Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 9

message: I obviously missed something, but why is the page locked? Why can't it be edited? I'd like to know the reason for the protection.
ARSNL 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, you'll notice above and at this archive that there is a dispute regarding the inclusion of certain information in the article; namely to what extent we define "deathly" and "hallows" and what people have interpreted those words to mean. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked from editing? 

message: Just a few questions about Professor Snape and Dumbledore. Does anyone else think that Professor Snape and Dumbledore had planned to kill him(Dumbledore)? We all know that Dumbledore had a crazy mind and, seemed determined to prove that love was stronger than evil. I think that it was planned to kill Dumbledore because he intended to protect Harry,just as Lily potter sacrificed her life for Harry and because of that Voldemort couldn't touch him. Well, Dumbledore did the same thing so is Voldemort unable to touch him now? Mamamia2 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mamamia, I suppose your theory is very possible, but unfortunately talk pages on Wikipedia are not for discussing the subject of the article, but rather the content of the article; i.e. improvements to be made, etc. I suggest you take your theory to one of the many fan forums out there on the web. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Snape 

message: I would like to join this debate. If you are arguing over the meaning of Hallows then let me set you strait. Voldemort's army really worships him, right? Well Hallows means to make holy or to greatly respect someone. Voldemort's army practically made Voldemort holy and they greatly respect him. So feel free to comment on mypiece of information.GoldenIrish 01:47, 16 March 2007 
::: GoldenIrish, Please sign your posts. Anyway, as your theory is also plausable, this could be considered Original Research and this is not the kind of thing that you should put on the Fan Forum. If you can present some hard evidance, then we might consider. Untill then, thanks. Quatreryukami 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that "hard evidence" means evidence that has been discussed or reviewed in a reliable source, rather than by yourself, as otherwise it would be original research. Thanks! Voretus 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the actual covers have been released yet, but we need to know whether it is real or not before it could be included. Most likely the publishers will release it first in their advertising. Scholastic have just announced the start of their sales campaign Sandpiper 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: "We will be learning more about Harry's parents and how Harry got so much money in Gringott's Bank " 
didn't Sirius Black explain this in Book five before Harry went back to school? I believe he said he spent most of his teenage years at James' parent's house who were fairly wealthy, then he moved into an apartment when school ended. I cannot cite the page, only that it is in OOTP when the Black Family Tapestry is found and Sirius reveals his past with his family. There seems to be no mystery to me how the money got there as the Potters are dead, their money went to a young James, and then to Harry when Voldemort killed James and Lily. 
If I must, I can cite the page number and quote it, I just dont feel up to it unless I must. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.89.133.126 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for pointing that out. I agree, there is not much mystery about his money. Rowling said she made him rich because she was poor and thought it would be nice for Harry (or something like that). I've taken out the whole point. Sandpiper 02:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved plots 

message: A while ago I was asked to set up automatic archiving of this page. Now yet another person asked me to stop it (As if something was wrong with it). Can you please arrive at a consensus? Thanks, Миша13 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading a while ago that article talk pages should not be automatically archived, although user talk pages may be. I personally don't think automatic archives are good, either, as they're stifling to discussion. Voretus 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys, the talk page discussion was moving so quickly, that I thought it would be more beneficial. I didn't know this was something that consensus was really necessary on. If we're against it, that's fine with me. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot just archived some random comments 5 days after they were made. Now, as it happens they weren't important points, but I personally frequently leave it more than 5 days between looking at a page of no special interest to me. So 5 days later they come back, and their comment has just disappeared without trace??? Thats nice, then. Aside from that, some pages have comments on them which remain important months, even years, later. There seems to be a trend to rapidly archive ongoing debate, which is not helpfull. The only reason to archive pages is if they get too big. Sandpiper 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving of this page. 

message: I would like to know the usernames of anybody who plans on editing this article after the book is published thanks.GoldenIrish 21:20, 14 March 2007 
::(Golden, if you add four tilde ~ signs in a row to the end of your edit, it sticks your name in aoutomatically)Sandpiper
:Ever? or immediately after? Sandpiper 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody can edit a page whenever they like. Obviously, the page will face a lot of vandalism in July. We'll just have to deal with it and warn those users who make bad edits, and try to sort them out. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ... but who wants the job of moderating, monitoring and deleting all the inevitable plot spoilers, which will be planted all over the Harry Potter articles like so much horse manure, and having the plot spoiled for them in the process.  A corps of careful HP researchers are going to be needed to rapidly but carefully read and re-read Book 7, and probably reviewing the previous books for hidden clues, before orderly revisions are made.  I've been wondering if most of the related HP articles should be totally locked down, perhaps from a few days before release to a few days after, and then after the moratorium expires, restrict editing to registered wiki-editors only (no anonymous, no newbies, no first-time sock-puppets) for the next few days after that.  This will give responsible editors time to carefully read and absorb the book materials before all hell breaks loose from the armies of vandals and trolls, but also from the well-meaning HP fans and youngsters who do not know (or don't care about) the rules of the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure how bad the X kills Y!!! vandalism spoilers were after Book 6 was released, but I would guess we will have it back ten times worse with Book 7.  Whoever is "moderating" the articles in those first few hours or days won't really know what is verifiable, what is "true", and what is OR and POV, and won't be able to do an orderly update until there has been time to read the book(s) thoroughly (again).  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't need to read the book 10 times to edit the article. While I agree with restricting use of editing this article shortly after the books comes out, any stipulations above that would be ridiculous. I agree with locking all HP articles down for awhile after the books are released.. then slowly making our way down the protection ladder. Disinclination 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The HP pages will absolutely need protection.  Believe it or not, "spoilers" have already been posted here and the release is months away.  Definitely semiprotection for most if not all starting before the book is released (because spoilers will be leaked early like last time).  But there's only so much that can be done, even seasoned WP editors will post inappropriate stuff, and even if all HP articles were completely protected, there will still be mayhem in the talk pages, just look at what broke out just from the announcements of title and release date.  Sadly, the only way to avoid all the mess will probably be to stay away from wikipedia until you've read the book - hopefully some people will be able to finish it quickly and get on here to keep an eye on things.  --Minderbinder 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey GoldenIrish, this is just a side note, but I'd recommend you create an account under the name "GoldenIrish" if you want to be signing your posts with that user name. It's really easy, just go to the top right corner. But otherwise, I must ask you not to sign your posts with a username which isn't yours – or anybody's – right now. Thanks! Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The only thing is I'm not sure how compliant with policy it is to lock a page in anticipation of an upcoming event which may cause repeated vandalism. You can ask, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Cookies are a small coded data package that web sites that you visit store on your computer, in order for them to identify you in the future (if you accept the cookie).  They are usually harmless, or are at least intended to be, but they are used to identify you so you are no longer anonymous.  Basically Wikipedia will store your ID on the computer where you log in from, and every time you visit the site, that cookie acts as a sort of ID card which says "Hi I'm (your screen name) and this is what I want to do: ...".  See HTTP cookie for more information.  Anyway you need to enable cookies in order to log into most web sites.  If you are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer (standard on most PC's other than Macintosh), then try selecting (menu) Tools-Internet Options-Privacy (tab) and reduce your Privacy level a notch or two, until Wiki's cookies are enabled so you can log in.  If you are using Mozilla, try selecting Tools (the menu), Cookie Manager, and "Enable cookies from this site".  Netscape and other browsers have similar cookie tools under Preferences - use the Help menu and search for information on allowing cookies there.  If you still have difficulties, then we can take this offline in an instant messenger system like AIM or Yahoo if you have that installed.  More useful information about logging in at Help:Logging in and Wikipedia:Username policy.  Good Luck and Welcome Aboard!  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 7 editors??? 

message: Does anyone know what the cover's going to look like?  If someone does, they should add it in since you can edit it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.134.49 (talk • contribs) 
:Not yet.  When it is released, someone will post it, and then editors will review the source for reliability and authenticity.  The black cover look that is being circulated and shown at  places like Amazon.com is a temporary template.  A new look is shown here and attributed to Borders, but it is uncertain where that came from.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is getting off topic, and Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss theories and opinions.  Sorry. Arwen undomiel 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deathly hallows cover 

message: 784 pages for the US/scholastic version.  Too bad I can't add it because of the page block.  --Minderbinder 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add it later, after this argument is settled. dposse 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good catch on getting and documenting the Reliable Source on the information.  The lockdown was initiated by John Reaves - you might leave a message with him and see if he'll lift it.  I was rather astonished that editing the article was disabled over a petty reversion war over OR and 3RR argument, but so be it.  The lockdown should not be for more than 24 hours.  If the "offenders" persist, then they should be blocked for 24 hours, not the article.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the protection was to prevent the petty edit war from turning into a major edit (as we've seen so many times before). John Reaves (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this is not an issue which went away when the article was blocked for a month last time. Is this becoming an excuse to bar any editing of this article, as people have requested above? Sandpiper
Figure out a wording to mention the length and propose it under the template below.  --Minderbinder 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length announcement 

message: *
WikiNew 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for use: Harry Potter goes green 

message: *I don't care about the politics surrounding this article, but there's a "`A" below the Harry Potter Series template on the bottom of the page. It looks silly. :) Sarysa 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done John Reaves (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: The following passage appears in the Unresolved plot elements from previous books section. Either revert "is allowed" back to "entitled" (), or make some other change so that it is grammatically correct.
Harry comes of age (for wizards) when he turns 17 on July 31, and is therefore is allowed...
Brian Jason Drake 06:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the offending "is" in the sentence. Harryboyles 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit 

message: On a related (but probably not appropriate here) note, it would be great if we could just protect the The meaning of "Hallows" section so we wouldn't have so much disruption caused by such a small section. Brian Jason Drake 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection only applies to full articles, not sections. If this were implemented, there would be problems, eg If I changed the section title, the protection would be gone. Harryboyles 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of sections 

message: I'm an outsider looking in. I like Harry Potter, but none of the books would make my top 5 of all time, and only 1 of the movies would make my current top 10. I do however have a pair of post primary school degrees and so I've had to read an encyclopedia article or two in my day, even one or two on famous books. This page doesn't look like those at all. I won't point fingers because I can't, I didn't and wouldn't bother to see who changed or added what when, but some people here appear to be more fan then encyclopedia editor, and other people seem to care more about their side of an arguement then the overall picture of this article in the context of what Wikipedia is. So I'll kick this idea out if this is desired to be more then just a fan page. Find a good, competent article writer from another more traditional, less modern fan based book. Someone who while knowing of the story of the Harry Potter books and has read the books isn't quite so personally commited to them. Then let them rewrite this article from the ground up and lay the foundation of what should be in. It's just an idea to clean things up a bit. Either that or someone asking J.K. on her webside to show up and do it. That would be unlikely but pretty definitive. [Thursday, 2007-03-22 T 19:36 UTC].
: What you must realize is that Wikipedia is an article that anyone can edit, so if J.K. Rowling wanted to, she could come in and edit that Harry dies, Voldomort lives and Ron gets married to Cho if she wanted (Dont get any ideas!). While your suggestion is great, I'm sure this is not the place to put it. Have a good one. Quatreryukami 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you all must understand is that this article is currently (insert nice adjective for "not good", because all I can think of is "it stinks"), and our main goal should be to improve it.  I agree with both of you.  We do need a competent editor, one who is not completely obsessed with Harry Potter, as all these guys seem to be.  I am not that editor, but that editor is out there somewhere, just waiting for us to ask him to edit this page (so that he can say no).  Also, see my comments below, I have specific complaints regarding this article.   Within the Veil 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, I thought it was pretty good. The difficulty with what you suggest is that anyone wishing to verify everything in the article for themselves will have to spend a lot of time doing it. However, this is one of the very best sourced articles I know of. Sandpiper 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: Did anyone else notice Radcliffe being interviewed on Tv, and saying Rowling had told him the ending? Not helpfull, perhaps, but shows she is comitted to the films remaining tue to the books despite inevitable cuts. Sandpiper 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaks 

message: This is a dispute about whether or not to include in the article published theories concerning what the "deathly hallows" referred to in the title of the book are. 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Inclusion of published theories concerning what "Deathly Hallows" are 

message: harry potter has 784 pages! It is true I found it out on a website called mugglenet.com
:Yeah, we know. dposse 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page numbers 

message: Well I don't know how to cite things, but I figured I'd give you a heads up. It was Chapter 22 page 427 (American version) of PoA. I'm not sure Dumbledore specifically means it as a life debt but he says (to Harry): "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them...and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." All those "..."s were in the print, I wasn't skipping anything. So yeah, cite away, cause I don't know how. Ch. 22 p.427 of PoA.--Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern was not over Pettigrew's (probable) life-debt, but whether Ron, Hermione, and Arthur Weasley (and perhaps others) owe Harry a similar life debt as well, for the sundry times that Harry did things resulting in their lives being saved.  The Pettigrew life debt is fairly widely accepted as canonical, based on the material you quoted.  What is uncertain is whether he will actually be forced to (or willingly) redeem that debt at some point in Book 7.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the interpretations are indeed well researched, thats the problem! If I'm not mistaken, thats WP:OR and shouldn't be in the art. Although, it might be an exception, as an unresolved plot point. Quatreryukami 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for the Petigrew "life debt" thing 

message: Okay, this is to find out exactly what it is we are arguing about, and how the problems we have can be solved.
My bit is, we've got a growing page on Hallow, so we don't have to be as detailed on that; the article is currently disorganized and needs to be unlocked and edited for style, content and grammar; when the time comes (week before/week after publication), the article should be locked; we need to archive the talk page again; and we just generally need to come to a consensus and get this article back on.
On archiving this talk page, only one of the archive sections has more than 30 entries.  I say that we should definitely aim for a limit of 30 before archiving.  All we need to do after archiving is quickly restate the question (I'm not even sure what the question is anymore) and everyone's opinion.
How does everyone else feel?  Within the Veil 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't write this article without having a section here talking about the title. It is the only definite thing known about the book. The section as it was last excised was only 4 paragraphs, was not excessively long (nor is the article) so there is no reason it needs to be elsewhere. The only reason we have an article on  hallows is because Rowling chose this title, and it has to be explained in the context of the HP books. There is little point having a section discussing the meaning of hallows in the catholic church (for example), when this is a secular book with no mention of religion. Thus we need to point out how the title applies to the HP world Sandpiper 07:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone can explain to me why such a section should not be here, because the only reason I can see is one attempting to prevent the spread of known information about the book. Sandpiper 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have re-re-re posted the section as you suggest. Both times the article has been blocked has been over the section on hallows. That is what we are arguing about. Referencing has only become an issue as it relates to whether the section in question is acceptably sourced. The remainder of the article has been trundling along in more or less the same form for a year without too much difficulty. Sandpiper 10:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Rowling, on her website behind the door, provides middle names for four and only four of the children introduced in the Epilogue: James Sirius, Albus Severus, Lily Luna, and Scorpius Hyperion. I see little stylistic reason in this context for including middle names only for the first three (Harry and Ginny's children) and omitting that of the fourth (Draco's son). She clearly had a reason for including this name: presumably, to make a connection to the "astronomical" naming theme in the Black family line (i.e., Draco's mother's family), since Hyperion is both a mythological figure and one of Saturn's moons. Fragesteller (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything I think the middle names should be excluded, as they are middle names and not double names. They are James, Albus and Lily  — chandler — 22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in Epilogue