Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 2

message: I reverted these edits by 69.177.41.96. There was no citation, but after digging around, I found it mentioned here on HPANA; however, even this article notes in big bold letters that this is only a theory, and that Rowling has made no such announcements. Therefore, this is fan speculation. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unsupported idea of when the book 'should' be published - I see no reason why it should be included here. David Arthur 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted book seven release date (07/07/07) 

message: We have the ability to do something with this page as is now. I know Wikipedia not for speculation, but there are some things that are known to be true about book 7. Perhaps we could compile the factual things, things verifable through interviews, etc? Tuvas 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of this article 

message: I noticed that this article was lifted from the Book 7 page of the Harry Potter lexicon site ... but I do think that the idea is wrong ... anyone comment. 24.255.115.243 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Dates in Harry Potter. The books aren't set in any particular time, fans just try to make them be in a particular time, which is why there are two Mondays in a row in book 4 and the PlayStation is an anachronism. Book 1 being set in is the most common theory, from Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake in Chamber of Secrets. Hermione1980 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dates in this article and in the series are questionable . . . 

message: Okay, I have just compared the Lexicon's page on this with our article. Pretty much everything on this page except for the leading section is a copyvio, either directly quoted or with a few words altered here and there. I don't know how you want to handle this (remove? reword?) but we need to take care of it quick. Hermione1980 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I've reworked it. The article is still pretty lousy, but at least it's not a copyvio. Hermione1980 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, you can use the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems to take care of it immediately. Brian Jason Drake 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me the damage was done by someone editing anonymously as 68.36.13.172, who when the page had a cleanup tag on it replaced the whole thing. Sandpiper 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING! COPYVIO! 

message: In the article it says there are some clues in the Azkaban film about the upcoming books. I've been thinking and do you know any things that are in the film that aren't in the Azkaban book, I've made a short list, please add to  it.
*Shrunken heads
*When Sirius says to Lupin when he's turning into a werewolf, "This is your heart, your hearts hearts here!" --Daniel Omy talk. 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-verbal spell casting wasn't in the book. You're kidding right? We've been seeing non-verbal spell casting since Hagrid's fire when he first sees Harry and a couple of examples from book 3 are when they treat Ron's leg and when they force Pettigrew to transform back. Brian Jason Drake 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: JKR spoke about the clues in the interview included on the DVD. Now, I think I saw somewhere that she referred to the scene with Remus talking to Harry, but I don't think she says that on the DVD.
I heard this somewhere, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Apparently in the movie, Sirius comments about how it will be nice to walk through the halls as a free man. Also, on his wanted poster it has the number 390. 199.126.166.13 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clues from Azkaban film. 

message: People are too heavy handed about speculation.  There is speculation out there, you can't deny it.  Summaries of speculation should be included especially where it can be referenced to a peer reviewed source, which would include any web site where readers can post comments on submitted theories.--SmokeyJoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give examples of what you mean by peer-reviewed sources? I personally don't think, for example, that fan forums have a high enough standard to be defined as a "peer-reviewed source", though that's my own personal standard. I don't know how other people feel, but I think we shouldn't change standards on Wikipedia by too much simply because there are a lot of Harry Potter fans who have a lot of theories about Book Seven. Disclaimer: just my opinion. Others may differ. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a discussion thread in a fan forum, which I don't think is up the the Wikipedia standards of a "peer-reviewed source". Now, there are some sources not up to the standards of peer-reviewed sources that would be fine because they are official Harry Potter sties. For example, if Rowling were to make enough note of people with that theory to comment on it in her official web site, it might be good enough to cover it. If there were mentions of this fan speculation on any of the official sites as noted in Harry Potter#External links, I think those would be fine. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. Your definition of "peer-reviewed" is slightly loose here. I think you're defining "peer review" as someone looking at what other people post on fan forums, then commenting on it. Fan forums do not go through a formal peer-review process that print publications go through. That is what distinguishes publishers from, say, the vanity press. That's what I mean by "peer-review". WP:NOR provides a great read on this information, and WP:V points out the need to use reputable sources of information. Regardless of whether the hosting web site is reputable or not, fan forums have posts written by anyone in the general public, and therefore their comments are not reputable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I forgot one more reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether this is worthy is debatable, but its most immediate problem is that it is uncited and thus unverified.  For example: Where (what publication) was the title rumoured, and by who?  Where was it revealed that Pyramids of Furmat will not be the title?  Where was that mild speculation published?  Who thinks that about the Room of Req. and where was it published? We are supposed to be not interested in truth, but verifiability.--SmokeyJoe 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pyramids of Furmat is one of the titles that have been circulating for some time now, and J. K. Rowling has confirmed it to be false. The rest (especially the title The War of the Wizards; the title is as yet unknown to anyone other than J. K. Rowling, and so posting rumoured titles for any purpose other than debunking them is completely unproductive) is merely unencycloopædic speculation, and although it is reasonably certain that both the title and publication date will at some point be available from her web site, there is no particular reason why it must come from the same 'room' as it did for The Half-Blood Prince. Also, for those who argue that simply inviting readers to add comments makes something a peer-reviewed source, I suggest a look at the article Peer review.  David Arthur 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree with David, but I meant to emphasize that contributions have to be cited (verifiable).  After reading deep into the histories of these Harry Potter pages, I see that the failure to cite (even poorly) is consistently the worst failing of peoples contributions.  I am not saying that by citing a fan forum thread you can make a theory encycloopædic, but it would be nice to see some serious attempts.  Also, simply inviting, or having, comments does not make peer review, and peer review doesn't make something reputable, and reputable doesn't make something notable.  But lets see if we can at least get people to cite.  --SmokeyJoe 08:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: well that's dads for you. Sandpiper 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Could some people help out at the Harry Potter Wiki, it's a fan club for Harry Potter fans. We are running out of users, so just click on this link the Harry Potter Wiki and please help out.Daniel Omy talk. 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter Wiki 

message: Okay, it was inevitable that people would start adding stuff to these outstanding questions, but since I've seen these sections grow to massive proportions, I should probably start a section about it. How big should this section be? I don't want the past to repeat itself and have dozens of trivial questions take over this article again. I'm getting rid of the professions of James and Lilly Potter because that's not an explicit outstanding question arising from the book. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think these outstanding questions should be explicitly stated. Nowhere in book six does Harry Potter wonder what his parents did for a living. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the more citations the better. I'm not a huge fan of just randomly adding in outstanding questions. I think we should focus in this article on finding sources where Rowling is talking about this book, or other people's analysis of this book (The Lexicon has some great essays that we could use) rather than random speculation. Hey Deathphoenix, I could use your help over at J.K. Rowling, I'm madly working along on getting the article well cited, and I'm making some good progress. I'd appreciate your input on the Talk page and any contribution you'd be willing to lend to the process. I'm hoping to do some cleaning on the HPB article soon and maybe some similar stuff on Harry Potter too, which I've also cleaned out a lot of uncited stuff from. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try, buddy, though I'm particularly busy today. I'll add J.K. Rowling to our watchlist and see what I can do soon. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your suggestion is a pretty good way to judge of it, though I think outstanding questions should really be mentioned on the book as something that is a definite "mystery". R.A.B. is an excellent example of this. The identity of the Horcruxes is another excellent example. Whether Hogwarts will stay open is kind of borderline in my opinion, but in the book, Hogwarts shutting down is actually mentioned as a possibility, so is worthy of mention. Other examples should be comparable with these, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable outstanding questions 

message: Do you all think it appropriate to place dates on the statements here? I don't believe that there is an official timeline, and don't think it belongs here. Tuvas 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What statements where?--SmokeyJoe 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well there's sort of this pattern that we're placing Harry's birth year as 1980, and thats where that's coming from. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at Dates in Harry Potter. Pruneau 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Jo say in her website that she almost say  one time the title of the seven book (In the F.A.Q. area, about the books, page 3 the last question). Anybody know when did that happen? --ometzit 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Why is this page protected? It keeps fans from otherwise contributing to the page.
: This page is protected because of alot of spam attacks. A registered user can in fact edit here, but I suspect the reson is long gone for this course of action. Tuvas 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Protection? 

message: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7
This has a great rundown of what will  happen in the book, based on past interviews; also great information.
And for a list of what the outstanding questions of Harry Potter are:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft
If you are looking for a well researched speculation check out this page SNAPE DIES: A THEORY ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BOOK 7 (Cvgbook7theory 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Book 7 Analysis Page 

message: "It is currently unknown, despite rumours, if Rowling will allow other authors to write novels set in the Harry Potter Universe not concerning Harry or the events covered in the series."
Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that Rowling isn't going to do this. --DearPrudence 16:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, per your feedback. I agree that it is unnecessary, but not because it's obvious Rowling isn't going to do this. I would agree that I don't think Rowling would do this, but never say never. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary, in an encyclopedia article, to speculate on something that's unknown. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other authors writing Harry Potter 

message: Articles just cry out for pictures. I don't know if anyone has suggestions for one suitable image we might use? Sandpiper 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't exactly alot of pictures for book 7 floating around... Maybe some can be found though... Hmmm... Tuvas 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It already has two. :Image:Current event marker.png and :Image:Nuvola apps bookcase.png :-) Just don't forget that most Harry-Potter related pictures require a valid Fair use rationale. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some kind of real life event related to the book might be good. JKR picking up a writing award? Publishers offices, if they look anyway decent? Even just a pic of JKR, as might go on a book jacket Sandpiper 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the Harry Potter logo from Harry Potter. It's far from perfect, but it can do the job until we find omething better.Pruneau 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be a fake (fan-made) cover image for book 6, when it was rumoured it would be called Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch. The guy next to Harry is Dumbledore; that's how he was depicted in the early English versions of book 1. Pruneau 21:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Corenelius Fudge, not Dumbledore Oli 11:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear in book 1, does he? I think he's only mentioned by Hagrid. It would make much more sense if it wasn't Dumbledore, but I assumed it was him because in the later editions, it's definitely him. Pruneau 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in the later editions, it's definitely Dumbledore. However, on the earlier editions, the guy is shown wearing a striped suit (like Corenelius Fudge) and smoking a pipe (certainly not like Dumbledore. I wonder who is was actully meant to be. If it was meant to be Dumbledore, then it's quite an odd illustration (Oli 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicolas Flamel (the mystery of that book)? What would a pentangled star signify?Michaelsanders 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: At the bottom of the page.....the first book is called Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone. Edit? Why can't we edit this page?
:"The Philosopher's Stone" is the title of the book when it was released in the United Kingdom. However, JK Rowling called the book "The Sorcerer's Stone" is the United States because she thought that newer title states more clearly that the book is more magical Oli 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No she didn't: her editor did. She had agreed because she was so new in the world of editing that she didn't dare oppose a big publishing house. She now says she regrets the title change. Lgriot 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew that! Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher's or Sorcerer's Stone? 

message: The section contains good information, but should it strictly be in the Book Seven article? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well for $%&*? sake, don't start a book eight article!  This article is kinda about what happens next in HP, so I think it reasonable to mention anything known. Sandpiper 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - I was being a bit too by-the-book lol. Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in Book 8, as a result of a final curse by Voldemort, Harry and Ginny give birth to Damien "The Omen".  --T-dot 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha maybe... :P. On a serious note, perhaps this section could be placed into the Harry Potter article, rather than the Book seven one. What do you think? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK I'll leave it as it is. Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond Book 7 

message: "Severus Snape has been an important and enigmatic character throughout the books, with it never being quite clear which side of the war he is on." Please, could we, PLEASE, have that in proper English such as "and his true loyalty has always remained unclear"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.57.25 (talk • contribs) 
: Absolutely.  Be bold.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited it. Oli 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incredibly ugly language 

message: Hey, can the protection be removed from this article? Someone who is an admin will have to do it, but I know there are a few admins around here. Yes, we run the risk of vandelism, but, there's always that risk. Tuvas 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're signed in, you can edit it can't you? Oli 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it doesn't affect me at all (I always sign in, it's alot easier to find my pages to edit like that), but if you look above, how many people want changes that don't have an account? It's not an uncommon thing, it might just be time to make that change. Tuvas 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection on the article 

message: Under Notable Unanswered Questions:
Snape links to a Disambiguation page instead of Severus Snape
Elfich 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out - I'll change it now. Oli 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo/Mislinking 

message: He could not be dead. I think you should take time to read this page. 
:Is this comment directed at someone who has been insisting that Dumbledore is dead? Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dumbledore's state of being alive can be contested either way, but even with a website such as dumbledoreisnotdead.com, we most certainly couldn't post here on Wikipedia that he is alive, when he appearently died. I'll admit there's enough chance of such a thing to post that the point is contended, but not enough to outright say one way or another. Tuvas 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have enough information to outright say that Dumbledore is alive, but as Dumbledore appeared to be dead in the book, a fact which was not denied by the author, and with Wikipedia being a fact-based encyclopaedia, I don't think that, until an official confirmation is given, this possibility should be cited. If you're interested in reading more about Dumbledore's possible survival, you might find this article insightful. --Lividore 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Dumbledore dead? 

message: It says in the infobox that the book is to be released in 2007, however, it says in the relevant section that the date is speculated to be 2007. Do we have proof of a 07 release date? If so, it should be put in the section or refrenced... -- Banes 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no proof of a '07 release, however, it seems quite likely. As I recall, there is an interview with the british publisher saying that they hope to print the book in 2007. Still, it won't be official 'till JKR's said so. Tuvas 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: The first harry potter book was 300 pages, not 200 pages -- and also, the largest one was close to 900 pages (around 870) rather than the stated 600 pages.
:The British Edition of the first book was 223 pages. As for the largest one (OotP), the British one was 760 pages, so you can say it was close to 800. --Lividore 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: I'm not sure if this is something that should be in the article somewhere (under "Editions", or in the infobox thingy on the right side, that sorta thing I guess)... anyway, the release date for the paperback will be Jul 5 2008, at least according to my Amazon search. - Ugliness Man (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong, but isn't that only the Canadian edition?  Is that the only paperback being released?  DaRkAgE7 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's 5th of July for all books I think. The Uk one is certainly coming out on July the 5th. --Jammy (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  paperback