Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 22

message: Seeing as the controversy surrounding the Times review deals with the leak, I feel that we should focus this section on what is actually said in the reviews.  The part about getting a book early can go in the leak section, but it does not belong in the section dealing with book reviews.BornToRun86 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception editing 

message: Who locked the page and put the badly worded line about "please no telling before 12 AM everywhere?" The book has been released in the UK. The plot can therefore be told to all. Whoever locked it and put in that unencyclopedic line (assuming they're the same person) abused admin powers. 67.186.34.123 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was semi-protected to deal with vandalism. Please register an account. After four days, you will be able to edit semi-protected articles.--Chaser - T 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fully locked, which is what I'm commenting on. The vandalism is the deletion of the plot summary that was legitimately entered and the unencyclopedic line in the intro that needs to be deleted. Also, I already have an account, I'm just not using it at the moment. 67.186.34.123 04:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind. Vandalism has been dealt with. Thanks. 67.186.34.123 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting 

message: I recently put the book down only a few minutes ago. Having read it continuously since I bought it, I can say that it has been a long night. Convinced I'd only find a few interesting sales numbers I hadn't known of, I came here, to find a complete article on the last book! A better example of the kind of thought and time that gets put into Wikipedia does not exist. I can only praise the editors, and say that I am proud that such hardworking people take time out of their day to make sure Wikipedia is as complete as they can make it. The reason this site is so sucessful is because of people like you, who work hard to bring information and knowledge to the net. I'm sorry if what I am saying here is not 100% conforming to the guidelines, but I felt that someone needed to congratulate you on the kind of work you all do every day. Thanks again.--Onearmdude 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Finally, somebody that doesn't hate us! :) 70.210.48.57 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the kind editors of Wikipedia... 

message: i was reading the whole book summary at once and noticed a few too many "in the process" phrases. only someone with poor english skills would use the same phrase 5 times in the same body of work. someone who has read the book should edit out that phrase and replace it with something more elegant
Since most of this discussion page is people complaining pointlessly over unimportant things, I feel that it should be pointed out that you were criticizing poor English skills while using poor English yourself.  The first word is not capitalized and one sentence is missing a period.  Good job.  S. Randall 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor language 

message: Seeing as the article is linked from the main page, shouldn't we be unprotecting it? I'll be out of town, so I won't be able to monitor it.-Wafulz 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: Please fix this sentence in the plot summary, it is incredibly confusing:
"Snape was asked by Dumbledore to kill him if the situation demands it; the curse placed on the horcrux ring limited his life, regardless. Resigned to his fate, Harry sacrifices himself to Voldemort, and is seemingly killed."
Kill who? Limit who's life?
:It's not redundant. "Him" means Dumbledore. If it meant Snape, the proper word would have been "himself."KyleGoetz 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite Pronoun 

message: What exactly can I do to ensure that the scum who just posted spoilers at the top of this page, twice, in the way he did, is booted off wikipedia for good? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We called it "Internet lockdown" in my house.  Twelve hours of reading with some breaks, and it was well worth it. Tvoz |talk 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the scum 

message: bought my book last night at midnight, and found a misprint in one of the issues. i'm in the u.s., and while reading i found this. page 642 is immediately followed by page 707, this cintinues until page 738, which is then followed by page 675, and thereafter the book conyinues uninterrupted to the end. so, 31 pages are missing, replaced by pages from later in the book?!? a friend who bought another book from the same store had a similar misprint, while a third copy, again, from the same store, didn't appear to have it. has anyone else encountered this? is it a local thing, or is it country wide, or global? 24.105.206.171 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the ones who read a leaked version of the book?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The book was leaked on July 17, and people who worked in libraries/bookstores read it as early as the 10th. We've been waiting a long time to get the info out. Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos/misprints. 

message: It is the immediate aftermath of the books release, surely there should be a spoiler tag applied for the immediate future? I don't understand why there is a lot of fuss being created over a small spoiler tag, that will/can be removed in the near future. Obviously delete the spoiler tag if you feel differently. Paul S UK 17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on, Wikipedia has a history of giving spoilers on fiction. It gives people something that can be looked up easily. People should know that by now.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of spoiler? 

message: It's WAY too long, and we do NOT need chapter-by-chapter summaries detailing every minor event in the book. Judging from previous books, I'd say 8-10 paragraphs is a good length; any more than that, and it's excessively long & overly detailed. Anyone else agree?
Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it's a new book, so people are curious. Maybe give it a few days and then shorten it. That's what I think, anyhow.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean to say you suggest that putting text in the form of "chapters" FOR A FEW MONTHS, so that many people can edit its sections, is a good idea?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's far far too long as it is. 1000 words on one chapter? It'd be shorter to transcribe the book. Whilding87 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The plot summary needs to be trimmed, not lengthened 

message: Say to Harry Potter, "Harry, you are a Horcrux. Yes, you are! So we need to do a little bit of tinkering. First, I'll kill you..." See how he reacts.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice to Dumbledore 

message: "Harry reveals that he still blames himself for Dumbledore's death, and so he soon feels so consumed by his guilt that he admits to himself that he cannot continue the fight. He sets out to join Lord Voldemort."
Whats this all about? I've read the book and Harry definitely does not set out to join Lord Voldemort, especially not at the beginning of the book.
Who wrote this?
Edited             Jamie0293 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, maybe? ;)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nah.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who edited this? 

message: There is a discrepancy here:
In the UK,  is an adult edition
In Canada, the same ISBN is not an adult edition, and the adult edition is .  Andreas  (T) 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult editions 

message: This is what I been wondering since the Harry Potter books started? Philip1992 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cover. --Guess Who 18:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: simple. the adult covers are so that adults can read the books without feeling embarrassed they are reading a childrens book. although, all mine are childrens versions, doesn't bother me.--Jac16888 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats the diffence between the adult version and kid version? 

message: I've removed the chapter headings because they lead to inappropriate blow-by-blow accounts of the plot. Ideally we should be producing a synopsis, which covers the most significant plot detail and not necessarily constrained by the order of presentation in the novel.
I've also removed a comment that seemed to imply that inclusion of certain (perhaps significant) plot elements is premature.  That's nonsense of course. Wikpiedia is an encyclopedia.  The fan sites are elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the text is far too long.  The thing to do is to remove text.  Dividing it into sections will make this more difficult. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text can be removed easily by clicking on the full heading and not on the section heading. The section headings are there to make it easy to edit specific sections.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  What concerns me is that (as I explained above) the synopsis shouldn't be constrained by the order of presentation in the book.  Having these particular divisions (just as much as having the chapter headings) constrains it to follow the novel's ordering. In any case for now we can concentrate on trying to trim down the summary to relevant detail--surely there isn't anything more to add. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okeydokes.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter headings, censorship, etc 

message: The mistake currently recorded is non-existant. The Tonks child is on platform 9 3/4 to see someone off - not to attend the school, so the fact that he is 19 is accounted for. B Walker 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that section as original research.  Spotting errors is fun but without verifiability we shouldn't be putting lists of supposed errors into the article. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes 

message: I deleted the section because it is spoiling it for people who haven't read it. Who ever created that plot section in the first place is a mean person, Because you are spoiling it for everyone who hasn't read it. Don't restore the section, Because it is not fair for those who have not read it. (Woggy 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia's content disclaimer and spoiler guideline. Wikipedia is not in the business of "protecting" people from potential spoilers and the guideline expressly forbids the removal of spoiler on the bases of them being spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please reverse Woggy's deletions?  The plot belongs there.  68.198.34.245 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a book review, it's an encyclopedia page about the book.  If you're looking at this page on Wiki, trust me, you must want to know what happens instead of reading the book.  So your reasoning doesn't hold water.  Plus, look at your talk page, Woggy.  You have a tendency to create non-sense articles and edit things that you shouldn't edit.  You should be banned by now. 68.198.34.245 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing the plot because it contains spoilers is against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as outlined above and in WP:NOT#CENSORED. Continued removal of the plot section is vandalism and will be treated as such. --Farix (Talk) 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  Thanks TheFarix.  Just as I was saying Thanks to Tony, he had reverted back.  Blah! 68.198.34.245 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm only warning you based on your actions on this article and not elsewhere. If you already have a history of vandalism, then you really need to think through your actions carefully. --Farix (Talk) 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't display the plot! 

message: 
: Done.  I've added a "spoiler" tag for now because a number of people do seem to have found the presence of a plot section surprising.  We can take it out in a few days time when all the hype dies down. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tony.  That seems best.  :) 68.198.34.245 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On "vandalism", I've noticed this term applied to Woggy's edits removing the plot summary.  To me it's clear that he intends his edits to improve the article, so it isn't correct to call them vandalism.  His edits are controversial but acceptable (and may even prevail if he gathers consensus for them).  Obviousl like everybody else he should not continue his reverts unreasonably in the face of clear opposition, but it hasn't reached that point yet.  --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert edits that removed the plot elements of HP7 book 

message: Regarding "spoilers", maybe we can do something like this: 
Spoilers	Spoilers
OH NO ITS A SPOILER	
Seems unlikely this will be approved, but its just a suggestion. Its better than deleting everything and you are not really censoring material as its still there for everyone to see. --Hdt83  Chat 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hideous. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it, it doesn't violate policy. Perhaps you might want to contact an admin about this. Marlith 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does violate the spirit of Wikipedia:Spoiler, which is "don't hide or officiate plot details." --Farix (Talk) 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus it's absolutely hideous. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 2 

message: I've added a very brief plot introduction section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels.
The guideline  for this section is as follows:
: This should give some idea of the type of novel this article  is about, the setting, the period and its place in literature.  Consider not giving information that would be thought of as spoilers unless that is necessary per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually prefer to have such plot "introductions" incorporated directly into the lead instead of in a separate section. Having separate Lead, Plot introduction, and then Plot summery sections never made much sense to me and is probably a relic of when spoiler tags were pervasive. --Farix (Talk) 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot introduction 

message: someone should put a list of the questions answered and the people who died throughout the story. It'd help a lot.70.124.8.59 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#IINFO.  17Drew 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more specific, read #4 in User:17Drew's link. --Isis4563(talk) 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a list 

message: I think that all the articles on the Harry Potter books should have the covers from all three versions; Children's edition, American edition, and Adult edition.
Maybe it's just me but I like the Adult edition art more. -BRENT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.190.87 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All images if you mean for all books are non free and would require fair use, and many would see it as decorating only to just get in the adult version and a foreign translation, why not the German, French, Chinese, Russian, Danish, Swedish etc if you're going to have the American version chandler ··· 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Edition cover art