Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Contradictions harry potter

Why not create a list of contradictions within the 7th book? Its always good to be a bit more observent when writing articles, as it shows that you truly understand the book. 1) Harry stunned malfoy, did not disarm him and certainly did not kill him. How was he able to use malfoy's wand then, and more importantly be able to use the elder wand??? 2) Harry did not forcefully remove hermione's wand from her, so why did it state in the book, 'the hawthorn wand worked for him as well as hermione's did'. It says that in order to get a allegience, you must kill, disarm or forcefully remove the wand from the person. but harry didnt do any of these. 3) Xeno talks about invisibility cloaks, and how they arnt some other random things (ill go through the book again and give you names, its in the chapter when harry goes to xeno's house and talks about the hallows). however in the 1st book ron was able to distinguish harry's present as a invisibility cloak, even though that cloak was unique and 'one of a kind'. He went on to say 'those are rare' implying that there is more than one invisibility cloak such as that, however in the seventh book it says that harry's cloak is one of a kind... 4 This one is a bit of a little one, however i will find a bigger contradiction when i read the book again for the umpteenth + 1 time. How is hermione, ron and harry, when they are 17 able to fit under the cloak, if Ron himself when he is 15 cannot fit under the cloak without his legs showning. This is shown in the scene when Harry is in hogsmeade, hiding under the cloak.

Ill find more contradictions. there is one more big one, which unfortunately i forgot =(. AddygAddy-g-indahouse 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting idea, actually, and I'm sure there are many discrepancies that could be listed, but it would have to be carefully documented because there's so many exceptions and variations to Rowling's established magical rules. Harry using Hermione's wand is one example. It's been stated that wizards can use any wand, but they don't always get as good results as with their own. That doesn't mean Harry couldn't use Hermione's wand effectively, and her wand may have been one that would have "chosen" him as well as Hermione, and therefore works equally well for either. Ron was using an old hand-me-down wand for years. I may be wrong, but I believe that Ollivander says that "some" wands can transfer their allegiance if the previous owner is disarmed or defeated, making it sound as if not all wands do this. My understanding about the Invisibility Cloak is that there are others, and they are rare, but they were of lesser quality and lost their effectiveness over time. Harry's cloak, however, was unique in that it never wore out and was always like new. It probably is "one-of-a-kind".PNW Raven 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however even if 'some' wands transfer allegiance, it doesnt really matter, in the sense that malfoy's wand did transfer its allegiance, but still worked the same as Hermione's wand -(which shouldn't of transferred its allegiance, as harry only took it from her). addy gAddy-g-indahouse 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a contradiction I noticed. It is stated that the Death Eaters had put a jinx on the name of Voldemort. Speaking the name destroys all surrounding protective charms and enchantments -- this is how the trio was caught and how they were tracked to the dinner after they fled the weding. During their time at Number 12, harry more than once said Voldemot's name, yet nothing happened to alert the Death Eaters. Hows that for a puzzle? -- Jason Palpatine 13:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the nullifying effect.-Tempest115 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thats the contradiction that i was thinking about too. If they were able to put a taboo on certain words, couldnt they put a taboo on a word harry is certain to use... They aquired this power because the death eaters took over the ministry. In the 5-6tjh books why couldnt the ministry put a taboo on the word dark lord, to locate the death eaters, after all, using the book as my source of fact; quote' why do you call him the dark lord, ove only ever heard his followers call him that'. -(harry in the 5th book, at a occulumency lesson in snapes office). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addy-g-indahouse (talk • contribs) 12:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I should add here that they did put a Taboo on a word Harry was certain to use - not many people other than him used the word "Voldemort", that was the whole point. They wouldn't want to Taboo the woreds "Dark Lord" because Harry doesn't use them - they are used primarily by those who serve Voldemort (which is what your quote from the fifth book shows). I don't think there's any contradcition here.

The whole issue of defeating the wizard/witch and taking the wand is linked specifically to the elder wand, but it's clear enough from Harry's attempts to use Hermione's wand that it doesn't work very well for him. --Dave. 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also quoting bryanc, who wrote a secttion in the discussion called taboo, said that Let it be clear for the record what the spell "The Taboo" does.

"When the name is spoken it breaks any protective magics the speaker may have cast around them. According to the book, that's all it does.It does NOT summon Death Eaters. It does NOT summon Snatchers. I have to keep re-editing this portion of the summary because this is misrepresented. Don't change such details unless you understand the mechanics of the story." The book indeed states this, on the page where ron is explaining this to harry and hermione, and also when Greyback comes to get Harry. If the protective charms are broken when someone says the name 'voldemort' then why didn't harry say voldemort when he was locked in malfoy's cellar, and thus the anti apparation charm would be broken... This means he and the others would be able to apparate out of the cellar, without the aid of dobby... addygAddy-g-indahouse 10:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bryanc 23:50, 5 August 2007

You'd have to fine some source to establish why we are reporting these differences, not just to report the differences themselves. Why are they notable? To answer a few of your concerns, Harry defeated Malfoy using a Stunning spell -- Jo never wrote it is exclusively a Disarming spell which defeats the Elder wand's owner. As I recall, Hermione's wand didn't work well for him at all, so I believe the quote should be that the hawthorn wand worked better for him; can you give me a page number on that quote? Xeno's talk and Ron's comment both make sense -- invisibility cloaks are very rare, though there exists more than just the one Harry owns. However, only one of the invisibility cloaks in the world is a Deathly Hallow. Ron may have heard of the concept of invisibility cloaks and assumed that there existed more than one, and so said that they were "rare" when actually there was just the one which Harry had. We can't list any of these because it's simply our interpretation of various spread-out sentences in the books, which would classify as WP:OR. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont really understand why this is original research... Im using the book as my fact source, and basing my facts on the book, the source that this whole article was based on... furthermore people's interpretations are related to the depth at which they studied and read the book's. Im using direct evidence, that cannot metephorically or symbolically translated, only literally, and thus cannot be disputed. ill try and get you the page numbers ASAP, its a little bit difficult for me to go through every page to find my quote =). It did clearly state that 'the hawthorn wand -(malfoy's wand) worked for him just as well as Hermione's did, however hermione's shouldnt of worked well for him at all... As i said ill find all the page #'s asap; give me a bit more time fbv65edel, you did know the ending of the book before all of us, (if you read the vandalism that was done to your page a few months ago) =). addy gAddy-g-indahouse 11:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Voldemort's tabooed name. I seem to recall that Hermione said she used all the protective charms that 'she knew', implying there are others that could have been employed if she'd known how. It's possible that the OotP had left very potent defensive spells and charms on Grimmauld Place that protected the Trio when they spoke Voldemort's name. There's just so many "exceptions" to any contradictions that it will be difficult to list the ones that can't be disputed. PNW Raven 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To what Addy said: It might not be OR in some cases, but all the 'contradictions' you've provided us with are disputedable and not really contradictions. As to clarify the whole taboo thing; one thing that people keep overlooking is that the exact quote from the book is (pg.389)"Using his name breaks protective enchantments, it causes some kind of magical disturbance" so, according to the book it not only breaks protective spells, but also causes magical disturbances. That part is vital or else the story would make no sense. Ron, Harry, and Hermione went to Tottingham Court Road and were caught by Death Eaters for saying Voldemort's name, yet they did not have any protective charms around them at the time, so the taboo must do more then break protective charms, as is explicitly stated in the book. We cannot specify what exactly these other things were (we cannot say they 'summoned' Death Eaters) but we do know that there was more involved. Bella Swan 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that contradictions is a harsh word to use. I think flaws would be a more approppriate word. When JK was writing her first book, she wouldnt of planned everything that would happen in her last book then. Because of this, when she was writing her last book, she would have to twist around some previously mentioned things in her last book. these are the points that appear flawed. addy gAddy-g-indahouse 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, I don't think that you have actually proved that there are any flaws or contradictions in the book. Any 'flaws' you have come up with have been proven not flaws. Bella Swan 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proven that these are flaws... i cannot see how they are not. I have used direct quoted evidence from the book,HOW can you say that ' i havnt proven what i said... i will get exact quotes asap. by saying that my evidence is flawed is saying that using the book as a basis is flawed, and thus this article, which is based on this book, and this is quite ludicrious. The only reason why you might be beleiving that they are not flaws, is that you are viewing the text metaphorically or symbolically, or just that you dont want to accept the truth. While we are at it why dont we say that harry is actually a rare brazillian frog?

i dont mean this in an offensive way, but in a humerous way =) addy gAddy-g-indahouse 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, why are we having this conversation here and not in some Jolt-fueled fancruft forum? Seriously, if U turn my head, and no longer see your post, it no longer exists. Poof. I look at it again, and >poof< you suddenly exist again. If you did not cease to exist each time, you must consider that my self-view is perhaps a bit too egotistical for practical evaluations of the universe around us. Using the same reasoning, I posit that your evaluations of a fictional book's contradicitons about a magical, fictional universe wherein people cast spells by waving twigs around constitutes a chafing case of mental masturbation. Let's all stay on target, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're point #1 and #2 was addressed by PNW Raven above and was proven to be wrong. If you don't think that it was proven wrong, I can clarify that. You're point #3 is not a 'flaw' because the book said it was 'one of kind' but it didn't have to mean that the clok had to look different from other different invisibillity cloaks, its power might have just lasted longer and it was a better cloak in terms of power and was thus 'one of a kind'. As a result, I do not think that this section should be created because there are not valid points to name in the section. Bella Swan 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A more lighter note

Is it possible to either create a new article, or add to the current one an in depth analysis of harry potter deathly hallows. The current one is based mainly on the plot, and less about themes adressed within the book. Infact the only 'theme' adressed in this article is the part on "title of book" about some christmas theme'd hangman puzzle... Anyone can read a harry potter book, and understand the plot. If someone-(including me) wants to read an article on a book, they want a brief plot, followed by a detailed article on the conventions and themes presented by the book. Unless another article with these has already been written, can we add these to the current article? themes CANNOT be interpreted differently, they are universal throughout the population reading the book. every word, every sentence within the book was carefully written by JK. Any interpretations made by the reader must be interpretations that JK intentionally added to the book. Therefore there is an element of fact behind these themes and processes, as JK wrote them intentionally.

I fail to beleive how the immortality theme, and the martyr theme has been left out of this article, i just CANNOT addy gAddy-g-indahouse 09:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Any actual analysis would be considered Original Research, surely? I disagree with your comments above about themes: themes can be interpreted VERY differently by different people. JK cannot make readers interpret the book in a specific way, however carefully she has written the book. The themes you are talking about are certainly not universal. Wikipedia is a place for factual encyclopedic entries, not for analysis of themes (although published analysis by others can be incorporated into an article where it is relevant, reliable and notable. --Dave. 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What Dave is trying diligently to point out is that your opinion, while clearly reasoned, does not meet the inclusion criteria that Wikipedia has set. Your knowledge and evaluations and logic constructs are primary knowledge. Wikpedia responds solely to secondary information - ie, reviews, articles, scholarly monographs, etc. - items that the idependent reader can go to and read for themselves. We don't chew the food for the reader. They do that themselves and digest what they will. I hope that I have helped to make matters more clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thnx m8. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. We are all here to help each other out. You've probably helped other people out in WP along the way; that's the way it's supposed to work here. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian release

Ukrainian version was released on Tuesday, 25th of September in Kyiv by "A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MA-HA" Publishing. Ukrainian name: "Гаррі Поттер і смертельні реліквії" (Hari Potter i smertel'ni relikviyi) - please add this information. --Yarko 09:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More plot length shenanigans

Dearie me, there has been some childish behaviour about the {{plot}} tag. First Tony Sidaway added the tag, then HowardMorland removed it, and later Tony aggressively restored it again. Sheesh, it's just a tag, nothing to get emotional about.

Personally, I've done quite a bit of trimming on the plot and don't think it should be shortened much - unless the plot summary lengths in all the other Harry Potter articles are cut down to size as well. If this excellent prose that has been perfected by several editors must be removed for wikipolicy reasons, then it should at least be moved to a dedicated Potterania wiki. But hopefully it can stay. This is a complex book after all, and a 2-3 paragraph summary would be achievable but would not do proper justice to the work. Being too strict in the application of Wikipedia's rules is not conducive to a good article. Perhaps a bit more trimming is in order, but the {{plot}} tag should be removed soon. Brisvegas 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At around 2400 words the plot summary in this article is well over twice the length of the summary for War and Peace, a novel of twice the length. It's hardly a complex novel, and certainly not as complex as Tolstoy's epic. You have a bit of a nerve referring to the placing of a {{plot}} tag in such circumstances as "shenanigans", frankly. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not referring to your initial placement of the tag as the shenanigans; it was the other person's removal without discussion and then your subsequent aggression when adding it back. In particular, I was referring to the "Don't be so bloody stupid" comment when adding the tag back. I also mean shenanigans in the benevolent way, i.e. "harmless mischievous play, especially by children" (From shenanigan). I hope that's cleared it up for you. Brisvegas 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! The plot has lost a lot of weight in the past couple of weeks, and is now around 1500 words, which I think is reasonably trim for a book that still attracts a lot of interest. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happy with the length - it does seem a reasonable size. I guess it will be able to go for Featured status after some more academic analysis of the book and its relevance to culture in general filters through. Brisvegas 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

I removed Akiyama's addition of an "old style" spoiler tag to the article [1] because, as I said in my edit summary, I thought the issue had been "done to death" on this talk page.

The history of the matter (from my memory) is that the {{current fiction}} was quickly accepted as a better way of warning fans and other curious people that this article contained a plot summary of a very new book, and that there was consensus that it should be removed in due course. This was done without controversy about a month and a bit after the first English language publication.

And there (unless there have been further developments I don't know about) the matter stands. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Accurate assessment. --Ali'i 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As a historical reminder (or as a primer for newer users), and until about 6 or 8 months ago, practically all fictional works that had any sort of plot line that could conceivably be spoiled by information posted in their Wiki main article, became liberally sprinkled with Spoiler Warning and End Spoiler messages, to "protect" the unwary readers from being somehow "injured" by plot twists or surprise endings. The Rosebud spoiler from Citizen Kane (and sometimes the Skywalker/Vadar connection) was used as the justification, and it became the benchmark for proper usage of "spoiler warnings" and "end spoilers". In fact, in those days removing a spoiler warning, or posting spoilers outside a spoiler warning, was considered a Wiki-sin almost akin to vandalism, particularly if done with any appearance of malice. In any case around March 2007 as I recall, spoiler warnings began to vanish en masse at the hands of bots after some lengthy discussions at the spoiler warning template pages. The consensus was that spoiler warnings are inherently redundant, and that users should fully expect to see plot summaries with endings in articles about works of fiction and fictional characters. The Wikipedia is not censored - see no disclaimers in articles and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, although it is edited mercilously, therefore we are under no obligation to "protect" anyone from being "spoiled" by something they freely choose to read. In any case it was a rough road at first, and long debates followed where spoiler warnings disappeared (and reappeared in edit reversion wars), but the general consensus is that spoiler warnings as a class are no longer particularly desireable for fictional works, regardless of the "importance" of the article or work, and now even Citizen Kane is devoid of such warnings. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carpet book.jpg

Image:Carpet book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article 10-30-07 Anakinjmt 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Rowling completes post-Harry Potter book

This is now a real, albeit limited, book. The Tales of Beedle the Bard is currently a redirect to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series#The Tales of Beedle the Bard, so perhaps this should be undone, and the article contains the info both about the real book and the fictional one. Tarc 12:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that currently the only tale from the book we know is of the three brothers, I would be opposed to creating a separate article. The only new info we have can easily be added to the book's section of List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. Now, if Jo either released the book to the general public for sale, or whoever receives the book either directly from Jo or via the auction decides to share in the media the stories, than that's a different matter, and it probably would warrant its own section. For now, though, it should remain how it is. Anakinjmt 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The circulation of the book, while a bit odd and extremely limited, isn't really relevant to this though. If the book exists in real life, and passes the notability, verifiability, etc...concerns, then I would think it should be mentioned here just as there are article for any other book. Tarc 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would pass notability and verifiability, sure, but that doesn't warrant its own article, only that it should be noted somewhere, which it is, in the page of list of fictional HP books. Its mention here is only for within the story. Something about the actual book (which btw would be the same book as the fictional book, see Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), would be more appropriate for the actual section of the HP fictional book list concerning the fairy tale book, since release IS limited, and as such, would only be considered a stub, which I guarantee you would quickly get merged back into the fictional HP book list article. Anakinjmt 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations from the books

I have to say that I kinda like crazypersonbb's rectangular image - it does something nifty with the look of the page. That said, i am not sure its encyclopedic - some admin is going to give it the boot for being decorative. I think a better place for a book illustration would be of the various character images (Grand Pré and cover illo) in the various character bios. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor's sword

Hi has anyone who read the last novel realized the single most blatant inconsistency? If the goblin, Griphook, stole Gryffindor's sword how did Neville get it to kill Nagini?! ___guitar (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First, in answer to your question, he's a true Gryffindor, and a true Gryffindor can get the sword, no matter where it is (Harry did so from the hat in CoS and again from the lake in DH), so even though Griphook got the sword from Harry, the enchantment on it let Neville get it. Second, and most importantly, this is not a forum. You'd best go to an HP forum to ask questions like that. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you were a true fan of HP or had any commen sense you would know that. It is said in the second book that only true Griffendor could pull Griffendors' sword from the sorting hat. Duh user broncofreak12321

Dude, be civil. Insulting them or saying that they're not a true fan of HP or that they don't have common sense is a personal attack, which is not tolerated. And a LOT of fans didn't make that connection at first. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

SORRY if I insulted you. But come on I knew that. And im not a very bright person. user:broncofreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncofreak12321 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in agin but Harry didn't pull the sword from the lake. Ron did. User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't insult me; you insulted the person that asked the question. And you did it again. You need to stop insulting people and implying they are dumb because they didn't get it. J.K. Rowling stated that there was a magical link between the sword and the hat, and that, combined with Neville's need for it, allowed the sword to appear. Ron didn't get the sword magically, though; Harry had grabbed it but was drowning and Ron got him out of the water, and grabbed the sword before it could fall back to the bottom. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First off this is broncofreak i just lost the pass to my acount. and second off you didnt half to explain it to me. i already said i got it. User:ThorinOakshield —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

hey this is broncofreak and thorinoakshield lost pass agin. [[User:Ffaisawesome] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffaisawesome (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not interested if you've lost your password, this place is not a forum. The guy made a simple mistake in how the Gryffindor's Sword passed possesion and yet you've turned it into a chat room about how many times you keep losing your password. Case closed. --Jammy (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

hey he was just saying that he lost his password so back off. he might of been saying that so some of his old friends might know where to find him. So CHILL [[User:Dursely]

Dumbledore

could soe one remove the thing about Dumbledore being in love with a MALE wizard? i never heard of j.k.rolling sateing that he was gay and i dubt that she would have beeen alowed to say that in an interview. i believie it's utter bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.82.146 (talk • contribs)

I believe that you should sign your posts, stop attacking me and watch your current events more closely. She said this around October. Therequiembellishere 20:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did the anon attack you? Anakinjmt 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Verbally on my talk page, but he's been sent a warning by GlassCobra. Therequiembellishere 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, its canon she said it in a reading in new york I believeDragon queen4ever (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was all of a sudden gay after he died? Why not before she killed him off? It doesn't being anything to the story or the characters and just seems wrong to do that after she booted him off to being just a portrait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He was gay at least since he was friends with Grindelwald, possibly longer. I must ask that any further questions of "why did she do this" be taken to a Harry Potter forum, as this page is not a forum, but a place to discuss changes to the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's direct support for Dumbledore being a homosexual in The Leaky Cauldron's interview with JKR available here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/23/transcript-of-part-1-of-pottercast-s-jk-rowling-interviewSDNick484 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The common critical complaint is that a reader doesn't need to consider it canon, since there's supposedly not enough evidence in the actual books. Although when I heard Dumbledore was gay, I was really not surprised at all.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there is support for Dumbledore having a romantic attraction to Grindelwald in his youth, as it was mentioned by Rowling in October and covered extensively in the Press. But this all came after the final book was finished and sold. I think the point is that this is (or should be) an article about the BOOK. It can include a discussion on how the book treats the relationships between Dumbledore and his family and friends (among other things) where appropriate. Dumbledore's romantic interests were not really discussed in any of the books, so bringing up the post-publication announcement of the (one way?) romance between Dumbledore and Grindelwald here may not be proper. Certainly it is to be treated in the articles about Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but unless the issue is at least hinted-at in the book somehow, it probably does not belong here, except perhaps in passing as a context: (Rowling later announced that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay and romantically attracted to Grindelwald)^{[ref link]}, or something to that effect, directly quoting or closely paraphrasing if possible. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Is it at all possible to find a more suitable source for a contravening opinion other than that of a writer for the Christian Science Monitor? Not being well-known for having an outstanding professional presence in the world of literary reviews, I question how appropriate this reference is as well as its encyclopaedic value to the page. Indja (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

maybe not many people were critical? But I agree, the section talking about reviews of the book is tiny considering the amount of interest in this book. Sandpiper (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The "translations" paragraph is not updated!

The Hebrew translation is put there as set to be released December 5th. This date has come and gone, and the Hebrew translation has already been published. can someone change it to - published December 5th? 79.181.114.106 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, and all other 2007 expected release dates have been changed to released. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD?

Sorry, i am seeing that this article is up for deletion, and yet no link to the deletion discussion appears to be in the AfD page or in the archived discussions. What is going on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What? What makes you think the article is up for deletion? I haven't seen a notice posted, and the edit history doesn't show anyone adding or removing an AfD. If one does show up, just remove it, under WP:SNOWBALL. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Y OOTP was put up for AfD at 19:26 on 23 Dec by User:Sazuref "This artical is way to long. I don't like it eithier. I want it to be Delated as quick as posibble." (sic) see: the closed AfD debate - result was a speedy keep in under 10 minutes by User:TenPoundHammer, and Sazuref was counselled on proper AfD protocols. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Extent of Dumbledore's relationship

The article states "Dumbledore's friendship with Gellert Grindelwald extended to romantic love, which may have initially blinded him to the extent of Grindlewald's schemes" The article I originally read quoted Rowling as describing Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald as unrequited, the cited article is a bit blurry in that area. I don't think Dumbledore and Grindelwald ever had an actual relationship or 'romantic love'. Would another article with clearer quotation on what Rowling said be able to be cited? I couldn't find the CNN article on it but the Newsweek article describes it as unrequited ( http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.183.48 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Albus Dumbledore, the only article we've seen which uses the word "unrequited" is the one from Newsweek. This article does apparently need a bit of rewriting to remove speculation, which I'll get right on. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

tone

I'm not sure if this article has the right tone for Wikipedia, maybe someone could check it? Thanks. --Astroview120mm 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? What don't you feel is appropriate? faithless (^speak) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Translations

• I don't believe it is standard practise to have a list of translated names in a Wikipedia article. This made sense before the translations were released, but now, all but a few of them have been. I recommend deleting the list of translated names, instead including a sample of languages it has already been translated into. Perhaps the unreleased translations can be retained as they are? Anyone wanting to read about HP:DH in other languages can simply follow the transwiki links in the sidebar here. I don't however, assume this would be an uncontroversial edit, so I thought I'd ask here first, to avoid it getting edited back and forth. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no replies, so I've done it myself as I actually believe it's correct. If anybody reverts my removal, I'd ask them to explain why here. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rv deletion. Most books are less notable than the Harry Potter books, judging by sales figures. Or this list can be replaced by a pointer to an external list of translations. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the books are notable, but why are the translated names and release dates notable for Wikipedia? No movies have these, that I have seen, and most movies gross way more than even HP books. I still think it should go. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it remains worth explaining, the original reason for listing title translations was because the titles were presumed to shed light on the content of the book, before that content had been published. Logically, it might now be worth saying that before publication, people became quite interested in foreign title translations and alternative english titles for just this reason. From memory, I think there was one main approved alternative foreign title, so I think it ought to be mentioned alongside the runners-up english titles. It is still interesting to know what the title might have been, or indeed is in translation. Sandpiper (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Relics of Death" title and its history in pre-translation release is of course notable. But when I deleted the list of translations (but keeping the Relics of Death history bit), my edit was reverted by Anthony Appleyard. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that there are two separate sections talking about titles. I'm out of practice with this article. I can see how this comes about, but I would be tempted to do some reorganising and place all the title stuff in one section. I see that most of the foreign edition titles are (as well as I can understand them) probably precise translations of the official english language alternate foreign title. So I would support removing them, we don't need the actual translations. Provided....1) there is a sidebar link to the relevant foreign language wiki page (so someone can look it up, and I think this is probably done), and 2) we should perhaps retain mention of any foreign editions which have not been released yet. SO perhaps reduce the translations section to one just mentioning forthcoming editions, and move the explanation of the foreign title up to the section explaining the english title? which I think is pretty much what you suggested, Lilac. Sandpiper (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've gone and done it now. If someone disagrees, I think it would be better if you state why here and try and gather consensus instead of just reverting my edit. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Wikipedia standards regarding the listing of translations, and I won't attempt to make any changes here. However, I would like to make several points regarding unique aspects of the translations of this particular book:

1) There was a great deal of worldwide interest and pre-publication discussion regarding possible and appropriate translations of the original title; that interest was partially but not completely resolved by the official alternate title, because of points (2) and (3) below;

2) Although most of the translations are literal versions of the official alternate title, several are not; these represent the respective translators' unique interpretations of the book and title and therefore have interest in themselves;

3) This book is unique in world history in that it is clearly the fastest selling book of all time, by approximately an order of magnitude (excluding other books in the same series), and the distinction of "fastest selling" seems to hold true even for some of the translated versions with respect to their own language. Therefore, a full listing of the translations of this book has interest in itself, regardless of whether it is conventional to include such lists for other books.

I offer these ideas for discussion only. I will not attempt to implement any of them myself.

One other comment: most movies do not gross "way more than" HP books. With typical total sales in the 50-100 million range each and a typical sales price of 5-25 USD for the English-language versions (somewhat less for most translated versions), the gross sales of each book would exceed the box office gross of all but a few movies. Fragesteller (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian Translation

The italian translation has ben released during the night between 4th and 5th January 2008 (precisely at 00.00 of the 5th January). Please change from "expected release date" to "release date". Thanks. 1000voi (user of it.wiki) --80.20.100.49 (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the list to reflect this. Thanks! --Ubardak (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

refs

as presently numbered, ref 55 sales information from freep gives an article not found error, and ref 50 says it is issue number 47,... but doesn't say what of. It is used 3 times, so maybe the title has got lost in combining it somehow? Sandpiper (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Freep (Detroit Free Press), like many other newspapers, move or delete their news stories after a few weeks, and locating and retrieving them from the archives requires payment of a fee. I think we'll have to go back and re-source many of these old temporary newspaper clippings to something a little more permanent, using a Google search to find preserved copies of important news bites. Also might want to think about taking this problem to the HP Project to-do list, because I am pretty sure it is going to be a widespread problem. In addition, we might want to think about cleaning up (deleting) the fascinating bits and pieces of fan-interest news (coughs: *cruft!*) ('scuse me) that came out as it happened, and focus on what really matters in the long term. Would anyone care about it 5 years from now? If not, maybe drop. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think freep is a problem: it appears to be only substantiating the sales figures, which are anyway available on the BBC ref and other places. But if anyone still here knew what it said, maybe there was something else in it. Ref 50, by inference from one place in the article, is from the Daily Telegraph, but I can't be certain of that without actually finding the issue concerned (though I think I would be willing to accept it if no one knows anything different). I thought the section on sales did want a tidy up and possibly updating now some time has gone by.

As to what people will think important in 5 years? That is difficult to say. Rather crystal ball gazing to decide now what people will be interested in then? Traditionally, the newspaper reports sit on the shelves and anyone goes back and has a read what people said at the time. We are in the position of having documented a current event. Erasing stuff from the page is essentially deleting a record of history as it happened and taking the view that it is uninteresting. Did you by any chance see the television documentary at christmas going over some of this, with film clips of Rowling actually announcing she had finished in her hotel room? I was myself wondering exactly what people had said about the first book when it came out. Before our time, i think, so I cant find out here. If you asked my honest opinion of which section of the article is more uniquely usefull, then I would have to say the general background is rather more interesting than the plot summary. Which is not to say I think there shouldn't be a plot summary, but it is information which anyone could quite straightforwardly replace at any future time by flicking through the book. This other stuff might be more difficult to locate in 5 years time. We should also keep the section on Rowlings commentary, which people really would want to find out about after reading the book (in 5 years time, or whenever).

Now, as I commented above, there is bugger all actual review and critical analysis about the book in the article as it stands, which is rather an omission (if anyone fancies having a go). Sandpiper (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Correction

There are several grammatical and punctuation errors in this article that cannot be corrected due to its locked status. What can be done about this? Fshepinc (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, established users can edit the page, so either wait until Wikipedia considers you an established user, or make specific suggestions here on the talkpage that myself or others can then edit for you. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is quite inconsistent, I lost count of the number of times it switches between past and present tense and back. It appears to me that the original summary was written in present tense (as it should be), then other users added and edited text in past tense. It looks very unprofessional. If anyone could assist with this, I'd be grateful. Erdbeere (talk)

Rated R?

I know a lot of people who think the Deathly Hallows will be rated R. I just wondered if I could have a few more opinions, please.Bracelet (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So very sorry, but this article discussion page is not a fan or opinion forum: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles". You want to take this up at one of the many Harry Potter fan forums available online elsewhere. There are many links to such web sites in the "References" section near the bottom of the Harry Potter fandom page. That said, you can rest assured there is no way Warner Bros. or J. K. Rowling would ever permit the movie to be rated "R". Thanks for the question! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 09:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Film adapation

I think one should write when the next casting for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows film is. I really want to know when it is or can maybe someone suggest a site where it's written??

Wikipedia is not somewhere where you can figure out how, when, and where to have casting. It is honestly not needed in the article's section at all. All that is needed it who the actors are after the casting is done. ~ Bella Swan 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

can maybe someone say when the casting is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.116.35 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on when the writing strike ends. --Jammy (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive list

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Archives box at the upper right lists "Archive 18" in the spot where Archive 28 should be. It links to the proper archive; just the name of the archive on this discussion page is wrong. I've looked at this several times now but cannot seem to spot the problem. I need a second set of eyes - anyone available? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That is bizarre. I tried taking out the link, but it was still there, so I put it back in. It's Christmas Eve, so if it's not fixed by Wednesday, I'll try again. I've made a few archives myself. Might have to completely change the type of archive box used. It's different from what I've used before. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Backround Plot

I have removed this section detailing the background leading up to this book. Anyone who wishes to have this information can read the synopses of the other pages, there is no need to repeat it here. -- Sage1314 (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)