Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Merger

I propose to merge Harry Potter (character): Book Seven into this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.21.29 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would make sense to do so, since the article is about Harry Potter himself, not the book. Though, a link to "Harry Potter Book Seven" could probably be left there. --SSJ4 Aragorn 03:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Same reason as above. Dragix 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, this is just a part of an article. Is there really any reason to merge the article? Tuvas 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I presume the idea is to take the content from 'potter' and place it in 'book 7', though most likely most if it is already there, and anything left out has been not included on purpose. I do not approve of having two articles saying the same thing. Harry's article is long (deservedly), but there already exists an article covering the ground in this section. So make a reference to it and get rid of the remaining entry within Harry's article. Sandpiper 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

References

I know that references are quire important, but I'm noticing alot of inconsistancy, in fact, almost none of the references are done is what is the normal method. See WP:CITET for some ways to make references, and use the ref tags to put them in the reference section. I'll go through this when I have time, but thought I'd post this first. Tuvas 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are virtually all done in the normal method, which is to say make a list of relevant websites at the bottom of the page. Whether they are being done as some people would like them done for consistency within wiki is quite another matter. I for one do not know what that is, and I imagine nor do most others here. But I would also suspect that none of these people who have been good enough to add some reference has been asked their view how they would like references to be done. People on wiki mainly learn by looking at pages. i have yet to see a page where references have been made in a coherent way which i can look at and understand. Sandpiper 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Further to the last, I just looked at the page you reference. Oh God! I have enough trouble trying to make sense of the forest of copyright tags fo images without spending half my life trying to understand this page too. perhaps that is why it is a mess. Sandpiper
Well, I hope that just going and doing some of them will help to explain what I'm meaning a bit more. I'll work on getting the rest of them in standard wiki reference meaning, it will help the article read better, and help people who want to look up more information find it quickly and easily. Tuvas 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to continue on my previous statements, if you are going to add any references, please do so in the formats as above. It took me over an hour to get things so they are looking as they are, and it only takes a minute to maintain. Thanks! Tuvas 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It took rather more than a minute to insert a new reference, buy I managed to cut and paste one so it works. However I have a problem with this. The 'approved references are not as good as the old ones. With an inline link, I click the link and can directly open a new page with the reference in fromt of me. That is what I want. With this system I get to see a copy of the table of references at the bottom of the same page, not what I want. Then, I have to remember what number the link was, find it, and finally open a new page. Not exactly a seamless operation. If people want to see the reference, I doubt they want to instead be presented with a list of all the article's references. Is this an option or a failing of this method? Sandpiper 08:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a few reasons for this. One of the important things, especially for something like this, is that the access date is included. It can tell alot more about the information. Still, it is the standard for Wikipedia, so, we might want to use it. Tuvas 16:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that at least one pair of the new references was using the same identifying name. I think i sorted it out, but I am certainly not confident enough of working with this pea soup system to be sure it is correct. If I didn't know vaguely the references myself i would not have been able to sort out the mix up using this integrated referencing system. I do not understand the complex referencing commands well enough to be able to debug them reliably, and still have seen no sensible help page explaining them. (though admittedly this page is now the best example of their use I have seen). The thing about standards is they can always be improved. This one has two serious issues now, being too complex for occasional users to understand is a very serious one. Sandpiper 10:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote

This should be interesting...

Harry Potter: Wanted dead or alive

Vote now!

Continuing storylines from previous books

Just a few comments on this section. This section is for things which are clearly supported from previous books for what might happen in book 7. It is for obvious things, such as the hunt for the Horcruxes, Snape's lingering loyalties, etc. Also, it is not the section for anything quoted from JKR, please include these statements in the following section. Please remember that this page is not for speculation, which is very difficult for a book that hasn't even been released yet. Believe you me, I've been as guilty of it as any of you... Still, this article has come a long ways! Tuvas 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

does the book really say that ron and hermione will accompany Harry to privet drive? I don't remember thatSandpiper 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
and in the next section, anyone know where harry having a new pet comes from? (asside from whether that is likely to materially affect the plot?) Sandpiper
the discontinuous richard and judy quote when she was asked about authors killing characters: the quote is correct but is inserted misleadingly. I havn't had time to check it, but my recollection is that she did not imply she intended to do this, but what is included here does rather imply that. Sandpiper
Good finds. I was looking more for the references, and not so much other stuff, although I did notice alot of speculation... I'm sure there's more, I was surprised how much speculation has grown into this article... Tuvas 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
are you? I thought it was doing rather well. Sandpiper 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Release date is 7/7/07

Someone has put on the article page that the Order of the Pheonix film is going to released 6 days after Harry Potter book 7 is released. If you go on this countdown to the Order of the Pheonix fim (I found it on the leaky cauldron website) it says Order of the Pheonix film is going to be released on the 13/7/07. That's 6 days after the 7/7/07! Is that proof that it's going be released on the 7/7/07 or not? Here's the website:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/countdown_ootp.swf --Daniel Omy talk. 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Many fans want the realease date to be 7.7.07. I know i do. andrew 08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is, 7-7-07 is totally unconfirmed, in fact, even though it was I who first put this bit on here, I wish I hadn't... It would be crazy to release the book and the movie so close to each other, although it could be possible... Who knows. There is no official book release date, because the book isn't done, and you can't rush a book. Because the book's not even done, I think it might even take longer than that. Who knows... Tuvas 01:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was intended to be proof that the book was unlikely to be released on 7/7/7. But I am not convinced by that argument either. It all depends, so I am content to make a note 1) when the film comes out, which may complicate things and 2) fans have suggested that 7/7/7 would be a very appropriate date, which is true. Sandpiper 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Context is missing

Now I realise that this article is aimed mostly at fans wanting to have a place where all the information about book 7 can be found without looking around lots of websites. However, this is still wikipedia and the degree of previous knoledge assumed by the article is a bit excessive. Untill my morest recent edit the first mention of the word wizard or a derative was "Each volume contains a complete problem and task for the heroes to complete, but each has also added to the background information about the wizarding world in general", even though the article has never mentioned that the books take place in a "wizarding world". In the next section characters are referd to by their first names only with no explination as to who they are and what diffrence it makes tht harry is going to "Bill's wedding". Most of this stuff can be fixed by adding a few words here and there, linking to people full names to show who is related to who etc. Dalf | Talk 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time I tried to stick in an introductory section describing the basic outline of the plot I was struck down for putting in too much detail, I think the specific criticism was that i was describing the earlier books in an article about the last one. (all of three sentences about them). I also thought that the article (much worse than now) absolutely failed to explain to a newcomer what it was talking bout. Hmm.

On the other hand, maybe you are thinking about the various quotes which tend to be terse and unexplained unless you know the story. I am not sure how much we can pad these out without this part getting rather too wordy for something intending to get across the points to someone who is familiar with the plot, at least well enough to know the characters. Sandpiper 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking mostly about changing things like, "[[Bill Weasley|Bill]] and [[Fleur Delacour|Fleur's]] wedding" to "[[Bill Weasley]] and [[Fleur Delacour]] wedding" because someone might ask 'who the hell are bill and Fleur?' Granted that is why the words are linked but shoudl you have to read 5 - 10 sub pages to understand the one when you can simply include 3-4 more words. Even the change I just suggested (of which there are many more in the article that could be done) would give a clue that Bill is related to Ron and it is herefore a weasley family weeding and the article at this point has at least somewhat introduced who the Weasleys are. It is probbly nto in this instance needed to add "Rons brother Bill" but that is the sort of thing I am aiming at. The fact that "Wizarding world" is casually thrown in midway thorugh the article without mentioning wizards or the setting is just bad form (Even is magic was mentioned how many settings contain magic?). Dalf | Talk 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of pages in books

I noticed that the mention of book length for philosophers stone (223 pages UK) and phoenix (766 pages UK) seem to change about. Possibly the US page counts are different (well, I'm sure they are, as page numbering for quotes is different, which makes it difficult to do). So are we adhering to the Uk ones, or what? Sandpiper 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

JK is from the UK, so UK page count. (11987 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Is Named?

I don't know wht it is called, but my friend's, mom's, old boss is a friend of Rowling's (or so he says), and claims to have the first eight chapters. User:Jntg4

Unless I misunderstood what you wrote, I don't think so. With Rowling being so tight on giving out details about the book, I somehow doubt that she would give away the firs eight chapters to a friend. I seem to remember JK saying somewhere that she didn't reveal what happens in future books even to her family. Anyway, this probably isn't the best place to post it. Try posting it at a fan forum. 0L1 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we have the Lockheart real person? Tuvas 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
haha, maybe... 0L1 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Book Seven is most important part of Harry Potter book. I guess. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Title of book 7"

Quoted from the final line in the section "Continuing storylines from previous books" on this article: The title of book 7 is most likely already decided by J.K. Rowling, and will most likely begin with "Harry Potter and the...". Well gee whiz you think? Anyway I'm removing it, unless anyone can explain to me what it means/if it has any importance at all besides making me laugh. Code E 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You think humour is not important in an article? if it made you laugh then it was well worth including. Sandpiper 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a joke, it's an encyclopedia. So no it's not worth including. Code E 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia may become a joke of it fails to understand that articles need to entertain as well as inform. But since it seems necessary to belabour the point, the actual title of the new book is of interest to everyone. I am not too keen on debate as to 'the pillar of Storge', and so forth (though JKR has now, in a sense, endorsed that debate by including it on her own website), but I seem to recall a quote where she effectively endorses the title as 'Harry Potter and..', and it quite sensibly follows based upon the titles of all the other books. It is one of the more established expectations about the new book. Sandpiper 07:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd dare to say it's the best information given. I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I know that JKR has stated that book 7 will be "Harry Potter and...", it is a bit of information which is useful. If it's humor, it's at least not original humor, and I have seen alot worse, take the grumpy old man article. Tuvas 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandlaism

Just removed some vandalism - this page was made a redirect to Talk: Harry Potter Book Seven on! (or something like that). It's all fixed now but I thought I should point it out. 0L1 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter's birthday

Here it says how Harry Potter's birthday is July 31. I always thought it was July 30. In the first book, it mentions how the day when the Dursleys spent the night on the hut was Harry's birthday. The next day, Hagrid takes Harry to Diagon Alley and takes the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. Later they mention that the Gringotts day was July 31, so I assumed Harry's birthday was the day before, July 30.

Did I miss something? Or should Harry's birthday be put as July 30 instead? Thank you! Jonathan talk 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hagrid takes Harry on his birthday. If you will recall, Hagrid disturbed the Dursleys at apx. 12:01 AM 7/31 Harry's birthday is just starting. After they discuss his background, Harry & Hagrid sleep, waking up on the morning of the 31, go to Diagon alley and get the stone on July 31. jj 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
July 30 is actually Neivelle's birthday, not Harry Potter, I'm sure you're just confusing the two.
Oh, sorry, I had a feeling I was mistaken. But I was not confused with Neville's birthday, I honestly thought Harry's birthday was the day before he goes out with Hagrid. Jonathan talk 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

More Speculation

At least two main characters are slated to be killed off, and some rumors claim that one of them may be Harry himself.

(→Other - actually, the interview says two MORE characters have been killed)

We need to cite our references before we can post this. What interview? When was it? and "some rumors claim" is weasel wording and is not allowed in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. --T-dot 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

i didnt say rumors claim; i hate speculation. the quote is already in the info from JK section. (11987 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I saw that after the fact. She says "two" not "at least two". And the rumors about Potter are rumors, not quotes from Rowling.
In a June 2006 interview about the previously-written ending, JK Rowling admitted that -
"One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die...A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil...They go for the main characters, or I do" --T-dot 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt adding tht potter thing, but the sentance said that two characters will die; which isnt comnpletley true. (11987 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I see your point. We could either have Rowling (1) adding two MORE main characters to the death list, or (2) have Rowling changing her mind on WHICH TWO she will kill off. Which is it? I don't know. If you feel it is (1), then please feel free to add "At least two main characters will die" to the "Information from Rowling" part where she is directly quoted about it - rather than the "Other" section which is not referenced. Case closed. --T-dot
(nevermind - I did it myself, but please feel free to edit, and sorry for the confusion.) --T-dot 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Book title vandalism ..... WTF?!?

This is just light hearted you can skip if you want. If not .... can someone explaine to me what the irristable draw of vandalizing the book title thing is? I mean honestly is every 13 year old boy in the enaglish speaking workd going to have a go? I mean why the book title when they could be bragging about a friend's homosexuality or some thing. Anyway I was a bit curious and bord so I thought I would compile a list, if any vandals happen to be reading this (because I know you all check the talk page first) please not that the follwing titles have been tried (since July 10th):

What ever the title turns out to be this edit assures us that it will be aswsome. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to try making a small change - to Harry Potter (Year 7). It seems leaving it as Harry Potter and the ... provides too much temptation for internet trolls and vandals (and well meaning novices) to add on their favorite tagline that they heard from someone claiming to know the truth and had it posted on their myspace or blog page. Bless their hearts. --T-dot 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The title is definitely not "Harry Potter (Book 7)". I don't think we should use that, Internet trolls or no Internet trolls. As for well meaning novices, they can presumedly read any warning we insert in the form of a comment. Brian Jason Drake 11:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Look - all the other books so far have contained a barely noticeable subtitle on the spine - e.g. "Year 4" on Goblet of Fire. Of course the title will not be Harry Potter (Book 7) or Harry Potter (Year 7) - that is not the point. Leaving the title as "Harry Potter and the..." is an open invitation to "Finish This Title!!!" - it is almost like advertizing a contest to see who comes up with something that some others might take as "real" - just like leaving a candy bowl on the coffee table - the kids are going to get in it. I propose to "finish it" for the time being, until the real title is released, with something corresponding to the title of this article "Harry Potter book 7" - or "Harry Potter (book 7)" or "Harry Potter (Year 7)", which is a surrogate for the real title. --T-dot 11:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Is that subtitle on every edition? I just checked a copy and I can't find it. Even so, if it's barely noticeable then is it relevant? Brian Jason Drake 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The year tag exists only on American editions. I think the best option for now is to simply deem the title unknown, which is both accurate and less likely to tempt trolls.--Lividore 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think so long as we do not imply that it is the actual title but the number of the books in the series, it is fine. It is common to refer to books in a series in this manner especially for Harry Potter books. Dalf | Talk 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Speculation

I deleted speculation. (11987 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. Personally, I think we CAN post the "dangling threads" from the previous books, but once we cross into the territory of what "may" happen or "is expected" to happen or "most fans believe" will happen in Book 7- then we have violated the borders of speculation, and probably done some unencyclopedic weasel wording - see WP:AWW. These threads from the previous books can be in the form of the carefully phrased dispositions of the major important characters and properties as the previous book ends (eg: Dumbledore = dead and snoozing in his picture in the headmaster's office at Hogwarts, Harry = setting out to destroy Voldemort once and for all, Ron and Hermione = committing themselves to assist Harry on his path, Snape = on the run with Draco Malfoy in tow) - as long as it is closely and inarguably supported by direct quotes or quality paraphrasing from the previous books. If a notion cannot be verified from the canon of the text, or from some authoritative interview of Rowling, or from her web site, - see WP:RS - then it must be disallowed - even if it is "true" or "widely believed" - see WP:V. If she didn't say it, then it is not encyclopedic, and constitutes original research or speculation - see WP:NOR. --T-dot 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
So this justifies deleting, for example, that Harry comes of age on his 17th birthday (seems factual), will be in his 7th year if he goes back to school (seems rather likely given that will be his age group), there will have to be a new DADA teacher (has been every year), they will be going after the horcruxes (Harry said he will), we will finally find out whatever is left to find out about Snape (well, obviously, if we don't find out in this book, we never will)....and so on. I cannot absolutely vouch for how every line has changed since I last checked them in detail, people love to rearrange things, but frankly all these points have been verified backwards sideways and upside down and also appear on lexicon, mugglenet, and Leaky. (which, last I looked, between them include rather more points)
It may be the case that people here sometimes get too excited when they see words like 'may', or 'most fans believe' (which in fact I could not find in the text anywhere). I would say that the current version of this article, particularly the section 11987 deleted, is a lot more waffly than it used to be, when it was rather clearer that the comments referred to information extracted the text rather than being someones opinions. Sandpiper 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree in principle with including inevitable information about things that are known to be true about Book Seven, but they must be phrased in an encyclopedic manner. For example, we know that Book Six ends in mid-June, at the end of the school term with the death of Dumbledore and his funeral. Many plans and arrangements about the not-too-distant future were discussed in those final chapters by many characters - and those can certainly be outlined and discussed here. And, as an example, we can say that Harry's 17th birthday is a few weeks later - on July 31st; and that when wizards like Harry turn 17, then they are "of age" and can do certain things that they could not do before, like Apparition / Disapparition; and the ban on underage wizardry and magic use outside of the school is lifted. But there is a very subtle (and perhaps nitpicky in this case) yet still important difference in saying "Harry's 17th birthday is July 31st", and "Harry will turn 17 on July 31st". The first statement is factual and irrevocable, but the second is technically speculative: for all we know, it is conceivable, though of course rather unlikely, that Harry will die and get eaten by Nagini on July 30th, and that Neville will take over the role as Voldemort's assasin, after first using the Cruciatus liberally on those who tortured his parents into insanity, in order to discover the Dark Lord's new hideout. As another example, we know that Harry told Ginny that "We've got to stop seeing each other" and "We can't be together" and about how he's "got things to do alone now", but we cannot say whether Ginny will be assisting Harry in some way. Meanwhile, Ron and Hermione said "...we'll go with you wherever you're going", and "We're with you whatever happens"; and Harry appeared to agree to that. Now Ginny might end up being the 4th member of Harry's task force, or she might get kidnapped by Peter Pettigrew and held for ransom, or she may fall in love with Seamus, and elope and honeymoon with him in the Bahamas. So we really cannot say what the future holds for Ginny, and anything we do say is probably speculation. What we can do is quote and paraphrase the canonical book(s), and add pertinent notes from documented Rowling interviews, and refer to things she posted her web site, and then let the shippers, fans, and other readers decide for themselves what they want to believe or hope for from there (as long as they do not post their non-canonical opinions and editorials in the main article). --T-dot 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not hung up about the style in which things are included. If the essential content is factual then it should not be deleted just because it is phrased badly. This is a perfect example of how that goes. One person puts in a fact. A second converts it to a vaguer style which he feels reads better. A third deletes it again becaus he feels it reads like speculation. Wiki needs to get over being hung up about style. Sandpiper 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that i did my deletions hastily, it is also true that much is speculation. Speculation about the roles of characters should not be in the article, and rumored release dates do not belong either. (11987 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

Then please explain here which bits you think are speculation and we can discuss it. Why do rumoured release dates not belong? that is straight reporting of facts: the existence of a rumour is a fact in itself. We aim to inform, here. I would also suggest that while this article has a remarkably long list of references, it should not be treated in the same rigorous way as, say, the article on the airline bomb plot. A certain ligheartedness is called for here. No one expects everything on this page to happen just exactly as it says, it only gives an idea of what to expect. Short of kidnapping JKR, that is all anyone is going to get for now.Sandpiper 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Grr, someone replaced "* There could be some changes at Hogwarts due to the fact that Dumbledore is dead and there will be a new Headmaster/Headmistress (probably Professor McGonagall)." with a less accurate version saying simply McGonagall would be the new headmistress. The accurate version is that she will probably be new headmistress. That is the most likely outcome, though even more accurate would be something more longwinded explaining that she will either have to be confirmed as headmistress permanently, or someone else be appointed. Sandpiper 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Snape dies

I heard that Harry kills Snape from someone that goes to my school he has claimed to have gotten a rough draft of the seventh book from the black market but I don't believe him. -- 70.171.190.17 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's lying. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One word; L-I-A-R. The book isnt even completed yet. (11987 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

To be fair, when last asked at the radio city charity reading, JKR said something like it was largely completed but she had surprised herself how many things she still had to get in. However, i really doubt it is a copy of anything written by JKR. But anyway, I want nothing to do with any copies of it until it is finished to her satisfaction. Sandpiper 20:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

umbridge

Hi there. On the Information from JKR section, a line reads:

And on Dolores Umbridge, "It's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish

and a link goes to citation 15, ([1]). Now, I've not read the whole thing, but I searched for "dolores" and "umbridge", and she mentions her only when questioned about characters' personalities and her own. I've also searched specifically for the word torture and it is not there.

So, whoever added that line might have either linked it to the wrong reference, or just invented those lines. VdSV9•♫ 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It linked to the wrong interview; I've corrected it. Pruneautalk 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

question

What is the primary school for wizards?

There isn't one. Magical children raised as wizards are discouraged by the ministry of magic from being sent to primary school, to avoid the problems faced by Harry, and the risks of culture clash and of the magical children spilling secrets about the wizarding world. Instead, these children are privately tutored, or taught by their parents. Only muggle-borns, and those few half-bloods or pure-bloods such as Harry and Voldemort, who are brought up in the muggle world, attend (muggle) primary school, where, according to Rowling, the MoM keeps an eye out to deal with spontaneous eruptions of magic, such as (to give some of Harry's examples) turning a teacher's wig blue, or accidentally apparating onto a roof. Harry may well have had such a watch on his school, to stop the teachers wondering about all of these examples in great detail. In any case, Hogwarts is the only British educational institution - there are neither universities nor primary schools.Michaelsanders 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. Either title would be only temporary anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Oppose Why bother - it'll have to move again once the title is known. -- Beardo 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Why? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it is the accepted yet seemingly unwritten Wikipedia style that numbers under 10 or so (sometimes 13 or even 100) are to be written out; it is also general writing style used nearly everywhere. ~ clearthought 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Requesting a change from 7 to seven seems like an uneccesary splitting of hairs.Elfich 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I would submit that this is a valid style within the context of normal prose: e.g., "I was chased by seven wolves", not "I was chased by 7 wolves". I do not think this applies to things such as the volume number of a series of books, movies, or whatnot; although normally read and written as cardinal numbers ("Harry Potter 7") they are treated like the ordinals used in other cases ("Queen Elizabeth II", not "~ the Second"), but for the purposes of enumerating the volumes. One would no more spell out the volume number merely because it is lower than, say, 13, than one would for a year number ("born in Five CE"). For that matter, chapter numbers may start at "Chapter One" and end at "Chapter Fifty", or start at "Chapter 1" and end at "Chapter 50", but I sincerely doubt that you'd find any book that started out spelling out the chapter numbers and then switching to numerals at the thirteenth.

--SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) >>Therefore, I...

  • ...Oppose. --SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There are special rules for dates, monarchs/names, and things like chapters and volumes... but "Harry Potter 7" is in essence 'Harry Potter: year seven' or whatnot, each book is a year of Harry's life. If we are not to change the title, than may I insist that we not go rewriting all style laws and change all the "seven"s and "seventh"s in the article? ~ clearthought 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. The final title will probably be announced in a few months anyway, so it would be just a temporary measure. Marc Shepherd 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary and inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"Inappropriate", that's a new one! ~ clearthought 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the page was only just moved from Harry Potter book seven to Harry Potter Seven (Book). Moving it again would mean editing all the links again because I don't think you can redirect a redirect or it doesn't work (correct me on that one if I'm wrong). Thanks, 0L1 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Why has the title been changed from 'Harry Potter book 7'. I don't see what was wrong with that, nor where the dabate for moving it might be. Sandpiper 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it was because someone ultimately wanted to lay the groundwork for a separate article: "Harry Potter 7 (film)" - such as it is (or would be) - in order to parallel the corresponding articles used for the previous HP books and films. Some folks just cannot sleep well at night with unsymmetrical universes. --T-dot 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So a new editor came along and just moved it? Since there is not even a book, never mind a film, having (book) in brackets is daft. I propose putting it back where it started. Sandpiper 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". SNS 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose moving it back to the old title, for the same reason I oppose the move presently under discussion. There is no perfect article name for a book that hasn't been named by its author. Let the current title stand. Marc Shepherd 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rowling has two possible titles for Book Seven

According to a Washington Post article[2] she was set with one title until she thought up of another one that would be just as appropriate.


I don't know if it's suitable for the article. Throw 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed it's already added in the article. I'll add the Washington Post article as another reference since it's from a more credible source. The one on there now is from a fan site. Throw 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-move comments

Well i have just un-archived it. Yes, I did see that someone had deleted the entire end of this talk page, though i was not able to put it back. The editor was doing some very odd things and refusing to produce pages from the history list. was anyone mucking about with it? I have still to receive an explanation why this page was moved in the first place, and why it should not go back where it came from . I know the explanation given was that the original title was against some policy, but i'm damned if i know what policy. No one has explained this. it was moved by someone with very few edits, then the whole discussion here deleted by someone with no edits. What is goihg on? Sandpiper 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The move vote is closed. Harry Potter seven (note case) is not an apropriate working area for the article, while Harry Potter 7 is. Are we going to have to move-protect the article to prevent move-wars? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No one had a vote on the original move, it just happened. No one has explained why it happened, either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) .
I replied on your talk page. No vote is needed on an unobstructed move. Read WP:BOLD as well as WP:OWN. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


The last word

Of Book 7 has been stated by JK Rowling to be "scar."

It is jumping to conclusions that this will be used in connection with Harry Potter himself - when it could be somebody else's.

Jackiespeel 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that as Harry's scar is the only important one, I think that it can be assumed that this is the scar it is referring to. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:27 8/11/2006 (UTC)

what the hooba?

Given the row over the previous suggested move (see three sections above, or so), moving the article anyways seems to be rather unilateral and will inevitably bring about more strife. Why the move? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"evil dark wizard, Lord Voldemort"

Oh! C'mon! Just because he wants to kill main character he must be evil?!

Evil is a childish word, used only by those who want to make a moral judgement in place of an intellectual judgement. It has no rightful place in politics or history. The novels have been stated by Rowling as being moral in intention, however, and so whilst the word should be avoided when casting judgement on Voldemort, it is undeniable that Rowling - and consequently the reader - views him as 'evil'. And thus one can't really avoid describing him as evil (unfortunately - use of the word offers an escape clause from having to explain what is actually wrong with the person, or people, and why they do what they do). Michaelsanders 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Release date

The release date keeps changing between 2007, 2007 (persumed), 2007 (tentative) and 2007 (rumoured). Could we choose one as it is regularly changing between them? 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 21:55 (UTC)

The consensus, between Rowling's comments and the Publisher, points to a target release in the summer of 2007. In my view - "Summer 2007 (target)" is proper and correct. --T-dot 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're on 2007 (rumoured) at the moment. Should I change it? 0L1 Talk Contribs 17:00 16/11/2006 (UTC)
I've moved it and left a comment to leave it like it is now. 0L1 Talk Contribs 17:01 19/11/2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore's gleam of triumph

Does anyone have any thoughts as to what the 'gleam of triumph' in Dumbledore's eye at the end of "Goblet of Fire" might mean? JK Rowling has already said that it's significant to Book 7, but I've wracked my brain and I can't think what it might signify.

I think it's something like Harry and Voldemort now having a stronger magical connection since Harry's blood is in Voldemort's veins; i.e. Harry killing himself being the only way to defy Voldemort? I dunno. --Jvd897 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
More like the opposite of that. We would never expect that Dumbledore would be pleased to the point of tearing-up, in any situation where Harry would be forced to sacrifice himself and commit suicide, in order to somehow defy Voldemort (and what does that even mean? Defy him exactly how after he is dead? By blowing raspberries at him from a bubblegum card picture?). Instead, it probably means something on the lines that Harry can make use of the trace of his magical blood inside Voldemort, to remotely monitor, control, or manipulate Voldemort in new ways - perhaps bypassing the occlumency that Voldemort invoked in HBP. We can probably assume that Harry will have growth in his magical powers, as will his cohorts, and discover new ways to achieve essential goals along the path to the distruction of the Dark lord. Of course this is all pure speculation and cannot be posted in the article, but it is fun to think about. The good news is most of these questions will be fully answered in perhaps 8 or 9 months, and then the articles can be updated, firmed up, and left alone, since "all" the questions will be answered. Maybe. --T-dot 15:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Defy as in kill. You're right, it doesn't make sense but, yeah, it's fun to think about. I'll shut up now. --Jvd897 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[Possible scenario] Or, after destroying all (but one?) of the horcruxes, Harry could jump through the Veil of Death. The magical blood link, and possibly a soul link (if Harry is a Horcrux) *could* drag Voldemort in after him. And Voldemort would be trying to stop him, so it would be an act of defiance... It's unlikely, but a way the 'defeat through death' could happen. Michaelsanders 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, Harry could destroy all the Horcruxes, and then taunt Voldemort into killing him. A fatal attack on te subject of Lily's sacrifice, even by (especially by?) a person of her blood, could cause him to be zapped again. And if he had no Horcruxes, he would simply die. Indeed: is there any guarantee that the one who wins will survive? Michaelsanders 10:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we're all very keen to know what happens and all have are own ideas but read the box at the top of this page:
  • This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Flutefluteflute 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Title source

Hey. I was scooting around the Internet and I found this: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=17289 Just thought you guys may be able to put that to use, I'm not much of a Potter fan (any more). Tell me what you guys do with it.

 ViperBlade Talk!! 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I think that this piece of information has already been added to the article but with the reference pointing directly to JKR's website:
Rowling has since stated that she now has a third potential title, and that this new title is "ahead by a short nose, or perhaps that should be a vowel and two consonants".[1]
0L1 Talk Contribs 21:29 3 11 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - forgot to add that to the talk page :( The reference will need updating as soon as that's moved off the front page though. Daggoth S 04:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Hello. I'm reviewing this article as a GA nomination, and there are several things I'd like fixed before I pass the article. Here's a bulleted list to make things easier.

  • I'm really concerned about the number of {{fact}} tags. As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any in a proper GA.
  • Be sure all facts that should be are cited - dates and other figures should be cited, imo.
  • Perhaps the epigraph mentioned should be quoted.
  • The plot summary is quite long, a bit of trimming may be in order. Most looks good, but try to keep things moving and only include the important details.
  • Citations should be at the end of sentences.
  • I would be more likely to put the pre-release stuff at the beginning of the article, but that's really a personal style thing, so it's up to the person responding.
  • The sales section is very well-referenced, good job on that.
  • The translation section isn't in good summary style, that really should be fixed.
  • I think the lead could be a bit longer, especially because of the length of the article, please see WP:LEAD.
    I agree with that NoRmIaD (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When you've finished with all that, please give me a poke and I'll take another look. This should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this was on hold for awhile, and it seems that it hasn't been looked at, I'm afraid I have to fail this GAN. Please contact me if you've got any questions or concerns. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/ J.K.Rowling Official Site
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_3&oldid=1089776355"