by moving the first paragraphs to other sections. Paolobueno 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After some further re-arrangement, I deleted the section as redundant. Marc Shepherd 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could "After Deathly Hallows" section be moved to Harry Potter (series)? 

message: On CNN, there's a video about pages missing. In previous discussion, a user wanted to put it in the article. Now that it is on the news, I think it should be put in the article. If it's already in it, just disregard this message. :) --Isis4563(talk) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. :) --Isis4563(talk) 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages missing 

message: Much better now! Wikipedian06 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it was a long haul, I think. Let's all try and keep it from inflating again, by disallowing all minor points to be reintroduced. While one or two minor additions will not make a big difference, one or two an hour quickly will. Lilac Soul 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than expanding the plot summary, a useful task would be to re-write and expand the Critical Reception section. Currently, that section only mentions the two reviews that were published before July 21st. But by now, there are probably dozens of reviews available. A proper synthesis would provide a much more well-rounded view than the preliminary (and hastily-produced) impressions of the first two critics out of the gate. Marc Shepherd 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job on shortening that plot summary 

message: If I'm not mistaken, Colin Creevey was a muggle born because he said something about his camera being the normal kind. I cant refrence it to book 2 (its in storage right now), but can someone correct me if I was wrong? If he is muggle born, then how did he come back to hogwarts?  Jimmy July 25th 12:52 AM
:Ignoring the original research portion of this, let me clear this up. Colin Creevey states, in Chamber of Secrets, that his father was a milk-man. Draco implies that he's a Muggle-born because "scum" like him would only be allowed at Hogwarts due to the Muggle-born loving Dumbledore, but (a) he doesn't state it outright (leaving other interpretations open to possibility); and (b) he's not really in a position to know such a thing. So, long story short, it's quite possible that Creevey has a witch for a mother. Justin Bacon 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead and do that, then! Lilac Soul 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Mistakes found in Book 7? 

message: There are currently three positive book reviews (post-release) of HP:DH. This is good, and they all seem to come from notable enough sources to be in the article. However, of course, the article should reflect overall reception of the book. If, say, ten percent of major reviews have been negative, then we should dedicate about ten percent of our reception section to negative reviews, as per Wikipedia policy on NPOV. Lilac Soul 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published book reviews 

message: When Voldemort takes Kreacher & makes him drink the potion, He refills it.
When RAB drinks the potion who refills the basin???
Dumbledore & Harry go after that & there is potion for Dumbledore to drink.
When Voldemort is looking fro his horcruxes he sees the basin as clear with no locket in it. 
So the basin cannot be automatically refilling.
Any ideas??? Manavi --Mdsindal 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there a lots of them, but this is hardly the place to discuss theories or speculations to try to resolve this particular incosistency, among others, in the series. And, personally, I doubt it would make any difference. Chinfo 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for such discussion. But I note incidentally that Voldemort turns the potion clear, meaning that the basin has been refilled. Tesseran 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The potion in the Basin with Slytherin locket horcrux 

message: Do you think this article should explain how the sword of Godric Gryffindor suddenly came out of the hat when pulled out by Neville, when it was supposed to be stolen by Griphook back at Gringotts? Moonwalkerwiz 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. It came out of the hat when a Gryffindor needed it, the same as it did for Harry in his second year, even though it was in Dumbledore's office. It doesn't matter where the sword was. Faithlessthewonderboy 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The book never atually explains it anyway - better to leave it as open to interpretation as the text itself chgallen 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing encyclopedic to say about it unless Rowling herself at some point feels that a further explanation is called for. Marc Shepherd 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter if Griphook realizes it's gone? The series ends with this book anyways. Reputation Talk 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles aren't the place for speculation like this. Claudia 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godric Gryffindor's Sword 

message: Some idiot messed up the page. They shortened the summary, got rid of the deathlist and other things like that. We need to fix this. Rembrant12 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what a vandal, removing so much unneeded bloat from the article! They should be blocked. --Guess Who 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cutting through the sarcasm, consensus was established that the plot summary was way too long. As for the death list, there's still ongoing discussions about whether it should be in the article, in a seperate list article, or nowhere near Wikipedia. Lilac Soul 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What in the world? 

message: Don't you think that the plot should be listed before the part about the characters' futures? Just for spoiling reasons...63.3.13.1 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order Change?