Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 13

message: I removed the template that absurdly suggested that the whole article is unreferenced.  The fact is that there are currently nearly 50 external references, and many other book-related sources, liberally placed throughout the article.  If there are specific areas of concern or controversy, then please use a  template at the site of the concern.  Using the global "This article is unreferenced" template as part of an edit war or dispute over reliable sources or whatever reeks of disrupting things to make a point and is bordering on vandalism.  As to those involved in the reversions and edit wars over allowable content, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution and properly dealt with.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who put the template there probably missed the fact that this template says "article" instead of "article or section". I have replaced it with . Brian Jason Drake 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  There does appear to be a small frequently overlooked section there that makes some general statements about the Harry Potter Series, with no references.  This is because is is essentially a brief summary adapted from the main Harry Potter article as linked there - it is likely that it was felt that the facts were already well established at the main article and as common knowledge by now.  Anyway adding a few references to that short section would add value to this article for those folks who don't click over to the main article for a more thorough treatment of the subject.  The tag was added and changed around during an edit reversion war (and you were there!) on or around the 10th of April, over claims of Original Research within the article and section.  Thanks again for setting it straight.  I gather you are not interested in actually helping to find the references and improving the article though, only in posting warning templates?  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite having read all the books, I only own a copy of one of the books and I do not frequent news and fan sites. I thus assumed that other people would be able to find better references than I could, and do it faster. I also don't enjoy finding references! Brian Jason Drake 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreferenced" template 

message: How does any of that pass notability standards? There's always gonna be fake stuff with everything released, i don't see how any of it is notable. You don't even have any news storys that report this. The section should be deleted unless someone can establish notability.  dposse 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who don't watch the history as closely as I do, the section was removed in this edit. Brian Jason Drake 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows leaked affair 

message: ...saying The book is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition, 784 pages in the US edition, and 816 pages in the US deluxe edition.
We don't have any clear evidence that the book is going to be 608 pages in the UK version59.100.200.42 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk should be reliable sources for a new book set for release in the not-too-distant future.  Bloomsbury is quoted as confirming the UK editions are 608 pages, and Bloomsbury.co.uk links book sales to Amazon.co.uk, which also shows The UK Children's and Adult's versions listed as 608 pages  .  The UK Special Edition also shows 608 pages .  The Scholastic info link in the article lists the US edition with 784 pages, and so does Amazon.com:  and the Deluxe Edition also shows 784 pages .  What I cannot find is a source for the statement that the US Deluxe Edition is 816 pages.  There is reportedly "an insert" with some artwork, but this may not be included in the page count.  The 816 page count might be for the so-called "large-print edition", but again I have not yet found a source for that. Bottom line, the respective Publishers and Book Sellers support the claims of 608 pages for the UK editions, and 784 pages for the US editions, so I think we can echo those sentiments as verifiable.  If we all find out in July that this information is in fact not true, then we can update the page accordingly.  Remember, verifiability trumps "the truth" in the Wiki-policies and guidelines, and what we can "verify" at this time is 608 (UK) and 784 (US).  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with 

message: *1) there exists a debate. This is agreed by all parties.
*2)Inserting a newspaper cutting as the sole ref admittedly confirms that the debate exists, but says absolutely nothing else to explain to readers what the debate consists of.
*3) Inserting a ref which allows the reader to see the debate (ie online) is not pushing a particular view. Even if it were, this is not grounds for deleting the reference, merely for finding a better one. I have requested Folken to find any ref which demonstrates that the ones I have used misrepresent the debate, but he has been unable to do so. I conclude from this that the refs represent the matter fairly. I have inserted several refs, all supporting the same point, to illustrate that they do not misrepresent it. This does not seem to satisy him on the point, but it seems to me absurd to keep adding to the string.
*4)There must by now exist a number of printed refs. I have inserted one for Mugglenet's book. This is a bestseller, and can not be described as self-published, which Folken seems to be somewhat upset about. The authors are acknowledged experts on HP. (I tire of saying this, 'Rowling says so', she even invited Spatz to visit and interview her. Mugglenet has been mentioned in all sorts of media). Sandpiper 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: It's high time I paid homage to the mighty MuggleNet. Where to start? I love the design, (I currently favour the 'Dementor' layout), the polls (I actually voted in the 'Who's the Half-Blood Prince?' one), the pretty-much-exhaustive information on all books and films, the wonderful editorials (more insight there than in several companion volumes I shall not name), 101 Ways to Annoy Lord Voldemort (made me laugh aloud), the Wall of Shame (nearly as funny as some of the stuff I get)… pretty much everything. Webmaster Emerson, Eric, Jamie, Damon, Ben, Matthew, Rachel, Jaymz and Sharon, I salute you.Rowlings websiteSandpiper 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments to keep references

message: Okay, the only possible compromise that I'm seeing here is to include a section that allows for theories to be put forth. Of course, there would have to be some very serious control in this section. I would venture to say that for anything to be posted there, it must be included in at least 2 major HP sites, not including forms. That way the content is allowed on this site, but isn't intruding in the main article space. Comments anyone? Tuvas 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible compromises to the references

message: "This theory is supported by the fact that translations of R.A.B. consistently correspond to the Black name." This line appears in the discussion of the R.A.B. phenomenon. What is it supposed to mean? Translations of R.A.B. into what? Greek? I recommend deletion of the sentence unless someone can make sense of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.71.202 (talk • contribs) 
:I've tried to make it a bit clearer. If you're still confused, read R.A.B.. - Nunh-huh 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insert the word "foreign" before the word "translation", and it should make perfect sense. Daggoth | Talk 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supposed to suggest that, in versions of the book in other languages, the initials correspond to what the initials would be in other languages if the name were Regulus Black, eg. in the Dutch edition of the book the mysterious persons initials are R.A.Z., which corresponds to the Dutch name for the Black family: Zwarts (there are other examples here) --Thaddius 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably got mangled as part of the Folken-Sands edit wars, or some other raging conflict.  It was meant to explain, and provide examples, that in foreign translated editions of Half Blood Prince, the "B" in "R.A.B." (or the equivalent last initial as translated) consistently corresponds to whatever translated name is used for the Black Family name (eg: Sirius Black).  In some foreign language cases, the Black Family name remains the same, and so does R.A.B.; while in other cases, the Black Family name is translated to a word that corresponds to the color black, and the initials in R.A.B. change with it.  This lends some credence to the theory, or at least does not contradict it, that R.A.B. is/was a member of the Black Family, and Regulus is, as Rowling said, "a fine guess".  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I don't think that one had become part of the dispute. Perhaps it will now. Sandpiper 23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you want it...Folken de Fanel 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious line 

message: The article states "In the U.S., however, the book will be released at 00:01 local time, which will be 8 hours after the other English-speaking countries for the first U.S. states to reach 00:01." Surely the first states to reach 00:01 will only be 5 or 6 hours behind BST? 86.144.205.161 13:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably written by someone on the US West Coast (eg: California), where 8 hours may be correct.  Changed it to say:  However, In the U.S., which spans several time zones, the book will be released for sale within each time zone at 00:01 local time, a few hours after the other English-speaking countries. Hopefully this avoids the math and POV problems.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: I found this reference and if anyone wants to expand a section about leakage or spoiler on the upcoming book, this is it. I am not talking about spoilers per se but the controversy surrounding the book that many people are coming out saying they know what happens etc. etc. and JK's response and fansite responses and so on. Berserkerz Crit 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leak/Spoiler Section 

message: Many articles on Wikipedia that are about popular works of fiction, eg LotR, have a section dedicated to the reception, or Critical Response, once the book/movie has been read/viewed and reviewed by the target audience. However no such section exists for this book. There is no way to know how the book was received by critics and fans alike from this article...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Critical reception" section for this article was recently deleted by a vandal; it's back now. Andrea (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception?