Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Edit request on 26 December 2011

Change where it says "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows received positive reviews to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2received universal critical acclaim." There are two sections; one at the top of the page and oe near the bottom of the page under Reception. The reason why is because universal critical acclaim and positive reviews are two VERY different things. Both good things, but still change it to universal acclaim because that's what it used to say and now that it doesn't, for some reason, it's pissing me off.


Fluffymoose (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Universal" is a slippery term. It literally implies 100 percent approval, and I don't think any movie has gotten that. "Widespread" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is currently under discussion in the section above; it will be changed once there is a consensus regarding the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
From the ratings given in the "reception" section, it's perfectly obvious that it did NOT get "universal" acclaim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it said universal acclaim before, with those same reviews written underneath it. So why did wikipedia, just out of the blue, decide to change it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.120 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Likely because it someone noticed it and decided that universal was not the best term. Looking at the discussion its clear that there is a consensus against using that term.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Any film that is rated a 90% or above is critical acclaim. Anything in the 80s is very positive. Anything lower to a 70% is generally positive. Since the Goblet of Fire scored an 87% there is no reason to consider it critical acclaim when the Deathly Hallows part 2 scores a 96% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.27.132 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Whatever, just get rid of the edit block and at least put widespread critical acclaim. Because it is considered one of the best reviewed films of the year, and typically, films that are some of the best reviewed films of the year should be recognized by more than just saying it got positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A point I make in a post in a different section on this page: A good horror-thriller or fantasy film or modest little indie, for example, may get great reviews by the majority of critics for what it is, but are they really comparing it with High Noon or Raging Bull? Does the 100 percent for the Harry Potter movie here mean that it's as good as or better than Citizen Kane? So short of saying "universally positive reviews for the kind of movie it is," saying "positive reviews" is both neutral and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards Table

The awards nominations and wins that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" received from group critics have been removed from the table. Why?

And by the way, can someone add the nominations received from The Visual Effects Society? They have already released the list for next cerimony award on their official website. --ClovisPE 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this edit? The summary explains all - and why your suggestion probably won't be added, under the same reasoning. a_man_alone (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Visual Effects Society have announced their winners. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" was nominated for five awards, but did not win a single award. [1]

Please make the suitable modifications to the Awards table.

Thanks. 59.184.171.84 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done: they're showing as nominated rather than pending. Unless you're suggesting the VES awards should be removed from the table entirely? —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When I saw it last, the nominations were shown as 'pending', which is why I requested that the necessary changes be made. Also, my comment DOES NOT suggest even in the slightest manner that the VES Awards should be removed from the table (just because HP failed to win even a single award). 59.184.166.213 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To all Editors here is a request for edit, please can a editor add and edit on the award table that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 won "Blockbuster of the Year, People's Choice Award" at the 2012 "Evening Standard British Film Awards" in February 2012. The informatiom is found on Evening Standard official website, here is link to the website, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/film/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-takes-best-film-at-evening-standard-film-awards-7315724.html. It won't let me edited this information on the award table. Thank you. March 2012, 10:47AM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.104.224 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable awards

As several discussions on various WP:FILM article talk-pages have ascertained, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to awards tables. Under this guideline, we don't list every single regional or film-group award. I would suggest there's nothing particularly notable about the St. Louis or the San Diego film-critics' groups — those cities aren't major film centers like Los Angeles or Toronto, nor critical media / cultural centers like New York. There are probably two dozen regional film-critics' groups, including such bastions of culture as Oklahoma and mid-central Ohio; it's indiscriminate and cluttering to fill an awards table with such non-notable awards and nominations. Regarding the Virgin Media Awards: Aside from the fact there's no article for them, any corporation can declare they're going to give awards. That doesn't make them the Oscars.

So we don't list every single minor regional or film-group award. The question then becomes, What do we list? And that is worthy of discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If the film was nominated and or won, then it should be noted in this table, and i don't mean to be rude by this, but what makes you decided on what award is notable or not... B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Listing every award would get unwieldy. If there's no threshold for notability, then if an elementary school named it best film of the year, it would go in the table. That's an extreme case, but the point is that listing major awards is one thing, but listing every award would turn the article into a list of indiscriminate information—and that's something Wikipedia is not. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
But since there was recipients for the awards should surly make them notable... B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I couldn't understand what above sentence means. In any event, I'm not deciding anything — that's the whole point of starting a discussion ... so that everyone's who interested can come here and we can reach a consensus together. The one guideline we do have to work under, however — and this isn't me, this is Wikipedia — is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a look at what has been removed, but obviously international (Golden Globes) and national (Oscars, BAFTAs, Cannes) awards are easily notable enough to be included. With corporate and regional awards I would say it is basically a WP:WEIGHT issue; I would say there a couple of criteria for assessing this: did someone notable attend the ceremony and receive the award, and is the result reported in a third-party reliable source? If the answer to both of those are yes, then I think that is a strong case for inclusion. If you still can't agree, or believe there are just too many to cover, then I recommend just summarizing the main awards in this article and adding a full list at Theatrical run of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and turning that article into the Reception of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. We faced a similar problem with the box office section getting too big, so we can deal with this the same way. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It's mostly been regional film-critics groups: Mid-central Ohio, Denver, Houston, Oklahoma... See first post in this section. Also things like the Virgin Media awards, which seems like corporate promotion and not a) an accredited industry group like SAG, Society of VFX Artists, etc., or b) a longstanding recognized critics' group as with the Golden Globes or the NY Film Critics Circle, or c) the occasional, longstanding, culturally established private award like the MTV Movie Awards. These categories alone contain about three dozen organizations. I'm not sure the Washington, D.C., critics — two newspapers and a bunch of small-town community papers, for example — is notable in any larger, encyclopedic sense. As Betty says, it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Every other well recieved movie like Avatar and American Beauty has all of those small city awards. Why not this film?--108.67.233.143 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to remove them from those articles. We're all only human and there are thousands and thousands of film articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
OR we can just add them to this film. It'll be a lot easier...--108.67.233.143 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What's "easier" is not the point. What's encyclopedic and appropriate is the point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are its articles designed to be fan sites filled with trivia and minutiae. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
ok don't be a stupid jerk. You can't just simply add the Saturn Awards and Chicago Film Association Awards to the article? Or is that too much "trivia and minutiae"?--108.67.233.143 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To all Editors, here is a request for edit, please can a editor add and edit on the award table that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 won "Blockbuster of the Year, People's Choice Award" at the 2012 "Evening Standard British Film Awards" in February 2012. The informatiom is found on Evening Standard official website, here is link to the website, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/film/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-takes-best-film-at-evening-standard-film-awards-7315724.html. It won't let me edited this information on the award table. Thank you. 16 March 2012, 10:47AM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.104.224 (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A new editor who registered today, User:BrookDavid, who is a sock of at least two other accounts (See bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fluffymoose) again tried adding WP:INDISCRIMINATE bloat to the awards table. I have reverted this based on the discussion here and several other film talk pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking?

Can we please unblock this article? There many edits that's need to be done. And nobody is even discussing the problems they had that led to the block.--108.67.233.143 (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think there's an edit that needs to be made, you can request it here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You can post an edit request by clearly stating what you would like to change, in conjunction with the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Top 10 Lists?

Before removing this laundry list for having no encyclopedic value whatsoever, I'd like to request other editors' comments. A list of the top-10 lists with this movie reads like fannish trivia; it adds nothing to what the RT and Metacritic aggregate numbers and the selection of in-context critics' quotes say. It reeks of WP:PUFFERY, and if we can justify it for this movie, then why not do such a laundry list for every movie that lands on some top-10 list somewhere? This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and this list fills no scholarly, educational or serious reference-oriented need. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We certainly don't need a bulletted list, although it is interesting to know how the film was rated by prominent reviewers. This could be done in prose for reviewers who have Wikipedia articles i.e. "Lou Lumenick, Col Needham and Peter Travers all placed the film on their lists of the top ten films of 2011." Something along those lines would be sufficient I think. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps if something where a critic's #1 movie of the year. Otherwise this just invites clutter — there are probably 25 movies at least each year that appear on some notable critic or other's top-10 list. I'm just not sure how much it adds to the RT and Metacritic aggregates and contextualized quotes already there. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The top ten list should stay. It is an honor. Plus, every other film article has a top ten list section. Why not this one??--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
"An honor"?? We're not here to "honor" anything. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We have a critical-reception section that gives all the necessary information anyone needs for an encyclopedic understanding of how well a movie was received. Unless we're doing "top-10" placement laundry lists for every movie that appear on any top-10 list, there's no objective reason to single this movie out for special treatment. It's fannish WP:PUFFERY and it has no place in an encyclopedia.
If someone wants to call an WP:RfC on this, that's his right. But we do not simply add in whatever we feel like into an article without some rationale objective basis. Let's keep fannish trivia designed to "honor" the movie out of the article until and if there's ever a consensus to include it. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I've raised this at the Film Project here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Top Ten List

Why was the top ten list taken off of this article? There's no reason why it can't be there.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See the above discussion on that topic. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i read it but it still don't understand. So, all of the top 10 listings were taken down because they're not from big critics like Travers?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia does not indiscriminately enter information, because this is purely fannish, magazine-y material with highly limited if any encyclopedic value, and because it's puffery to inflate the article subject. There is no consensus to include such a list here or at any other movie. Harry Potter fans have to realize this is not a fan site. It's an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this has nothing to do with fans. A few top critics have voted this film in their top ten list, and it is logical to include the list of critics that have claimed the film on their list on the Wikipedia page. Every other film article has a top ten list, why not this one?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Citizen Kane, one of the world's most honored films, does not have a list of all the top-10 lists it's on. So I'm not sure how "Every other film article has a top ten list."
The Reception area is for a cross-section of critics' opinions and critical commentary, of which a list of top-10 lists that a film is on has none of that and more significantly adds nothing to the information about the overall reception that the film has received. It's just fannish puffery, and there is no consensus to include it. If you want to call for an RfC and see if the editors across WikiProject Film will say that a list of top-10 lists is absolutely necessary to include in this article, then you have the right to do that. But right now, adding it despite no consensus for it and many guidelines-based reasons not to is contentious and disruptive editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By the terms of your unblock, you are advised to seek wider consensus or advice if there is a disagreement over content, especially in contentious cases; several dispute resolution forums can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This means that you should not be adding disputed content to articles without a solid agreement from concerned editors here on the talk page. You have seen policy-based arguments as to why this information is not appropriate for this page. You have answered with, essentially, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are not a policy-based arguments. If other film articles have top ten lists like this, then perhaps this is an issue that should be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and we should have a good hard look at whether top ten lists have a place at those other articles. But as things stand, you do not have agreement from us for this article. User:Betty Logan has made a suggestion that you can consider. If you think that we are wrong and a wider range of editors might agree with you, try using Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as suggested. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, Elizium23 is referring to User:Norgizfox5041, who was blocked and then just unblocked on May 1, and not me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I tried to make a discussion on the talk page, but nobody bothered to discuss my questions, so i just went ahead to the article and made my edits. Also, may i say that when Citizen Kane came out, top ten lists weren't usually done. But they are done in 2011, and many 2011 film articles have a top ten list section.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As a tip, when discussing edits on a talk page, not only should you be citing policy whenever possible (as has been previously addressed here), but you should also be providing examples of other specific articles rather than just referring to "other film articles." Not that the presence in another article is necessarily precedent that would facilitate inclusion here, however it will likely make this discussion more fruitful and will likely be able to end much sooner. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, Aaron Booth. Anyway, like i said, many other films articles DO have a top ten list, whether it be universaly acclaimed films, or just well recieved films. For example: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Hugo, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Star Wars Episode IV, The Dark Knight, Happy Feet, Frost/Nixon, Funny Games, Raging Bull, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and so on and so forth. And so i ask: Why not this film?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to read bluelinked policy/guideline reasons, refuse to acknowledge that there is no consensus whatsoever for this, and can't understand that adding this as a contentious, disruptive edit has gotten you blocked, then there's no way to answer to your question. As for those other articles: Lists of top-10 lists that the movie appeared on do not belong there, either. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so what we do? Do we get rid of all of the top ten lists?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical Acclaim vs. Postitive Reviews?

This argument regarding the concensus of the reviews for this film has not been properly disputed. But everytime I try to revert it, someone changes it back. This ridiculous. There's a fine line between a film getting "positive reviews" and a film recieving "critical acclaim". There is NO reason why these imbiciles should be changing it to "positive reviews". Please stop this maddness.--108.67.233.143 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • "has received universal acclaim" means universal acclaim, therefore if everyone has not "acclaimed" the film, then the article cannot contain such language. On the other hand, as of this moment the article states: "received mostly positive reviews; as of January 2012 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an overall approval rating of 96% based on 269 reviews and an average score of 8.4/10" This is an accurate statement that correctly represents the sources provided.
The definition of "Universal" according to Webster's dictionary is as follows:
"
1 including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>
2
a : present or occurring everywhere
b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>
3
a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>
b : comprehensively broad and versatile <a universal genius>
4
a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable
b : denoting every member of a class <a universal term>
5 adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size)
"
-Aaron Booth (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, NO MOVIE is ever going to have absolutely 100% universal acclaim. Some critic is always going to not like film. So just cause you have one bad review to source here doesn't mean that it's not acclaimed. Please stop trying to downgrade this film..--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See you are misunderstanding. The dispute here is with the word "universal." On Wikipedia we report notable facts that are articulated in reliable third party sources, we do not make judgement on that material. "Universal acclaim" does not fit with Wikipedia guidelines, and common practice. However, "mostly positive reviews" does. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, i'm not sure if you're aware, but there are many other films with the title "universal acclaim". In any case, this film surpasses the status of receiving "mostly positive reviews".--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Universal acclaim is a marketing/advertising phrase. The current wording is accurate. At Wikipedia we don't make judgments about films or anything else of that matter, therefore just because it is "close" or "close enough" in the eyes of an individual editor, does not work here. See WP:NPOV, WP:WORDS, and MOS:FILM -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The film got "critical acclaim" according to The Telegraph, "a lot of critical acclaim" according to Rediff, and "massive critical and audience acclaim" according to the New York Post. As this is a contentious issue, I'll pause for other views, but as there are reliable sources for the critical reception of the film being "acclaim", and this is supported by the review aggregate sites, then would a statement such as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received critical acclaim" be acceptable? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper and we have to keep encyclopedic WP:TONE. I'm sure there have been newspapers calling some movie or other "Boffo!" or "A blockbuster! " That doesn't mean we have to use the same language.
A neutral tone is best, if for no other reason than good reviews for an action-adventure or most fantasy films are good reviews within that type of film. Just because Harry Potter might have 95% positive reviews doesn't mean it's 95% percent as good as Citizen Kane or On the Waterfront or Raging Bull. Those movies get critical acclaim continuing over the course of decades. Harry Potter and Mission: Impossible 3 get good reviews for the kinds of movies they are. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, however if a film received critical acclaim, then that is a fact outside of the type of film it is. I don't think we should be excluding certain films from the notion of critical acclaim simply because they are "fantasy films". And the term "critical acclaim" is standard usage in writing about books, music and film - it is the usual way of saying that a work of art was, well, critically acclaimed. See "Citizen Kane's critical acclaim" in Reconstructing American Historical Cinema: From Cimarron to Citizen Kane, "Citizen Kane opened to extraordinary critical acclaim" in Closely Watched Films: An Introduction to the Art of Narrative Film Technique, and "directed his first film, Citizen Kane, to near universal critical acclaim" in American Cinema of the 1940s: Themes And Variations. I agree that we should be cautious in utilising terms of high praise, but having checked that the high praise is warranted, accurate, and is used by reliable sources, then we would actually be misrepresenting the truth if we didn't use it. Suppressing the acclaim when it is true is as bad as including it when it is not true. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think you're making the same point I am. For a work that's stood the test of time and has been written about in critical studies and essays, as in your cites for Citizen Kane, then "critically acclaimed" is accurate. But getting good movie reviews isn't that the same as that. The popular press uses the term "critically acclaimed" too loosely, and "well-reviewed" is not the same thing. A review isn't critical analysis and study. I believe that an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the last word on something, should not use the term "critically acclaimed" as loosely as does the popular press.
And aside from that formal consideration, newspaper and magazine reviewers don't judge a genre film by the same standard as they do other films. It's misleading to suggest that a good review for an action film isn't a good review within those parameters only. Lots of people rightly love M:I3, but it's not a movie that in any way illuminates the human condition. It's only being reviewed as a good popcorn flick. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I can see that you are making a distinction between certain types of film and certain types of writers about films. I'm not sure if you're aware that respectable critics such as Kenneth Turan and Manohla Dargis did reviews of the film, and that François Truffaut was a film reviewer/critic. It's also worth remembering that Truffaut developed the theory of the auteur from the popular thrillers directed by Hitchcock and Howard Hawks. It can be tempting sometimes to make judgements, and to try to direct Wikipedia articles in a certain direction, but we must strive to remain neutral, especially when dealing with films we don't respect. The expression "critical acclaim" generally means that a work of art was well received by the critics who reviewed it. That is, the writers in specialist publications such as Empire Magazine, Cinema Autopsy, Film Journal International, Cinema Signals, as well as the newspapers both respected, New York Times, and popular, Daily Mirror. And there is also a difference between talking about a film's reception, to a film's legacy. And I suspect that you may be conflating the two. It is too soon to be talking about the film's legacy, so at this stage the article is talking about the film's reception. As someone who enjoys the films of Tarkovsky, David Lean, Kubrick and Kurosawa, this film is not for me, but I acknowledge and accept that as David Denby says: "It’s fine that children have a world in which ordinary objects—and some not so ordinary—are possessed of mighty significance, that they have a self-enclosed universe that is theirs alone." The film was acclaimed for what it is - a well made film for children, not for what it wasn't - an art film for adults. Each to their own, and let us reflect what the world is saying about the film, fully, honestly, and without prejudice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you on neutrality. And there is no more neutral phrase than "positive reviews."
It's POV to say this movie is "critically acclaimed." It got good reviews for what it is, but it's not Lawrence of Arabia, A Clockwork Orange or Seven Samurai. Clearly, you know those films — none of them are "art films"; neither is Citizen Kane. It's just art films that are critically acclaimed, as those are. I'm not sure you're suggesting the Harry Potter movies rank with any of those — and calling it "critically acclaimed" suggests just that.
Neutral: "positive reviews." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we do what they did for The Avengers, which had what Metacritic said about the film go first. They put: "According to the review aggregator website Metacritic, The Avengers has received "generally favorable" reviews and assigned the film an average score of 75/100 based on reviews from 17 critics." It's actally saying what a review site put on their site. Just an opinion. Guy546(Talk) 03:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Metacritic summation is already there: That site summarized the aggregate as "universal acclaim" even though it was only 87 out of 100. Illiterate though Metacritic may be, we do have its direct quote in the section. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so this film isn't phenomonal like Citizen Kane, but what makes films like Bridesmaids, Attack the Block, Zombieland, Toy Story 3, Super 8, Iron Man, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, How to Train Your Dragon "critically acclaimed" but not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about deletion, this is about a simple sentence that needs to be put in the article. Answer the question.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Your questions have been answered quite thoroughly here, including the last response by Elizium23 referring you to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you are unable to substantiate yourself with Wikipedian Policies, then there really is nothing further to discuss on the matter. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is not "critically acclaimed". But based on your discussion, neither are the other eight films that i just mentioned. So now i intend to change these films articles to say that they were only "well recieved". Am i correct?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Listen, let's all calm down. I think if there's such an argument going on about this, then it would be best if we just removed the wording entirely. It's not even very necessary in the first place, and it would bring a peacful consensus to all this. We'll just leave RT and MC to do the wording. Can anyone back me up? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to, and in fact it looks like this has been a stable issue for over two months now. Discussion here and at Talk:WikiProject Film has tended to favor the more neutral and less hyperbolic wording, which is what has been in place here. In fact, I think we can probably discuss whether to remove the neutrality tag that has been there since Dec. 2011. We should probably add a couple of reviews describing aspects of the film that didn't work so well, and then I think the neutrality issue will be moot. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried to improve the section by adding a more negative reviews. I don't think it's an issue now. Poppersocks (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Box office

Is the box office for two films or for one? E.g. budget is counted for two films, but there is no clearly info like in the budget case. Please add the info— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012‎

It seems fairly clear to me, from reading the footnote reference, that the box office gross is for Part 2 only. The budget is the only thing shared with Part 1 and it is adequately noted. What specific change did you have in mind for the article? Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cast of the film

I have noticed in previous articles as well, Warwcik Davis, Tom Felton and Julie Walters are always written, but in this particular case Kelly MacDonald, although credited as starring in the film is not on the list. I suggest we include her, as well as all the other actors credited as starring at the film's end credits, such as David Bradley, Mark Williams etc. (because actually Warwick Davis, Tom Felton and Julie Walter are credited together with them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.205.158 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you searched the archives? We have talked about this before. We have also talked about it on every other talk page of every other film in the series. See [2] for a recent one. Consensus is to limit the cast to what is shown in the article now. Also see here for a complete list: List of Harry Potter cast members. If you want to try to change consensus, then I suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012

I noticed a factual error in the budget listed for the film. The budget is listed at $250 million, and shared between Part 1. However, if you read the cited article, it makes no mention of the budget of either Deathly Hallows film, except stating it'd be less than Half-Blood Prince's $250 million budget, but more than Sorcerer's Stone's $125 million budget. Warner Brother's has not released the budget for this film. A search for the budget yields other websites who also incorrectly cited the article. If you've seen either films, you'd know that it's implausible that the combined budgets of the 7th and 8th film equal the sixth film's budget. 107.0.114.37 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The burden of providing the source is on you. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Check the source for the budget, and you'll see that the source makes no mention of a shared $250 million budget. There is no source providing a budget, as the studio has not released the budget. Therefore, it would be more accurate not to include a budget than the fabricated number included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.58.178 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

The number listed for the budget is a complete fabrication as the source provided for the budget makes no specific mention of the actual budget of the film. There has been no published budget given by Warner Brothers Studios. Hence, this number is purely speculative and should be treated as such; it is not to be taken as fact. 67.139.58.178 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. If no one objects within 24 hours I will remove it from both this article and the article for Part 1. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Protection of this page is now expired, if there is consensus for this change then please feel free to make it. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'll pick this one up and review over the next day or so: comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Cast: "Robbie Coltrane as... and a former staff at Hogwarts." Should be "former member of staff", or "former staff member"
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Music: "if it fit his schedule" is wrong and needs tweaking
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Marketing: Comma not needed after the dates in the first two sentences, (although there should be one between "released" and "revealing" in the first. I actually question the need for the para: have a look at WP:FILMMARKETING and decide on whether the section passes that rather low hurdle.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Release: Again comma not needed after the date (it's an American thing which we don't do in Britain, and this article is in BrEng, so it should comply really).
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Release: Are the list of countries needed? It seems to fail the release clause in MOS:FILM. The info for Jordan is out of date (and really isn't needed at all)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Release: "Theater", "Theaters" (and even theatre(s)) should be replaced throughout the article by cinema, as per WP:ENGVAR
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Release: "On 16 June 2011," again, the comma is not needed.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Home media: Again most commas after dates are not needed
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Home media: "By 18 July, 2012, " apart from the comma, the date is in an inconsistent format with the others
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Critical reception: As we're doing the review, we may as well update the RT date and number of critics. I'd avoid calling the quote a consensus: it's something written by RT and not a consensus per se
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Critical reception: A couple of commas after dates that are not needed again
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Critical reception: As per WP:ELLIPSES, you'll need to add   to ensure it doesn't break at the edge of some screens.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Box office: Seems very US-centric for a film made by a British production company with British actors and based on British book. I appreciate that it's an Anglo-US film, but this section seems as if this is primarily about the US, with passing reference to others, especially as the film had its world premiere in the UK and should therefore be dealt with first.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Box office: We use "the film" a lot here. Perhaps opening the paragraph with the film's name would soften that
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Box office: "the highest-grossing children's book adaptation in North America, outside North America and worldwide" I'm not sure what this means - perhaps it could be tweaked slightly
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Box office: Inconsistent date format: July 31, 2011
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    North America: "the highest-grossing XXX film". Why are some of the XXX parts italicised and some not? If there isn't a reson, then they should be consistent
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    North America: Another couple of WP:ENGVAR points here: 1) British English uses per cent, not the American percent; 2) "Friday-through-Thursday" should be "Friday to Thursday"
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    North America: "all three records first surpassed by Marvel's The Avengers". Do you mean "subsequently surpassed"? If not, then perhaps tweak for clarity
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Outside North America: 1) Same italics issue in the "the highest-grossing XXX film" format; 2) same per cent / percent issue
     Done percent, don't see any issue in the format here. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Outside North America: "On its opening day (13 July 2011)"? You should stress that this was not the opening day everywhere
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Outside North America: "This is about the same as what On Stranger Tides made". This sentence needs re-working
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    North America and Outside North America: With a profusion of records and amounts, these sections are both quite difficult to read in prose. It may be a better idea to list the records in table form and have an introductory paragraph to support the overall situation (much like you have done for the Accolades section).
    I'm unsure. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Accolades: Some US spellings in here that should be changed as per WP:ENGVAR ("Favorite" is the one that stands out the most)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    Infobox: shows 13 July 2011 as the international release date, but the film had its world premiere in the UK and a US premiere before then, so it would be more in keeping with WP:FILMRELEASE to show just the 7 July for the UK and 11 July for the US and nothing after that date.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    A. References to sources:
    fns 2, 27, 45, 82 and 122 are all dead
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fns" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry - my fault, I should have been clearer on the first one. FN is footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    I can access all of them here - [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Odd - they all came up as problematic on the check link device, and when I clicked through them. If they're working then that's great. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    fn 9, 36, 46, 55 and 61 are redirects to pages without mention of the film
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fn" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    46 mentions the Jordanian customs and the one next to it mentions the film. All of the others I have no issue viewing.
    fns 7, 53, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 108, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123 and 126 all have inconsistent date formats to the rest
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fns" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    (fn 100 also has Italics running through wrong sections)
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fn" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    While we're dealing with links: External Links: Official website link is a revert, so may as well tidy to the correct version and remove the Tide Art link - it adds little and fails WP:LINKVIO
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Casting: The first para relies on one source only, which refers only to Jamie Waylett. The replacing of the other actors from previous films needs to carry a cite
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    This isn't done yet, I'm afraid. There are five raw links now at footnotes 18—22 and these need to be sorted out. Additionally, footnote 21 is IMDB, notes 19 and 22 are from fansites and so are also unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Release: "The film had its world premiere on 7 July 2011 in Trafalgar Square in London". No cite to cover date or location (esp important as London premieres are normally in Leicester Sq: Trafalgar Sq has no cinemas)
     Done TFunk (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Production: The opening sentence is unsupported
     Done TFunk (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Sets: The info is all based on one source (fn 21 - Architectural Digest). However, the info comes from a number of different slides, all of whihc have different links. I think it would be better to link the info to the specific slide, rather than make the users hunt for it
    I am currently unable to access the page. If you could help with this one, I would be very thankful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Visual effects: The opening sentence is unsupported by the only cite in the para (which refers to Double Negative but not any of the other companies)
     Done - removed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Music: "However, Williams' score from the end..." needs a source (the dash in the film title needs sorting too)
     Done TFunk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Release: Release on 12 July into a number of countries isn't cited, although as per the above section, I would not shed tears if the list of locations disappeared
     Done – I just went ahead and removed this material. TFunk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Release: "On 16 June 2011, Part 2 received a 12A certificate" - unsupported
     Not done Supported by the source, "Classified date(s) 16/06/2011" - click "Full information". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    Can you source the sentence then? Having the info there unsupported will raise a question with some. I know the link is already in the article, but it's supporting the run time and not the classification. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Accolades: The list of accolades has a number of entries in there that are unsupported
    Reliability: fn20: "The Leaky Cauldron" and fn 26: "MuggleNet". What makes these WP:RELIABLESOURCES?
    I question these Potter fan sites as well. While "The Leaky Cauldron" source (now fn29) derives its information from a Total Film Magazine article, the "MuggleNet" source (now fn35) does not have any support.
     Done; removed the bit that MuggleNet supports. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    Link format: I like links in the footnotes and believe WP:OVERLINKING should be focussed on prose only, so I'm glad to see refs are linked. However there needs to be consistency: 70-73 (and 78) do not wikilink Box Office Mojo but 74-77 do. I'd suggest the easier route of ensuring everything that can be linked is linked. (There are others too, such as 86).
     Done TFunk (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    Descriptions: Keep consistent with descriptions too: Box Office Mojo is correct, but Boxofficemojo.com in fn95 sticks out. (The same is true of MTV and mtv.com (fn126))
     Done TFunk (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Mostly niggles, mostly around consistency and without any majorly substantive work needed, although you may need to rework the Box office section to ensure it is not so over US-centric. Drop me a note when you're done or if you've got any questions or issues about what I've done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    Quite a lot has been addressed now and I think that this is good to pass, or is almost good enough to pass. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment
Good work so far and it's nearly there. However, I'm afraid that some of the original issues are still there, and some new ones have been introduced, largely around the referencing:
Format:
  • Fn18, 19, 20, 55, 89, 90, 92-94, 99 and 101 are all inconsistent, in the short date format, rather than the long format
Dead links: see the toolserver report
  • fn 6 (businesswire.com)
  • fn 53 (moeys.net)
  • fn111 (Calgary Herald)
Links with issues:
  • Fn 20 is from the unreliable IMdB
  • fn33 (Warner Bros) Takes me to a home page and note in the ref—(NOTE: Click "Filmmakers", then "Alexandre Desplat")—means little as I can't see the link for filmmakers
  • fn11 (Rotten Tomatoes) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn43 (Yahoo! Movies) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn54 (AZCentral.com) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn64 (BFCA) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn70 (ABC News) No mention of Potter on the page
This should be the final batch if they can be sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All good now: excellent work on a lot of fiddly little fixes and certainly at GA standard. Well done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

UK opening weekend vs Prisoner of Azkaban

I believe it is inaccurate and misleading to claim Prisoner of Azkaban's £23.8 million gross as an 'opening weekend', since according to this and this, Prisoner of Azkaban grossed 'only' £9.5 million during the actual weekend ie. friday to sunday, with the rest coming from midweek showings, as the film was released in the UK on a monday. As this source states, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is really the largest opening weekend in the UK. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast members?

So where do the other cast members go? I had a heck of a time trying to find the name of the girl who played the young Lily Evans (Potter): Ellie Darcey-Alden. The main cast you can find left right and center everywhere. Am encyclopedia should supply the information one has to go look for, rather than what the birds are tweeting off the roof. So, if you don't want the cast members of the movie on the page for the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 it begs the question where they should be listed. BTW.: There is a hide/expand section option if your argument were that the page would get too cluttered. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want all the cast members in the film see List of Harry Potter cast members. We can't list all the cast members in the film on this page because the list would be too big. Guy546(Talk) 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gross

See Talk:Skyfall#Box_Office_Gross_Formatting for why it was changed from billion to million. SchroCat theWOLFchild

This film is as British as Skyfall, so pages should be consistent, surely? Charlr6 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can appreciate the change from billion to million in the article text, but that doesn't give you any right to change article titles inside ref tags. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) - OK You Boldly changed it. I Reverted. Now we Discuss before any further revisions are made, per WP:BRD. I'll start by asking why would you change this when you know you shouldn't have? The only reason you came here is because I mentioned it on another talk page about the same issue. This is part of that discussion. Nothing gets changed until consensus is established to do so. If anything, this is baiting behaviour. I also don't think we should split the debate to another article. If anything, this should be brought to WP: Project Film or WP:MOS. Or continue on at Skyfall. Let's not make this worse than it is. - theWOLFchild 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Because according to that talk page, even those who don't agree with it, there are polices for it and we must follow it. So surely should just accept that sadly and get it done instead of arguing? Charlr6 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There are exceptions, references being one of them. Per Elizium23, source titles should not be altered even if they use a different variant of English or have spelling errors etc. For instance, we would not change "color" to "colour" in a source title for an article in British English, nor would you correct i.e. "collor" to "color" for example. This is an important convention so that people can track down the print source (and obviously it just carries over to online sources). Also, if you do a simple "find and replace" search you need to be careful because "the ninth film to gross over $1 billion" was changed to "the ninth film to gross over $1 million". Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
that was my bad as slightly harder to tell in edit page. But overall, exact same situation. If it is relevant one place, it is relevant here and any other similar pages otherwise it is all hypocricy Charlr6 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)

Suggestion to delete previous & current record holders

I'm afraid there's no significance to have such a "previous/current holder" column. Each of those records may have a particular holder and can be broken in the future. It's troublesome to turn back and refresh the names every time when a film sets a new threshold for an item, especially when such a format may be duplicated and present on all other film pages. Simply having the statistics of this movie itself is enough. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 17:22 on 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree; article should be written with a long-term view. It is sufficient to say which records it broke and whether it still holds that records. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

The Play Adaptation cannot be adapted on a film "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Can you please add Bonnie Wrights name to the starring list. She is one of the main characters and should be on. Mille2005 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2/Archive_2&oldid=1165285149"