Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 10

message: #Tuvas 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article on hallows. It strikes me that it is quite plainly a nice dictionary definition. Anyone bringing an AFD would reasonably expect that it would be voted to be moved to wiktionary, because that is what it is. It is an article about a word, not a subject. The article has no justification to exist on wikipedia, except that it is relevant to this book.  Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary says with regard to the kind of articles which should be in wiktionary not wikipedia: 'Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.Sandpiper 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Definition with link to [[Hallow]] Article

message: Omg. Why do we need citations for all the things in the Plot Elements section? Each plot element is from a book. Or am I being irrational? If the consensus is that the tags are not needed, I will request a change. Quatreryukami 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are citing each of the previous books, just like you would cite a news source. We need to show we're not making up the stuff from the books. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Harry doesn't owe Pettigrew a life debt, Pettigrew owes Harry a life debt.  Arwen undomiel 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say that were obvious if you hadn't read the book? Don't forget, the people that read these articles aren't all Harry Potter whizzes who want to see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject; in fact, I'd estimate that more readers are non-HP fans. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: I would do it if the page weren't blocked, but the new covers just came out. Go to mugglenet.com if you can post it (administrators). There will be links there. SeanMD80talk | contribs 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover just came out 

message: here it is:
:Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.jpg 
Joneboi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Joneboi 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means that it looks like a Terry Pratchett novel. Michael  Sanders 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or that Harry, Ron, and Hermionie look nothing like they do in any of the other covers. MelicansMatkin 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The cover in the clip is the American cover. The one above is the 'world' cover. Michael  Sanders 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The one I put up is the "world cover" (pictured above). All the previous editions use the world cover as well. So it is right and you are wrong =) Joneboi 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes exactly. AKA world cover. Joneboi 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cover 

message: I can understand using the UK/world cover, but should the adult cover be used as well. I think it should, as it is also a "world cover" and, in my opinion, looks neater. 86.138.125.156 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and I think everyone else on here does as well. If you look at HBP (book 6) there is a section "Editions" that contains the many cover variations. In time this article will pick up its own "Editions" section. The world cover is for the info box only. Joneboi 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children/Adult Covers 

message: Oh my...the protection is gone...bwahahahaahahaha!!!
Just kidding, but really, don't start an edit war.  Pleeeeeaaaaaase.
I'm going to delay any suggestions until a few edits have been made.  Chrisalbro, formerly "Within the Veil", sorry for any trouble my name redirect caused,  21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admins could've at least waited until the argument was settled. dposse 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the Hallow article exists now, I think it's OK to go for the version "most" people seem to have voted for...Link to the hallow article, and leave the section as it is right now (given that it already contains ref to theories, no one should have serious ground to complain, so we should just do it). Folken de Fanel 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Lifted 

message: Could someone please add a cover gallery in the article (Edition section) like the other articles have, since the 3 newly released covers are now available? I'd do it myself, but I'm rather in a hurry. Thanks. --theblueflamingoSquawk 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you who ever did it! -theblueflamingoSquawk 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Should William Webb (designer) and Michael Wildsmith (photographer) get illustrator credits on the main page HPBooks box? They are responsible for the UK adult cover, which is just as important as the children's covers. 86.138.125.156 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrator credit 

message: She's a british author, and the british release is considered to be the original one.  Please stop switching it to the american one.  I've warned User:JacksonFiore about WP:3RR on his talk page, if he keeps revert warring I'd recommend reporting him on the 3RR violation page.  With the new announcement, I'd also recommend requesting at least semi page protection for a few days at WP:RPP.  --Minderbinder 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, I think the other Harry Potter books all have the British cover at the top of their articles.  Arwen undomiel 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo.  --Minderbinder 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem?  Chrisalbro 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed the US Version in the section covering the Jacket Book Flaps. Berserkerz Crit 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Only one can be in a infobox. I think there should be one of those hidden messages that kindly reminds users not to change it. I prefer the US covers myself, however, I must agree with the UK version on top. She's a British author, and the books were originally published in the UK first anyways. If the editing gets bad (massive unwanted edits, spam), then I'd would request protection if I were you. -- Anon. 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added something in there. It might be a bit abrasive if someone wants to reword it, but hopefully it'll get the message across. Daggoth S 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is just to gather feedback. Fair use images will be removed once consensus is reached. --soum (0_o) 08:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please leave the British cover at the top! 

message: Should we get the page protected until the cover art news passes?
Please? Hopquick 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Next thing you know there'll be a section on speculation based on the images on the covers. Oh wait... there already is. How unpredictable. --Thaddius 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that statement - it's pure OR, and no conclusions can be drawn from a cover. MelicansMatkin 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cover released on Yahoo! News! Yay! Fastnaturedude 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: funny, I thought we had just got the article unprotected for the launch of the new cover art Sandpiper 10:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get the page protected until the cover art news passes? 

message: I removed part of it but retained part of it as well. It is no speculation that Yahoo stated that the US Cover version shows Harry wearing a locket with a Serpentine S on it. Berserkerz Crit 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahoo! says the adult cover shows a locket with an S on it, not the US version, nor is the locket on Harry. John Reaves (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops sorry didn't understand it correctly. But I was wondering, where is the Adult cover showing the S on it? Berserkerz Crit 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The beads are in an S (or serpentine) pattern. Plus, a (the?) locket clearly is seen around Harry's neck in US edition. However, why do such information (even though they are discussed in mainstream media) need to be in the article. As long as anything concrete comes up, I think we should refrain from adding it. --soum (0_o) 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Should the book not be listed as being 'Children's Fantasy'? Moustan86.10.97.187 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly call this book a children's book. First murder takes place in the first chapter. — chandler — 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Murder and death occurs in most children's novels. Humpty Dumpty faces an unfortunate end in his nursery rhyme. Fact is that this book was written for children, hence the happily ever after ending and the fact that an adult's version was published which implies that the main edition is aimed at younger readers. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no difference between the "Children's" and "Adult's" version, only the cover. And if you say "written for children" that gives the feeling you mean for people under 10 years, which really is not the case. I'm not familiar with Humpty Dumpty (but if it's just the first thing before the TOC, it's hardly the samething as 30 some murders, or deaths in a war.)... If anything the books are written for Young Adults or Adults, as the main characters are all 17-18 in the book. — chandler — 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was merely citing Humpty Dumpty as a reference. Even Snow White involves attempted murder by poison. The book "Lord of the Flies" contains a boy being clawed to death and another being crushed by a boulder and yet is still children's fiction. It is really irrelevant of the content of violence but rather more dependent on the literarry style which is in this case quite basic. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It may be that the original Philosopher's Stone could be categorized as a Children's Fantasy, as most of the student-characters of significant interest back then were 11 to 13 years old, and thus perhaps meant to appeal to Harry's then-age, give or take a few years.  Most 16+ year-olds at the time (ca. 1997) probably did not take the book very seriously and even shunned it to avoid being associated with something so juvenile.  I remember thinking the original book read, chapter by chapter, as if was intended to be bedtime-story material: the chapters being pretty short and each being almost a mini-story within the main story.  Of course this changed over time, as did the characters as they aged, and as did the intensity and organization of the story line.  The original 8-13 year-old readers had "grown up" with Harry, Hermione, and Ron, and were already turning 20-something; and the series had "grown up" with them, so, arguably, the books, perhaps since Goblet of Fire, have taken on a much more young-adult to adult theme.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that the genre is incorrect. Harry Potter, the entire series in fact, is the real world we live in mixed with magical and mythical elements, such as wands, spells, flying and ofcourse dragons and unicorns. This is identical to the Magic Realism genre of fantasy. The genre 'fantasy' is far too broad, and many people think of Lord of the Rings in relation to an example of fantasy, while it is very clear that LotR and HP, while in some respects similar, are truly worlds apart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre?