Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 1

message: Could the author or another like-minded individual please rephrase that last few sentences in Snape.  I am utterly confused as to the meaning of the phrases
"One curious fact that requires explanation is that Dumbledore trusts Snape despite all evidence. This could be explained if Snape was merely just fulfilling his end of the unbreakable vow, and Dumbledore needed him to help Harry. But this would only come at the end of book 7 while it is clear that Dumbledore has had a powerful reason to trust Snape since he first renounced Voldemort. Applying the principle of least new mechanism did Snape make an unbreakable vow to Dumbledore? If Snape had refused to take in Book 7 his cover would be blown."
Fix'd. --Geg 19:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snape 

message: I strongly disagree with how the prophecy is written as a conundrum on the Rumors section. It says "neither can live while the other survives". Not "neither can live if one survives". "While the other survives" indicates that neither will be able to live while their opposite survives. However, the way it's explained there seems to point it more towards neither being able to survive if one lives: meaning if one lives, that one must die soon anyway, which is no where close to what the Prophecy actually says. --Geg 17:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Prophecy 

message: Please, to all users, do not insert statements such as "I think that," or "J.K. Rowling would never do this" in the main page.  Doing so takes this article and turns it from a thinly-veiled excuse for Harry Potter fan-speculation to run rampant in wikipedia and turns it into an outright discussion board.  Please save discussion and your own interpretation/thoughts for this talk page, and leave statements - other than very strong conjectures and confirmed facts about the book-  off the main entry. jglc | t | c 20:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective 

message: I'm not gonna revert again, because then I'll be breaking several guidelines, but since it's a british book, it really should be the british spelling: licence is the noun, license is the verb; so they will get a licence to apparate. Apologies for being a grammar nazi :)   9cds 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm the one who should apologise. (note to self: Microsoft Word's spell checker is an idiot) I checked onelook.com and the Oxford English Dictionary (after I had already reverted) and you are entirely correct, so I'll go self-revert now. My apologies! Hermione1980 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spellcheckers can be a right pain :)  American English has them both as license, which is a nice way to confuse everybody :p   9cds 22:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grr, ain't that the truth. Why can't we all spell everything the same way? <--note: this is a rhetorical question Hermione1980 22:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  licence/license 

message: The article states that the author has stated:
# The choice between what's right and what's easy will be a pillar of the plot in Harry's last 2 years at Hogwarts. [3]
My first reaction is that it should say "last year" instead of "last 2 years" since this is about book seven.  However, Harry apparently won't be at Hogwarts at all in book seven.  I don't want to change it in case it's a quote. --1pezguy 02:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
: It seems these are being deleted entirely. Is there any good reason to? - 9cds 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (My) short answer:  No.  (My) long answer:  This is the only statement I have a problem with.  This is the first time I've read this particular page, so I don't know what the trend has been.  From this discussion page it looks like the consensus is to keep the statements as a general principle.  I deleted two statements because they were verbatim copies of two other statements minus citations.  It looks like someone made some minor error while adding citations.  --1pezguy 02:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
JKR has talked about people learning magic late in life.  In early interviews she said that a character who is non-magical would preform magic late in life under stress and that this is a very rare occurrence.  That must have been 68.32.206.174 was referring to.  I could find quotes on QQQ or Scoops if someone really wants them. Cmouse 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Author's Statement 

message: How can there be spoilers about something not published yet? Simple - she's said things about what happens in the book, not to mention that this page spoils the previous books no end. David Arthur 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definitely spoilers for other books - not book 7. I'm putting up the 'other books' warning again. Seems the most appropriate thing to do. Jam2k 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Okay, I can't really think of a nice way to say this, so I'll just say it. The "outstanding questions" section of this article is getting a little... well, riddikulus. Are some of these questions really all that outstanding or notable? I'm really stuck when I see some of these questions—they make me want to throw up my hands in exasperation. Can we enter into a discussion about what to remove (or how to determine what is not notable enough to keep in), or should I just give up and stop looking at edits to this article, just so I don't go insane? --Deathphoenix 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to tell you about a question that can be discussed :-). Will we see a ghost Dumbledore?. In Book 5, Nearly Headless Nick made it clear to Harry that a dead person becomes a ghost only when he does not want to face death (or... well... something like that... I don't remember). But Dumbledore was not like that, we all know it. So I don't think he will become a ghost. Of course this is strictly my view only... be glad to share your opinion on this.Jam2k 11:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Outstanding questions" section 

message: Hi. I read somewhere that JKR has said there will be no new characters in Book 7. But it's not under the list in the article. Please confirm this.Jam2k 11:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Statement 

message: Wouldn't it be a better idea to number the outstanding questions list so that it would be easier to refer to them and discuss in the future?? Just a passing thought :-) Jam2k 09:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but then again it may be construed as giving a particular question precedence over another——which may spark another round of "spirited discussion" regarding which question is more important and in what order they would be. There are people who are that meticulous, I'm afraid say. --Chinfo 09:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered list for Outstanding Questions 

message: From the "Statements by the author about book seven" section: It is very important that Harry has his mother's eyes, and that her wand was good for charms.
Well, this seems stupid. Does anyone have an evidence that JK Rowling actually said that?
I recall seeing that quote attributed to JK Rowling under the 'Book 6 & 7' section on Muggle.net. Unfortunately, they've updated their site and and seem to have removed all quotes and known facts about Book 6 in favour of a section dedicated to book 7 --Stretch 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His mother's eyes 

message: I have been bold and taken the liberty of removing this section. Wikipedia is not a fan forum. Hermione1980 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Cmouse 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and my sanity has been restored. --Deathphoenix 06:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good thing you did that... or we would have had a lot of discussions and arguments reagarding the questions and their validity etc etc... U r right... Wikipedia is not a fan forum :-)Jam2k 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is. Hermione1980 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: About what's going to happen in the future books? No. Sorry. That's called speculation, and that is not tolerated in Wikipedia. There are several forums available through fansites; The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet both have forums that I hear are excellent. I reiterate what I and others have said on this page: Wikipedia is not a fan forum, and any comments not directly related to the article and how it is written or should be written will be removed without discussion. Hermione1980 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Outstanding questions" 

message: :Speculation removed. Hermione1980 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hypothetical question 

message: Does anyone want to insert the information about Book Seven included in this interview or its original form in the recent (printed) issue of Tatler? (To my knowledge, the former is excerpts from the latter but I'm not sure.) See also this page. Adam78 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporating an interview into the article 

message: I added a clean up sign to this section, its very hard to follow and the information is repeated several times. Raemie 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Direct evidence in Half-Blood Prince 

message: :Speculation removed. --Deathphoenix 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbledore dead? 

message: :Long bit of speculation removed.
How many times do I have to say this? Wikipedia is not a fan forum. If you want to talk about your theories, crazy or otherwise, take it to a fansite. We don't want it here. I apologise for sounding so frustrated, but it's very annoying when I keep saying these things over and over and nobody listens. Hermione1980 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best spoilers ever for book 7 

message: I recently removed the US dollar value for a price in the article, and it was reverted (), citing WP:MOS. I can't see anything there that indicates that the US currency should be listed - it only says that it should be listed for "less familiar" currencies, and I think that the pound hardly constitutes a "less familiar" currency. Does anyone have any input on this? Thanks, Aseld talk 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But why US? Why not, say, the currency of China or India, two of the most populated countries in the world? Say I'm Indian, and have no idea what a dollar or a pound is worth - should my currency be listed? Just because it's convenient for one person (you) doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable. If one were to carry that reasoning a little bit further, why not list conversions to all currencies? The reader of the article can easily convert to any currency with a quick Web search, which would give the current exchange rate, not the exchange rate in some year that no one can even find out without going back through the page history. Aseld talk 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument to include the American dollar figure is two-fold: first, as the largest English speaking country in the world, more Americans will view this page than any other nationality and second (and perhaps more importantly), more copies of Harry Potter books have been sold in the United States than in any other country. faithless (speak) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reasoning is somewhat flawed. We should have the US currency because it is the most common currency in the world when it comes to comparisons (which is I presume why the MOS recommends it). However there is no evidence that more Americans will read this page then any other. Many people choose to read English language articles even if English is not their first language and there are a lot of non-first language speakers in the world, way more then the number of Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, my apologies, and thanks for clarifying. Aseld talk 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency? 

message: Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment