Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

New Total Sales

Deathly Hallows has sold 72.1 million books WORLDWIDE.

So why is it written 11 million?? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia424ecde35cd0d81dd5c1ec8fb1c09f6

89.243.181.133 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed here before, but it may have been archived. 72.1 million was reported already after the first weekend of sales which is an extremely unlikely figure that has never been confirmed. Thus, we're sticking with the 11 million bit for now. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

After muddling around the History page for a few minutes with no success, I would be very appreciative if somebody could provide me with a historical link to this page before the novel had been released, when it still consisted of headings like "Information revealed by Rowling" etc. Thanks. -68.164.229.236 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This version was protected for a time about a day before release, and avoids most of the pre-release (and post release) spoilers, trolling, vandalism, and speculation. There are plenty of similar and reasonably uncontaminated versions nearby that version as well. Hope that helps. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews and reception

I have read a lot of negative reviews about this book from a critical stand point, so I just want to ask if I add some of those reviews will the be instantly deleted by the full force of Harry Potter fans? The fans loved it, but from a literary and critical standpoint reviews haven't been as pure in their praises. JayKeaton 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is to give both positive and negative critical reactions. I don't believe in censorship in any form, especially to protect what many consider sacred. As long as it's a fair and balanced representation of both sides, I say include it. Even though I loved the book, I'd like to know what the negative comments were. PNW Raven 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

see new debate forming below, but my view is the article needs considerably more comment on both sides of the fence. Sandpiper 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that i'm a huge massive Harry Potter fan but was disappointed in the book..J.K Rowlings' last chapter in book 7 spanned about 7 pages (don't correct me if i'm wrong please),in which was hastily crammed a lot of random ideas,and only talked about what happened to a few characters,I aswell as many Harry Potter fans think the book didn't properly end off..Could we put a paragraph detailing the 'fans disappointment'? clcheung 10:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Wongdai

I think that would original research, unless it were phrased in terms of poor sales (which hasn't happened), negative critical reviews (already in article, balanced with positive), or a comment by Rowling herself. Anyway, your disappointment may be temporary; Rowling did say (in the Brown interview, see references) she may write an encyclopedia based on all her notes etc. So we may hear more about our favorite characters some day. Ariadne55 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bible Quotes

The book contains Bible quotes - a first in the Harry Potter saga - but does not cite chapter or verse. For those who would like to know: "Where your treasure is, your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21. "The last enemy to be destroyed shall be death." I Corinthians 15:26.

This should be in the article. It is easy to state this without drawing conclusions. Just state it as information for the reader of this article. Carcharoth 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. There is no reason why this information should not be in the article. Erudil 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The source of the quotes is already listed on the Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues page and that seems the most appropriate spot for it. We wouldn't want the Deathly Hallows page to get cluttered with information that is better organized elsewhere. Ariadne55 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought cristians (or was it cathlics?) discourage harry potter because it encourages witchcraft and wizardary?And if they do then why is it in the bible?Why can't they make a new edition of the bible?Also if J.K.Rowling new that christions/or/cathlics discourage harry potter then why would she put the quotes:Where your treasure is, your heart will be also. Matthew 6:21 and The last enemy to be destroyed shall be death.Corinthians 15:26?(these qoutes are from the bible.)Sylvan wu 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Rowling does not allow the foolishness of fanatics to influence her. Erudil 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Das Baz (talk • contribs).

well yeah thats true!Sylvan wu 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, try to remember to not bite the newbies, DasBaz. Look at the new user's contributions - (s)he is brand new and shiny. They may be inappropriate in expressing those views here, but that's an opportunity to help them along, not smack them with the editorial equivalent of a ball-peen hammer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I came on too strong and bitter. I meant no disrespect to Sylvan wu. I only wished to enlighten her (or him) about anti-Rowling fanatics. Hope this is more helpful. The quote I Corinthians 15:26 is on the Potter tombstone. The quote Matthew 6:21 is on the Dumbledore family tombstone. What does this indicate? That the Potters are Christians, the Dumbledores are Christians, and Ms. Rowling is a Christian. Anyone who claims that she promotes Wicca is seriously misinformed. Anyone who claims that she promotes Devil-worship is just plain insane, with all due respect. Please remember that many Christians enjoy reading Harry Potter. Anti-Potter fanatics are relatively few in numbers. Also, we can be sure that even the most extreme fanatic will not go as far as to alter the Bible to eliminate Biblical passages that are quoted by Ms. Rowling. Conversely, Ms. Rowling will not change her writings because of criticism from fanatics. My view, for the record, is that Harry Potter is a good man and certainly Christ-like in some ways. Erudil 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(And my signature got changed from Das Baz to Erudil somehow. This was not intentional on my part, but a result of my lack of skill in computer programming. Erudil 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Das Baz (talk • contribs).

People can quote the Bible without being Christians. The Bible, especially the King James version, can be appreciated simply as literature and poetry. We don't know what religion the Potters and the Dumbledores were, or even if everyone in those families was the same religion. Ariadne55 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone may quote from the Bible. But if you arrange to have a New Testament quote on your tombstone, it is 100% certain you are a Christian, or at least you want people to think you are one. Erudil 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

Or they may have found a pretty bit of poetry or a phrase that resonated and decided to use it, without regard to the source. We don't know why Rowling chose those phrases. Ariadne55 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ask her. But I do not believe anyone would quote from the NT on their tombstones just because it sounds "pretty." Erudil 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

Why not? I would and I'm definitely not Christian (nor do I belong to any other religion). "Where your treasures lie, your heart shall be also" sounds real cool to me and I would quote it if it was from the Bible, the Koran or any other book. --Burek 09:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But would you quote it on your tombstone? It is clear, at any rate, that it is not just "pretty" sounding, but indeed a very profound bit of wisdom. By the way, the vice versa is also true: Where your heart is, your treasure will be. Erudil 16:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya'll have just wasted half of this page guys its harry potter we are talking about it has nothing to do with the bible just lay off who ever started this is an idiot im a huge fan of harry potter. i dont think anyone knows more than i do ask me question if you would like and i will answer it on here on this page okay. user24562456236 Chris Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.20.149 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Death List Necessary

Considering that the book is a virtual bloodbath of major characters, I think that a list of "casualties" is more than warranted. Considering that Pettigrew, Snape, Fred, Moody, Tonks, Lupin, Dobby, and...whoever else died, the fact that you can actually lose track of the number of dead main characters is a testament to how badly a list is needed...were all major characters and have been in the series for a minimum of three books, seven in the case of many characters, a list is warranted. 21:04, 13 August 2007 User:209.169.97.84

There was such a list: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter. This list is now in http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_deaths . Anthony Appleyard 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. the list of deaths was unencyclopedic for the article and was deleted as a seperate list at AFD twice. Will ^(talk) 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need to keep in mind as well that it does not all depend on how important these deaths are in the book series, but we also need to think of their universal importance. If you think of thing universally, it might help to decided what should and shouldn't be considered fancruft.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There might be a good case for a 'death' list in the series article, but not the individual book articles. Carcharoth 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with linking to the article on Wikia in "External links". --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I posted this before: by now three people have asked me exactly who died. This specific information is way up there in the list of things the public wants to know about this book. Why would articles deliberately exclude information the public wants about a topic, that's daft. Sandpiper 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They're more than free to read the plot section. ' 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but some people don't want to read the entire plot section just to find out who dies. 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs).

What?

What happened to the section I added about what was known before the book was published? It was very beneficial to this page! I won't start an edit war, but I hope it is replaced soon. Dewarw 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was removed here See edit summary for who and why. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dewarw just added it back, and I have removed it again. The sections in question were part of the article before the book was released. Those sections presented everything that was known at the time about Book 7: plot strands unresolved after the first six books, and hints Rowling had provided. Although copiously sourced, those sections became obsolete as soon as Book 7 was released. We don't need a section called "Unresolved plot elements from previous books," because we now have a plot section that explains how they were resolved. We don't need the hints that Rowling dished out in advance, because we now have something better—the book itself. Marc Shepherd 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I stand by what I think. The section would add to the article because it is interesting as we now know the outcome to see what was thought/predicted beforehand. However, I am willing to admit defeat and will not press the matter further. If anyone can see a way of incorporating the info into this/another/a new article, please let me know. Dewarw 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the article needs a little polishing here and there. But I also think dewarw is correct. There ought to be a section mentioning the pre-release hype and speculation amongst fans. This was one of the most remarkable things about the launch of this book. Sandpiper 10:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Sandpiper." Do others think that something should be added? As I said, I do not want to start an edit war! Dewarw 10:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a very few paragraphs, in a special pre-release section, documenting some of the notable pre-release fandom hype, faked (or at least unauthorized) "spoilers" and alleged leaks, the "status" of the characters as of the end of Book 6 (uncertain loyalties, whether Dumbledore was really dead, etc.), the elusive interview comments from Rowling, and also the rampant predictions from fans which are (hopefully) well-documented somewhere. It seems to me the duty of an encyclopedia to focus more on "the big picture" regarding the book as a significant cultural global phenomenon during it's writing during 2006, and publication and release in 2007, and less on the shocking!, stunning!, and amazing! plot summary itself. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Minister of/for Magic

Regarding a recent edit somebody made to the title of the Minister, I believe it's "Minister for Magic" in the British edition, but "Minister of Magic" in the American edition. *Dan T.* 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it always been like that? I've never heard of this difference before, strangely.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't either. But Dtobias is correct. It is called the Minister for Magic in England, and therefore we follow suit. i ^said 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've changed it to 'Minister for Magic' at least once. Somebody must keep changing it back.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that though there is no textual difference between the adult and kid editions, there is at least one difference (maybe there are more) between the British and American editions. Probably not as many as there were between the Philosopher's Stone and the Sorcerer's Stone, but still enough to point out in The Annotated Harry Potter when that comes out. 64.107.2.64 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) The Atlantic Ocean is deep and wide, but there is no pre-eminence of an adult over a kid. Erudil 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Das Baz (talk • contribs).

These are just the usual minor translations that are normally made when preparing a British book for American publication and vice versa. Turning them into annotations would be pointless. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Sidaway here. To do so is to suggest we should also address the different spelling of words like 'instalment' vs 'installment' and so on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether you like it or not, someday there will be scholarly annotated editions that will point out even the smallest spelling variations. Erudil 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

It is not unsigned: Erudil is also my signature. Erudil 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)

Okay, we seem to be arguing over Crit. Recep. again

Last time I cleared out the Crit. Recep. section I shortened it and made it more balanced (e.g. writer's from different countries). I also chose the crit. recep. entries that were equal in length. One important thing to note is: Just because they are a well known author (Such as Stephen King) does NOT mean they may are allowed more space. Everyone's crit. recep. opinion should be counted as the same. Everyone's opinion is equally as valid. We are not looking for giant paragraphs of information from writer's. Just the "meat" of how they feel about the book. Now, what do other's think of this (Specifically the size of King's quote in the Crit. Recep. section.)? Scarian^Talk 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see why the section on critical review of the book can be regarded as too long. It is very short. I added the king info, but I have absolutely no objection to adding others comments to balance it. In fact, this is what the section needs, more people with distinct comments to make about the book. I'm also not sure what you mean by balancing comments from different countries: surely the point is to make a balance representing what overall has been said. So if 100 hate it and 2 love it, that would be what we reflect. Not quoting one from each country. Similarly, the word count given to each commentator rather depends upon what they have to say, not on a principle of giving them 100 words each. It would be biased reporting to arbitrarily make entries from different persons exactly the same length. One of the main points King was making was very pertinent to exactly this argument: he was saying that various reviews were too superficial. perhaps rather more depth is needed, which is not to say that I think comments from a particular reviewer should be padded out if they have nothing more to say.

But basically, this article needs a lot more sourced comment of what others think about this book. Normally I am arguing for retaining a robust plot description (see my comments above), but in this case the glaring omission is what others have to say about it. Often it is difficult to obtain this, but this is a very high profile book and the material is available. Why is it not in the article? Sandpiper 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Sandpiper said about the balanced reporting, Commentary from different countries doesn't provide balance (believe me on this - I personally witnessed the angry swarm of pro-Iran trashing the movie 300, citing the Iranian gov't's freakout about the protrayal of Persians). Two problems present themselves: first, the book hasn't been released worldwide as of yet. Secondly, we categorize those reviews and commentary from English language sources - this is the English language wiki, after all. We add what we can vrify, and is notably and reliably sourced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article locked, so can some do quick and simple edit for me please?

I've changed the HP7 page to a disambig page so that this notice:

“HP7” redirects here. For the UK postal code, see HP postcode area

at the top can be removed - I think it's unnecessarily intrusive. Ta. --82.148.54.182 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Why did HP7 redirect here in the first place? It's hardly a verifiable abbreviation. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that HP1 -> HP7 direct to the relevant Harry Potter Books. To be honest, it makes sense to me; more sense than directing them all to the HP Postcode article. Regardless, either HP7 should be de-disambig'd, or HP1 -> HP6 need to have the same done to them. _TheIslander 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the folk who originally assigned the HP redirects are either not around to discuss this, or aren't really going to want to undo their efforts to make HP7 and whatnot the only HP acronym that matters, we are going to have to go through and remove the DAB references, esp since Sidaway already rendered most of them obsolete (I nominate him for the job, btw :P). This should be addressed ont eh wikiproject page, so that it can happen in all of the Harry Potter-related articles where the acronymic references occur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. I see from the history on the HP7 page there's even been a bit of an edit war about this! ;)--82.148.54.182 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another simple edit: In the epilogue summary, someone comments upon Teddy still going to Hogwarts at age 19. He's actually not on the train, as the article currently states, but just there to see Victorie off. 18.239.7.213 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

Why there is no plot spoiler warning? Also, in an article about a book, is it necessary to give such a detailed outline. If you have read the book, you wouldn't read it; if you haven't read it, you will avoid such a spoiler. If you do not care about harry potter, you will not visit this page. So, who on the earth will read it, save a few Wikipedians? I think the whole content must be taken out. A small sentence like The topic of the book is the adventures of Harry Potter and his friends against Voldemort. Thanks Caglarkoca 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, Spoilers pretty much obsolete, due to a lot of lobbying against their usage in an encyclopedia. I'm of two minds on the issue, but there it is. Lemonade from lemons. Instead, I've placed a 'current fiction' tag on the article, so that folks not wanting to know will know that substantial details are about to be released. Hope that alleviates your issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed, and I agree with its removal. The book has been released for a month. If you don't know the ending by know, then I doubt you are one who doesn't want it spoiled. i ^said 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a tag for "recently released works". Not "works that have yet to be released in Luxembourg". You're the one adding it. The onus is on you to discuss it. ' 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Articles on works of fiction that contain plot summaries are always assumed to include plot spoilers. Use of plot spoilers warning banners once littered most articles on works of fiction, and it has since been considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and they have been largely removed by consensus. The spoiler warning style guidline reflects the current consensus views on handling spoilers and spoiler warnings. Some highlights:

• In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. For purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is generally avoided unless a plot spoiler appears in a truly unexpected place. Because the overuse of spoiler warnings can have a damaging effect on article organization, they should be used sparingly, in such cases where consensus demonstrates the need for their use.
• Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading, or fictional "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional, since spoilers are to be expected in a plot summary. If readers can easily deduce what is to be covered within a titled section, then there is no need to insert additional warning tags. If a section is not explicitly tagged as a plot section, and it contains an unexpected spoiler, consider whether the article can be improved by better section titling.
• Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information. If a "Themes" heading starts with a plot description, the best thing to do is break the plot description into a separate heading. If there are no headings, it is usually better to add them.
• Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should only contain spoiler warnings around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across.

--T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So as to not edit war, I won't remove the current fiction tag. However, this book is over a month old. It is hardly current. As for not being released everywhere, where hasn't it been released? i ^said 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All of that is nice, but concensus in wikiproject literature has been to use current fiction tags until the new book has been released for a sufficient period of time. As this fairly popular book has not had woldwide release (target date is mid-Spetember eastern Europe and Asia), the fiction tag should remain. the tag isn't for whiny Englishmen and Yanks who cannot read road signs. It is to preserve the copyright of the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(and I apreciate the non-edit-warring :) ) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So was it released in only English speaking countries? And what is "a sufficient period of time"? A month seems reasonable to me. And how does copyright play into here? If it plays in at all, it matters to the length and detail of the plot summary, not whether or not we warn people of spoilers. i ^said 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Preserve copyright of the subject"? What? The English version has been released for a month. That's all the English Wikipedia should be concerned about. ' 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's two weeks until it is released in other countries. What's 14 days? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Two weeks until it's released where, specifically? i ^said 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would the specificity matter? Look, I am not arguing for the tag to replace the spoiler tag, but for a newly released book, a bit of a wait is called for. At least two countries that I know of are Hungaria and Thailand. I think the Philippines hasn't seen it yet, as my neighbor has had to ship a few copies to her sisters in Manila and Luzon (thw two larger cities there). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we supposed to be concerned about those countries? Many, many works of fiction never make it out of English countries. Or even from Britain to America. Are we supposed to slap tags on them all? ' 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an ordinary book. It has been translated into almost as many languages as the Bible. Its an unusual sitation, calling for a bit of an extension. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see why release in other countries should influence what the English Wikipedia does. The tag is "recently released work", not "work not yet released in non-English speaking countries". ' 00:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It matters because your claim for inclusion is that it has not been released everywhere. If in two weeks it has not been released everywhere, then I do not support leaving it there until then, because it would give precedent that it can stay until it's released everywhere. And in effect the newly released book tag is a spoiler tag for new books. The tag was justified for a while, since this is a major, major book release. However, it has been out for a month. If you haven't read it by now, then you're probably not one who is going to be bothered by spoilers. And finally, this is the English Wikipedia. From the examples you gave, I see none that are English speaking countries. As such, they probably wont come to en for info on this book. i ^said 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the tag being there after 45 days, either. Just out of curiosity, where is this 30-day number coming from? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The book was released the 21st of July. It is now the 24th of August. So, give or take three days, it has been out for a month. i ^said 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Arcayne that you haven't really provided a source for the info your providing. HP7 could be released worldwide, it could not be, but this disscusion could be ended a whole lot sooner if you could provide a website or something that says that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows hasn't been released in some part of the world.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me look for it. Btw,no one answered my question. Is there some sort of policy basis for the 30 days people have been utilizing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:37, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Oh you mean thirty days as the cutoff for the tag, not how long the book has been out. I was wondering... Anyway. A month seems sufficient to me. i ^said 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. And not to be persnickety, I was wondering if you were noting a policy that cited the time limit on the tag, or were just going off the guy. I ask because I am sure this isn't going to be the last time this sort of question arises, and it would be good to know where it comes from. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this book is special. It is translated to about 60 languages and there are a lot of people who do not know enough english to understand the book but their english might be enough to understand the plot spoiler. Why do you want to keep such a content in such situation. The content is not even encyclopedic. Which encyclopedia includes two-page-long summaries? The summary of the other books at this length might be helpful to people who may want to refer to these summaries to understand the 7th book better. But such a summary at this time is meaningless. Some people will not even receive the book for a long time in their languages. This is not LOTR which became famous much after its release. Many people around the world are expecting this book in their languages and we are spoiling their fun. Caglarkoca 18:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove parts of the entry just to protect people from their own foolishness. If someone hasn't finished reading the book s/he shouldn't look it up anywhere on the Internet. In the long run, it doesn't matter if we leave the "recently published" warning up for a while longer, but the article shouldn't be bowdlerized. People have to take responsibility for what they choose to look up. Ariadne55 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find anything anywhere that says that HP7 has not been released in any places, I could have missed something, but if nobody finds anything then this disscusion has pretty much ended. No current fiction tag. Now if someone can find something somewhere that says anything about this, we can talk some more.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity purposes, does anyone support keeping the {{current fiction}} tag on here besides Arcayne? i ^said 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, just given the popularity of the book. But since I'm not a major contributor to this article, you may disregard my opinion. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As do I. (Also, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's Corvus :-) Scarian^Talk 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

← And why do you two feel that way? i ^said 00:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Risking being called a "retard for even looking at the article" I haven't read the book yet, but do intend to. When the book first came out (Or a few days after it) I reverted some vandalism on here but accidentally allowed my eyes to wander, ruining certain things in the book that, I assume, did actually occur. Now I know this won't suit the majority of reader's of this article, but if there was a warning at the time I could've averted ruining my own enjoyment of the book.

Also, people wanting to read about the book rather than the (For the time being for example) book may also be screwed over... I have heard some people being called "retards" for that, and I believe that is an unfair conjecture. Because it is such a popular book, people whom are only simply reading the article may succumb to 'wandering' eye's and read a phrase or two that ruins the book for them. Such a warning could avert that...

But, I understand that many are against that... It actually took me a fair amount of courage to say this seeing as so many people are darn religiously attacking the use of the tag(s). Scarian^Talk 00:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me define what we're talking about specifically here. I believe that the {{current fiction}} template no longer applies as the book is over a month old. If you want a spoiler warning, then that should be a different topic. i ^said 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I have misunderstood the conversation. My apologies. Scarian^Talk 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine; a {{spoiler}} tag can be placed, as long as there is consensus on the talk page to do so. If you wish to argue for this, you are free to. I just want this pseudo spoiler tag gone. This is a spoiler tag under the guise of new fiction, which I believe is accepted. But only for new fiction, and I believe this is no longer. A full fledged spoiler tag needs a different discussion. i ^said 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing it; no sources have been cited for countries in which it hasn't been released and i's point is valid, a book that is over a month old is no longer 'current'. Also, on the spoiler warning, Ariadne55 has it in a nutshell; if you come to a Wikipedia page, you do so as you want information. You truly are a fool if you come here, not wishing to find any plot details. asyndeton 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's is quite a derogatory way you speak about people whom come to read the article... We are looking to improve the article for exactly those people... How curious. Scarian^Talk 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe everyone can calm down. Spoilers are a thing of the past. If you come to read a plot summary, you are going to learn things. If you didn't want to know things, it was beholden upon you to not choose to edit that particular article, even if that wacky preacher guy went to town on it. You chose to edit there, so you have no one to blame but yourself. I am not smacking you around - not at all - but you cannot get angry at others for pointing out your mistake. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Potter fans would not read much of this anyway. I read it because I've never read Harry Potter and found the plot outline a help in reading quickly through the plodding middle section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.237.71 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler 2 (Arbitrary Break)

I am still waiting for someone to cite some policy - any policy - within Wikipedia that says that current fiction tags are to be removed after 30 days. My argument that the book - which I am presuming had to be translated after the English language release (to prevent internet spoilers and piracy) - has not been released worldwide yet. I am not advocating utilizing the current fiction tag as a de facto spoiler notice, but a book with as much interest in the release (far more than other - and to my reckoning - far more deserving novels) should be treated as the odd case it is. I have emailed scholastic's PR department, and I should be hearing back from them early next week, with something citable to quote a release date in places where HP7 (dear god, now I'm doing it) hasn't seen release as of yet. My neighbor, who is Cebuan/filipina says that the book is not to be released there until mid-September. An edit here implies that the Hungarian version of the novel isn't due until February, 2008.

Of course, i am unwilling to wait that long. I think 45-60 days seems to be a good length of time to wait to remove the current fiction tag. In the absence of a set policy regarding length of time, 45-60 days seems to allow for the majority of release to occur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a policy or guideline as to how long the tag should remain. A month just seems like a good enough time to myself and other users. i ^said 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, i, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution and await the practical release of the novel. It should pretty much have saturation and whatnot within 45 days. As well, this needs to firm up into some sort of standard rather than a 'seems like' arrangement. Let's wait the 45 days. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you define as the "practical release" of the book? i ^said 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Scarian, my previous comment was not specifically aimed at you, in case it came across that way. It was also not meant to be derrogatory; it was meant to convey my opinion that if you don't want the plot spoilt for you, then coming to Wikipedia is the last thing you should do, which I feel is a perfectly justified remark. I'm sorry for any offence caused. asyndeton 10:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think a few more days will kill anyone and so we could wait until Scholastic reply to Arcayne, at which point one of our arguments will be solidified and end this. asyndeton 10:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate such issues, but we can go to arbcom about it. Some people are trying to keep a content which is in no way helpful to anyone. Who are supposed to read this extraordinarily huge plot summary? Who is the directed audience of it? The funs? The ones who read it will deeply regret it after doing so. Most of them will avoid any leakage and spoilers. The ones who don't care about HP will not bother to search for it. So who do you think will read it? Caglarkoca 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. In articles about books, we have plot summaries. That is not going to change. What we are discussing is the use of a current fiction tag. i ^said 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The conversation seems to have stalled. I suggest we leave the {{current fiction}} tag on there until the Third of September, which will be 45 days after the release. After that, there will not be a {{Spoiler}} tag. That can change if there is a seperate discussion for the spoiler tag itself and consensus is to place one. Thoughts? i ^said 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a fair compromise. 45 days sounds like a nice, round number, and although it seems possible that the book has yet to be released in some places (though we still await references to that effect), it has been released in most places, so this seems like a fair time to remove the tag. _TheIslander 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I just thought because the book was so popular as a series that it might take people a little longer to get over it's new-ness. It took me quite a while. 45 days sounds good. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we still need to lock this down into some sort of policy, but as 45 days is pretty reasonable for the release of a book, I will go along with it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What about releases in other languages? If this 45 days also include those releases that will be fine. I believe encyclopedias are readily available for everyone. If any of you see an article about a book which includes a lengthy summary may let me know. Caglarkoca 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The release in other languages is the reason the tag is going to exist for ~a week more. And you can find them by looking at Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention shows you all articles marked with a {{plot}} tag. i ^said 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Master of death

Just wanted to make a comment on how Harry became the true 'master of death' - the article suggests that it is because he united the hallows. The real reason he is master of death is because he has learnt to not be afraid of it, and walk into it with his head held high. In addition, he has learnt to conquer the lure of the Hallows (which Dumbledore did not, that is why Dumbledore respects and loves him so much. Dumbledore tried to make Harry learn from his own mistake and Harry did), and Harry never had the lure for the horcruxes anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.131.130 (talk) 06:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. Now, is there something notable in there which you needed us to add to the article for you in order to improve it or expand on the existing information? Just not sure what your point was. Of course you must know that we cannot post speculation, or otherwise unsourced information; that would violate Wikipedia policies on verifiability from reliable sources and prohibitions against original research. So we would need some sources for your statements in order for them to be posted (eg: book, chapter number, and page if it is in one of Rowling's books; or a web link to a documented interview with her or a link to the page on her web site, etc.). If you were simply letting us all know what you think about the subject, then please note that this is not a forum for fan speculation, as clearly stated at the very top of this page in the banner, and it is therefore subject to deletion. In any case, thank you for your contributions, and please let us know how we can assist you. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, chapter thirty-five -- King's Cross --, pages 720 and 721. Harry is the true master of death, as Dumbledore states, because he accepted that he must die and did not run away from Death. Sweetbitchness 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK version of HP & the Deathly Hallows it´s on page 577: "You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.232.38 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary length

I know that there's a lot that's been said about this recently, but I was just looking at the plot summary guidelines on WikiProject Novels. It says:

A plot summary should be no more than three or four paragraphs (for example, four paragraphs for a complex plot such as that found in Charles Dickens' Bleak House). Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries. Plot summaries should not contain an explication of every subplot in the novel nor need they be told in the same order as the novel itself. Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve and one of the ways to make your article look like Sparknotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to detail the plot of every chapter rather than to attempt to truly summarize the novel. A summary details the most important events and character relationships in the novel.

I realize that there are exceptions to every rule, but isn't this article's "plot" section significantly too long? What do y'all think? -Phi*n!x 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at some 1800 words the plot summary is much too big. I don't think there's much hope of reducing it to a more reasonable length just yet because the book is still new and people are still visiting this article and adding in their favorite bits. Come back in six months time and it may be easier to reduce the plot summary permanently to a reasonable length. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that it's hopeless at the moment. I also don't think it's particularly beneficial to reduce it. The same guideline quoted above—which is only a guideline, not a policy—also says:

Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Unfortunately, there's precious little "real-world context and sourced analysis" for a book as new as Deathly Hallows. Aside from the plot, the vast majority of the content is highly ephemeral trivia (pre-release controversies) that, a few years from now, will be largely forgotten. The critical reception section, by contrast, is a mere two paragraphs. And whenever editors have attempted to put some meat into that section, others quickly remove it.

So I am not particularly worried about the long plot summary, because apparently there is nothing else of importance to say. It would be one thing if people were proposing to shorten it to make room for something else that really matters, but that is not the case. Marc Shepherd 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mad Eye Moody

I have a question about Mad Eye Moody. Was his body actually found? I know his magical eye was at the Ministry (on Umbridge's door), but was there any mention of his corpse being retrieved? I don't remember reading that in the book. PNW Raven 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific improvement to the article that the answer to this question will address? Ronnotel 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, depending on the answer, but I'm only mulling it over at this point, and it may be something that fits on another page, maybe the Mad Eye article. (Actually, I now have my answer since writing the previous sentence.)PNW Raven 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

His body wasnt found, but his eye was addy gAddy-g-indahouse 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's alive. Rememeber in the book where they find a guy with a bandage on one of his eyes? I think that's Mad Eye, but that's just my speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.145.228 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Grindwald

I think the character is fascinating, but he doesn't yet have any real world notability, so his article is just an in-universe plot dump. His notability is totally dependent on this book, so his article should be merged in here. Judgesurreal777 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. He's character enough for me to have his own article. BlueCanary9999 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

I have removed the merge tag. I do this because I have been planning to propose a large merger into a List of Harry Potter Characters page. Gellert Grindelwald would be one of them. I will update my proposal in a few days. Until then, I would leave the merge tag off, since there would be two merge discussions. If you feel strongly enough, you can restore the tag. i ^said 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yeah. That would be a better place for him. BlueCanary9999 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

I would have preferred to be asked about removing the tag first, but it's fine, go for it. There are still many HP articles in need of merging. Judgesurreal777 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There just isnt enough information for Grindelwald. He was introduced only in the 7th book and furthermore only had association with hallows. I dont deny he is a major character, however there isnt enough information to write a whole article on him. addy gAddy-g-indahouse 12:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there talk of creating a list of minor HP characters? There is an index of HP articles, linking through the HP wikiproject page. That is where GG belongs, not here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably go right to a characters article, minor characters would be much harder to defend. Judgesurreal777 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge in Grindelwald to Deathly Hallows (objects) --Storytellershrink 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Grindelwald isn't a Deathly Hallow. BlueCanary9999 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

Yes, but he is a key figure in the whole plot element of the Deathly Hallows. I'd merge him to a minor characters article, if it were me. i ^said 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with...um, 'i'. Merge him into the minor characters article and right quick. He doesn't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely NOT a good article yet.

Good article? You must be joking. The plot summary is several kilobytes long. It's divided into SEVEN SUBSECTIONS. This is a gross violation of WP fiction guidelines, and until we can stem the tide of people adding in their favorite bits over and over again, this won't be ready for GA status. SFT | Talk 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot for letting us know before you delist the article, gives us a big chance to fix it. Judgesurreal777 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't have a chance to fix it now?

Sorry, bub, it doesn't work like that (or doesn't have to, anyway). If it doesn't belong on the GA list right now, it shouldn't be on it, and it's perfectly acceptable for someone to delist it. The big broken icon at the top of the page is "letting you know" about the problem and prompting someone to try to fix it.

But this has been a problem with the plot summary since the day the book came out. It starts out reasonable, then people come along and add their favorite parts, then someone pulls up their pants and prunes it, then the same people add their favorite parts back....

One of the Good Article criteria is that the article should be stable. Once the Plot Summary both 1) meets Wikipedia guidelines and 2) is stable, I will personally relist it, or otherwise give my heartiest blessing to the Wikipedian who does. SFT | Talk 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've hacked the length, and plan to do more.PNW Raven 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Let's try to get it back to GA nomination in the next few days, we want to achieve our HP project goals for the quarter :) Great job so far! Judgesurreal777 06:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can easily get it back to GA quality. The problem is keeping it "stable." Other editors will continue adding their favorite bits, causing it to bloat again. PNW Raven 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The movie is not only planned..

The movie is not only planned but in the making, see IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/ 85.24.168.123 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)