Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 16

message: To more established and regular editors than I:
This page is about to become VERY popular. It is the top ranked Google result for the following terms and many more:
*harry potter and the deathly hollows
*harry potter and the deathly hallows
*7th harry potter book
Therefore, we have a responsibility to make sure this page is the very best we as editors can provide. I have three suggestions that I think will improve the article and the experience of those who come here to read it. 
#Looking at the top part of the article, I see two big template boxes that take up valuable space. The first is necessary, but I think the second hurts the article more than it helps. Thoughts? I would at least like to see fewer lines of text in it, like: This article contains information regarding an expected book. The content may change dramatically as the book release approaches, though I doubt any box is really needed.
#The signed statement by Rowling doesn't seem important enough for the lead.
#The article needs to have a strong warning at the beginning of the editing text to warn against vandals.
How do these sound?
\/\/slack (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the bit about her signing the statue doesn't seem important enough for the top section of a wikipedia page.  However, this isn't just a wikipedia page, this is a harry potter page and, of course, harry potter is held to different standards.  If it wasn't, she would have been fined and or arrested for vandalising her hotel room, but as it is she's applauded and ends up richer than the Queen.  Anyway, yes, I think the fact that it's about the end of the series the moment she finally stopped writing was the beginning of the end, it's a time the fans will want remembered. Especially since she cleverly remembered to make a news report about it so everyone would know when it ended.Simondrake 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That second box is necessary, as well;  It lets people know that they need to take everything they read about the plot of the book with a grain of salt.  "Taking up space" isn't really an issue with an online encyclopedia.  The content of the article is always changing and up for debate, which is what this page is for.  If you feel like something is unimportant, start up a discussion.  If no-one discusses it, be brave and do the edit; someone will respond on the talk page (or sometimes start an edit war, which is a no-no) if they don't like it.  A strong warning against vandals is the blocking that will follow very shortly - that's Wikipedia policy, not just the article. Phoenix1304 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Impressions 

message: How did stephen colbert get an advanced copy of harry potter and the deathly hallows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.192.68 (talk • contribs) 
:He didn't, I am fairly sure. --Pyreforge 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He used a marketing demo prop - basically a "real" cover wrapped around another book.  This is pretty common trick.  Gosh even Harry did something similar with his Advanced Potions textbook in HBP.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there are exceptions to copyright laws and the like that apply to satire. Phoenix1304 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parody rather.  Satire isn't covered under fair use. Oneoverzero 06:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert copy 

message: I was just wondering where it went, because i was going to check if the article was still considered to be "b" status. I just made some changes to the text, and i was wondering if i could do anything to bring it up to "A" status. (On a side note- is it a possibility that the article was not considered to be "A" status because of the length of the Information from Rowling and Unresolved Plot Elements from Previous Books sections?) Anyway, i personally think it would be just wonderful if in the future this article could honestly be considered to be a lead article.
:its still there. you may have to click a button on the one-line box to make it appear. It is quite possible the A requirements don't like lists, but given the nature of the information, I don't see how it could sensibly be turned into prose. The sections themselves are already highlights and by no means exhaustive. Sandpiper 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened to the WikiProject Harry Potter Section at the Top? 

message: Does anyone know when this was first said? the article currently says it was on her website. I think she did say it on the richard and Judy interview, and Barnes and Noble think she told it to the telegraph. Has she said it a lot, or where did it originate? Sandpiper 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just one of those things she's had ready for some time to fire off when someone asked her about an eighth book.  She may have been saying it for years ... but why does it matter to the article?  Phoenix1304 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an issue of whether we have it sourced correctly. Sandpiper 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's sourced correctly, no worries.  She definitely said it during that interview.  I just don't see the point of finding its origins.  Phoenix1304 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HP and the mid life crisis 

message: The values of 784 pages US and 608 pages UK are not consistent.  A 784-page US edition makes Deathly Hallows the second longest book in the series after Order of the Phoenix.  However, 608 pages UK is the exact same length as Half-Blood Prince, which has only 652 pages in the US edition and is significantly shorter than Goblet of Fire.  I suggest the UK value is incorrect.  The only primary source I've seen for the 608-page value is Amazon.com, and it seems possible they mixed it up with the 6th book.
-Akwdb 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR, they're  using a different font size...--ŴôôD  ẼĿF 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd bet you're right, I don't see why the  books would be that different in length. Speaking of font size...(*whispers* WoodElf:Your sig is too big). -- John Reaves (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case we have some "reliable" sources, for better or worse (the booksellers, and in the case of the US editions the publisher), which quote the page numbers for the various editions.  We have no reliable sources to dispute those numbers, only some speculation that it doesn't "seem right" based on obscur and debatable assumptions.  Since the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia is verifiability with reliable sources, and not the "truth" or some "estimates" worked out as someone's original research, then we have to stick with the reliable sources until they are proven wrong.  But fear not - at some point in time in the next 3 weeks, either a revised page count will be announced, or the page count will be indisputably verified by anyone with a copy.  Then we can post the correction(s), along with the plot summary and everything else that will be transformed on July 21.  If there is a problem with the page count, it will be solved in due time.  In the mean time, it is the Wikipedia's duty to state what can be verified, and to provide verifiable sourced references, should some "blame" need need to be attributed.  And in the mean time we should continue to seek further validation from quality sources.  See also:  Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_13#What.27s_wrong_with --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed before. That is why the word "expected" is used for the UK release. It was intended to weaken down the rather firm statement that it WILL be 608 pages. Indeed, there is no primary source for that information and all we have at the moment is the secondary info from booksellers such as Amazon, and fansites such as Leaky Cauldron who claim to have checked the pagecount with Bloomsbury. The wording in the article is fine as it is. AberforthD 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book length 

message: :Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.jpg 

message: The article says, "Sirius Black's flying motorbike and the two-way mirror he gave Harry will return," but if you click on the reference link (53) this is what was said:
Kelpie_8: Will the two way mirror Sirius gave Harry ever show up again?
JK Rowling replies -> Ooooo good question. There's your answer.
:In a different Q&A session, Rowling claimed that the mirror "would help more than you think" which strongly implies it will be in the book.  While the reference is not in the perfect place, the information is correct and it seems nitpicky to move the citation into the middle of the sentence.  If anyone disagrees, it is a minor edit and one that does not require further discussion.  →Bobby← 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Let's stick to what Rowling actually said, the exact quotes please, and keep it simple.  Leave out the possible interpretations and what some folks might think she meant by it.  Good work.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jo did NOT state the mirror would return, but hinted that it might. 

message: I was on Leaky Cauldron and it had a sound clip of Stephen Fry(The audiobook narrator for the UK).He says that "Never tickle a sleeping dragon" has something to do with book 7. Does anybody have any theories on what this means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediyoda426 (talk • contribs) 
:Personally, I've always followed that advice when approaching a sleeping dragon. I think it means if you do, it eats you. Sandpiper 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means Wikipedia isn't the place for discussing theories, google has plenty of forums for you- use them rather than wikipedia or your posts will be deleted....as it says at the top.Simondrake 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all he does not say that, you simply inferred it.  He says here (hover the pointer over the Rowling and Fry image) that he "can't tell (us) anything about the story of course", but he'll "leave (us) with this..." and then quotes the Hogwarts Motto.  You cannot go from that to claim that he says " 'Never tickle a sleeping dragon' has something to do with book 7".  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'd have to agree with Simondrake on this one.  Unless this somehow relates to the article, I don't see why you would be motivated to post this here. Phoenix1304 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Fry's Message 

message: I have added the correct rationale template for the image specified by Betacommandbot (:Image:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows US Full.jpg) above.  All that is missing is the source - if whoever uploaded the image could add that information, the template will be complete. MelicansMatkin 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Rationale 

message: Tim Janus, also known as Eater X, held a sign when being introduced that said on one side "On the 7th day, God created Hartford" and on the other side it said "Hermione dies". Is this possible a leak due to him having an advanced copy or is it him just tryig to start rumors?
--Slayergenxxx 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No person (except possibly JK herself) has an advanced copy - this is just somebody trying to add more fuel to the fire. MelicansMatkin 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought. But it's good to inform people about what to watch out for when people re-edit of the entry before the book comes out.
--Slayergenxxx 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rumour that Hermione dies has been kicked around for the last couple of months ... It is or may be as good or bad as any of the innumerable other HP7 rumours out there.  I could start a rumour right now that Ron and Hermione end up married and name their newborn twins Harry and Ginny, and that Harry and Ginny also have twins named Ron and Hermione.  Let's see if we can get something to that effect to appear on a sign at Wimbledon or the U-20 World Cup soccer tournament, before July 21...  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's longer than that ... I'm pretty sure that the whole "Hermione dies" thing is a meme that originated (and is still active) from SA, in the lead-up to Order of the Phoenix's release. AICN posted an incorrect preview of the book stating that Hermione dies, some people got upset at the spoiler, and they ran with it from there. It doesn't surprise me that people are still keeping it going! Daggoth | Talk 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's very unlikely that the spoilers are real. There was a Time article recently about the amount security surrounding the book within the publishing companies. Few people other than Jo have copies of the book/ know the plot, and those people are all at the upper echelon of Bloomsbury (that's the publisher, right?), so it's very unlikely that a competitive hotdog eater would have that kind of information. The same goes for a hacker going by the name "Gabriel" who claimed to have uncovered he entire book by using a simple trojan email virus on a Bloomsbury employee, I highly doubt they even have the book on their computers there, incase someone does attempt something along those lines. Even if they did, you'd probably need to do some real fancy hacking to steal the book; I'm sure there's all sorts of encryptions on it. Moral of the story: competitive hotdog eaters probably don't have access to the kind of information known to only a few executives of the publishing company.Beep Beep Honk Honk 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is to keep the stuff out, as there is no way to verify it, and it is morally and legally questionable. But people only have to notice the numbers of soldiers who get killed by 'friendly fire' to realise that things go wrong despite the best efforts of people to keep a lid on them. There is a paradox here, trying to keep hidden something which also has to be massively distributed very quickly. Sandpiper 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been tons of rumors about each of the three dying, there are only a few people, like Rowling and her editors, artists, etc, who have an advanced copy, why the heck would he have it?-Mbatman72 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler posted at Hot Dog eating contest July 4th, 2007 

message: Just looking ahead, once the book is released on July 21, there are a couple of sections that are going to look out of place - What is known about the plot and After Deathly Hallows. I suggest that someone create a seperate article where these 2 sections can go and add a summary and link in this page. that way, neither the content nor the relevance will be lost after the release of book 7. --Kalyan 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But T-Dot will not be the only one on wiki-break. I suppose all of the core editors of this article will be on a break for at least 24 hours after release. Has somebody already volunteered to police the article from vandalism during that period? I don't think so. I am a favour of a complete lock on the article during the first 24 hours after release, but not longer. Some speed-readers will be able to put a first synthesis of the book here. Further fine-tuning will happen in the days-weeks-months following that. AberforthD 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Aber above me, I think we should put like a super-protection on this article for at least 24 hours after the book is released, if not 48 to combat speed readers and trolls. I agree with T-Dot that it's more important what happens in the long run as far as editing and such, but why let an article that so many have worked hard to clean up and keep vandalism free go to hell in a handbasket a minute after midnight on July 20th? If we're not going to bother upkeeping the article, and the various related articles that will inevitably be changed by the book's release right after the book is released why should we bother upkeeping it now, or at all? Well, that's really all my thoughts on why we should put a lock on the entire article after the book's release, not saying that we're not doing enough to keep the article all nice and neat or anything like that, I just think that we should heighten the amount of restrictions on the article shortly after the release, or at least keep the restrictions we have now.Beep Beep Honk Honk 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty with locking the article is the issue of truth: it will no longer be a good article, because there will exist a whole raft of new information about it, the minute the book is published. Never mind speed reading, some bright spark is sure to go straight to the last chapter. The thing is, it is not really reasonable to preclude that person from updating the article in a sensible way, because they would be improving the article if they are editing sensibly. Having said that, the issue of staggered book releases does mean we really ought to keep the article in its more or less current state until after the last time zone has the book released. Can't say what the rest of the internet will be doing, which just might mean that this high-minded discussion is rather irrelevant. Anyone with any sense who does not want to find out the ending will absolutely not be looking up anything about HP on the internet after publication. Never mind avoiding the national news, and the neighbours. And then on the third hand, it is going to be volunteers policing this article against vandalism who probably will not know details of the new story, and if they are here at all, not people who have followed the series. It will be admittedly difficult to decide whether something added is true or false unless it is grossly outrageous. I'm just glad I shall be reading it in English. Having to avoid news for months while waiting for it to be published in a foreign language will be very trying. Sandpiper 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea! Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Even so, we could/should have a vote or something like that to decide what to do about the article, be it super-protection, a bare bones "boilerplate" article, or something completely different. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that fancy looking "vote section" thing with all the collums and such either. Also we should find like a wikigenius who knows how to make all sorts fancy stuff, such as the boilerplate article we might be making, in case we do.Beep Beep Honk Honk 02:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know this was possible on Wikipedia, but it sounds like a good idea. But I am still in favour of a complete lock for the first few hours after release, say 24 hours. It is better to have a slightly outdated article than a vandalised article. Remember this is not a news medium. AberforthD 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  During the day of release, I'm 99% positive there will be a link to this page on the front page of wikipedia. What this'll mean is there will be lots more people looking , both positive and negatively. If anyone goes looking on the page, well, they'll just have to deal with any spoilers. Also, with time zone changes and speed readers, nothing more than a semi-protection should be required, and even that might be a bit of an overkill. As to the site as it is now, well, I've been in favor of archiving the entry for future  use, it is quite interesting. We should have some kind of a name in place, however... Tuvas 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we are confusing two different things here: Placing spoilers or vandalising the article. Spoilers are allowed as far as I am concerned from the minute the book is released in the UK (i.e. even before the USA starts releasing it). Indeed anybody who looks up the page after release should be expecting spoilers, but they should also expect it to be formatted between SPOILER templates. That requires a bit of supervision which I don't expect to be around at that time. I am more concerned about real vandalism. The casual reader who wants to know what all this Harry Potter hype is all about should not be confronted with a page that opens with "Harry Potter sucks. He will burn in hell". Let's just keep the page as it was just before release in the UK (01:01 UTC) plug in the agreed upon "after-release template" as proposed by T-Dot" and give it free for editing (by registered users) 24 hours thereafter. AberforthD 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what some have been referring to as "placing spoilers" is the trolling art of running around slapping sensational things like XXXXX KILLS YYYYY!!!! and ZZZZZ DIES!!!! prominently at the top of (or buried in them somewhere) articles which may or may not be directly related to that particular spoiler, as was commonly done in the days and weeks after HBP was released.  We'll still have to quietly deal with such trolling vandalism (remembering not to feed them though).  The guidelines about spoilers within literary articles has shifted hard to the left in the last few weeks, to the extent that most of the spoiler warning templates have been banned and removed, with the reasoning that no reader would come to look at a just-released book article and not expect to see something that spoils the plot.  What we do have to do is provide a sensitive way of presenting those plot spoilers in a way that those not looking for them won't be shocked as soon as they open, for example, the Main page on the day of (or the days after) the release, should it be decided that this article is "front page material".  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It definetly needs a lockdown, tons of people are going to rush here after midnight and rewright the page with the big spoilers, I agree with T-dot, if that is possible.-Mbatman72 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  looking ahead 

message: A change may be necessary to the bit about the final word of the book - according to Rowling herself in an interview on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross (July 6th), the final word in the book is no longer "scar". Asked by Ross to reveal the new final word, she refused. I'd edit it myself on this page, but being newly-registered, I can't.
Also, in the same interview, she confirmed that more than two characters die, and described it as a "bloodbath" before correcting herself. Oxide2 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up.  Actually the reference to "scar" as the last word was deleted yesterday.  If you want something posted regarding Rowling changing the last word, then could you please get us a link to a reliable online source to confirm it?  Verifiability is required for posting such information, and we'll need a bulletproof reference before we post it.  This is an example of why the article is protected - to avoid edit wars and reversions over unconfirmed information.  Thanks again.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember seeing the story as a headline on Yahoo! but it's not there anymore. I did a search however, and an article came up. I don't know how to cite it (or anything for that matter), but I hope this helps. Beep Beep Honk Honk 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A suitable source has been found that covers both the original notion that "scar" was to be the last word ("ages ago"), and that it is no longer the case, in this BBCreport.  Thanks to Antilochus for providing it and updating the article appropriately.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Word Changed 

message: Is it odd that this article has more information than any other Harry Potter book article, and this book hasn't even been released yet? jj137Talk 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  This is more or less what the other books' articles looked like in the weeks leading up to their respective release dates.  It will be concentrated after July 21, I'm sure. Phoenix1304 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddity 

message: A statement according to J.K. Rowling suggests that she isn't confirming or denying a 8th harry Potter Book? Any suggestions whether this statement is legit to be placed into the article? [] Empty2005 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  Otherwise you could have a statement in every article about every book speculating on a sequel.  All she's doing here is making sure she doesn't look stupid if she ultimately decides to return to the universe.  Remember Steve Redgrave's "shoot me if I ever go near a boat again" comment? --Dave. 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, chances are she won't write an 8th Harry Potter book. jj137Talk 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Say never? 

message: Emma Thompson isn't coming back, shouldn't that be put in there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film