Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Archives contents summary

• /Archive 1: original research complaints; unfounded theories (49k, July 2005 - February 2006)
• /Archive 2: speculated release date; plot speculation; questions to be answered by the book (51k, February – August 2006)
• /Archive 3: references; fake titles; more speculation; failed requested move (48k, June – November 2006)
• /Archive 4: real title; questions about "hallows"; trimming of speculation (68k, November 2006 – January 2007)
• /Archive 5: cited fan speculation; real release date; the meaning of "hallows" (52k, December 2006 – February 2007)
• /Archive 6: long debate on inclusion of speculation on the meaning of "hallows"(173k, Feb 2007)
• /Archive 7: Spoilers, film version, meaning of Hallows, hallows in literature (47k, Feb 2007)
• /Archive 8: continuation of above debate; minor article questions (49k, February – March 2007)
• /Archive 9: continuation of Hallows debate (150k, February – March 2007)
• /Archive 10: end of Hallows debate, release of the covers (52k, March – April 2007)
• /Archive 11: more talk of the covers, image questions, film, books after 7 (64k, March – May 2007)
• /Archive 12: leaks, alternate titles, sneak peaks, Harry's eyes (68k, April – May 2007)
• /Archive 13: "Deathly Hallows" section, more leaks, edit war over DH references (61k, April – May 2007)
• /Archive 14: spoiler policy, MuggleNet spam, speculation (67k, May – June 2007)
• /Archive 15: Pre-release spoilers, Advanced copies, Series Background, Claimed Scans of Text posted at online sites (53k, June 2007)
• /Archive 16: More pre-release discussions, spoiler and post-release strategy, article protection, scans of text posted at external sites, plot elements (64k, June - mid July 2007)
• /Archive 17: Pre-release leaks, spoiler strategies, reliable sourcing, "straw poll" on need for full protection, matters leading up to release (61k, 17 July 2007)
• /Archive 18: Source of leak materials, photographed copies, verifiability and reliable source discussions, spoiler handling, Not Censored, Page Protection protests (61k, 18 July 2007)
• /Archive 19: Early releases, authentic plot summaries, press reviews, Rowling response, spoiler management, updated plot elements (63k, 19 July 2007)
• /Archive 20: Reviews, Plot summary debates, Holding off until release, Worldwide release times, Spoilers handling (66k, 20 July 2007)
• /Archive 21: Pre- and Post-release plot summary discussions - verifiability vs censorship - time zones and midnight release strategy - spoiler / tagging debate (61k, 21 July 2007)
• /Archive 22: Plot summary evolution, "Hide box", spoiler complaints, a Thank You, article protection, List of characters killed, Trivia section (60k, 22 July 2007)

Plot

The book has been released now, we should add the plot

There already is plot. As a matter of fact its a bit too large. — Shinhan < talk > 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what did you expect? It's a 756-page-long book. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this to make it more manageable? --Ayleuss 14:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, the plot length is comparable with that of the other books (see The Half Blood Prince). I'm not sure sectioning is required, but it could do with some tidying up and condensing a bit. -Jw2034 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

At 1500 words or so it's not the worst I've seen, but it is one-and-a-half times the size of our plot summary for War and Peace, the Penguin Classics English translation of which runs to over 1400 pages. It does take some time and thought to produce a concise and readable plot summary of a novel, and it would not be reasonable to expect that to happen in the middle of the excitement over release when everybody wants to add in a mention of his favorite scene. --14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

true, it is too long, but the difficulty of explaining War and Peace in a short plot summary probably limits that one! I'm sure it can be cut down to a length about the same as with that of the previous book. -Jw2034 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a bit longer than the previous book, because there are more revelations, important deaths, and tasks the characters complete. When I read through the plot summary, its pretty condensed and there's not a whole lot of fluff. I actually think its about as good as you can expect from this book.MSauce 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot is overly long. It needs a complete rewrite, and to be reduced to at least half its current size. Sk2k52 13:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about moving the plot to a separate plot page and reserving the article about the novel for facts, figures, and criticism? Superjaberwocky 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think so. Read #2 here. --Isis4563(talk) 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trim down the plot. Part of that is to protect Wikipedia from legal issues, and part of it is because long plots don't belong in encyclopedias. It's truly sad to see how much effort goes into pages like this, with people fighting to have whole chapters quoted, while pages for classics like "War and Peace" and "Macbeth" see far less attention. 69.12.143.197 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

wait a minute...

i don't know if i missed something or what but who's the muggle who performs magic late in life under desperate circumstances?i just finished the book and i didnt see anything about who the muggle is that performs magic later in life.67.185.182.69 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Daniels? He's been called far worse things than "muggle"! --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed this too!!!!! LizzieHarrison 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed the omission of this plot detail. I recall Rowling saying that there was a reason Sirius had to die, as well, which I don't recall reading. PhilShady 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was Ted Tonks. 76.110.151.156 02:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Tonks is a wizard. PhilShady 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought he was supposed to be a muggle. 76.110.151.156 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Tonks is a Muggle- his wife, Andromeda Tonks (nee Black), was removed from the Black family tree for marrying a Muggle. Cdlw93 04:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ted was a Muggle-born wizard, which in the eyes of the pure-blooded Black family, was just as bad as a Muggle. PhilShady 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a reference to Ariana Dumbledore-- she never went to school, but relatively late in life she tried to use it in the duel with her brothers and grindlewald.75.53.126.56 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ariana wasn't a Muggle. Her parents were a witch and wizard and she performed magic at a young age (6 years old?). --Dave. 10:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling never said it would be a Muggle that would perform magic, but "there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life." I think it's more likely that this was Merope Gaunt, who her father identified as a Squib. After Marvolo and Morfin were carted off to Azkaban, she was able to brew the love potion that bewitched Tom Riddle Sr. Stile4aly 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between US and UK editions

Why one has 700 over pages and the other has only 600 over pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.82.51 (talk)

A difference in font size I would guess. 70.253.203.156 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

After making a quick comparison, I would say that the number of lines per page is lower in the US edition. There's extra space at the header and footer of each page; the chapter title and page number are much smaller in the UK edition.- Zero1328 _Talk? 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a comparison...get a picture of a us Edition page and a uk edition page..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.82.51 (talk)

If you mean in the article, I don't feel it's very significant. If you just want to see it for yourself, you can very easily find it like I did. Actually, whether or not one may think it's significant, I believe it would be illegal to give a picture of the actual insides of the book. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Different font size, as well as the addition of images to the US version. All of the other books are like this as well. Daggoth | Talk 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(a)What words are different?..., (b)what pages are different?... between the Bloomsbury British editions and the USA edition?... Also it appears there are a British children's edition http://www.bloomsbury.com/BookCatalog/subject.asp?Category%5Fid=885 and a British adult edition http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/BookCatalog/subject.asp?Category%5Fid=592 dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoof Cover Appears in the Article

The book cover posted is a spoof. See this link from uncyclopedia.org : http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28Books%29 look half way down the page... the book cover appears here. It had been at this spoof website for three months or so before Deathly Hallows was released.

Whoever has write access to the real wikipedia article should update to the real image of the book cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.94.204 (talk • contribs)

Very cute, although it's pretty lame to try and conceal a link to spoilers to someone who is looking at this particular page at this particular time. And new topics of discussion go to the bottom of page, I don't feel emboldened to remove a discussion entry outright, but I will move it to the proper location. Bryanc 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bryanc, I don't think he/she was trying to send readers to a page with spoilers. If they were genuinly concerned about the cover image, that is the real cover. I think the uncyclopedia page just had that caption because the ring in the background bears striking resemblance to the fictional stargate. :) --Isis4563(talk) 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions, if so my apologies anony. The cover art on WP is genuine, and was released officially by the publishers several months before the book release. Bryanc 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not the cover of the US edition. Is there some reason for this? Tvoz |talk 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

...It's a British book, possibly? --Jamdav86 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the US publisher changed the books. Changed from British English to American English. Because we have to coddle our children now. We cannot allow them to gain a larger vocabulary by reading words they may not know. We cannot discuss the books with our children to help them learn new words they do not know. We have to Americanize the cover art. We have to make every single book into a movie for the people who are too lazy to use their imagination. We have to release a Harry Potter movie a week and a half before the final book releases so that there will be a marketing blitz. -- 24.19.205.83 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than the change from "sorcerer' to "philosopher" the differences between the editions are trivial. Anony is obviously ranting, but his/her concerns are unfounded. You are more than welcome to purchase the British editions and share them with your kids. If anything the popular movies will drive people to read, not shun them away from reading. And the neither the book nor film needed a "marketing blitz".

Trivial but not non-existant. I still feel that the books should be left as written, not edited for American spelling/grammar/word usage. But this isn't a forum for expressing opinions about such things, so I'll stop my ranting now. BTW, I just did cave in and buy the books (all 7) to read. It just irritates me that so many books get made into movies (which often leave out massive parts of the plot and/or explanations of the ideas in the plot). As far as marketing blitz, well...I said I'd stop ranting :) -- 24.19.205.83 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was 4AM for me, I had spent about 12 hours straight reading and I didn't express that too well. I didn't mean the UK cover should be replaced by the US cover - perish the thought - I meant that perhaps the US cover could be included down low on the page somewhere where we deign to mention that there is a US edition which will likely sell one or two copies. US fans might be pleased to recognize the book as they know it. Relax, friends, I for one wouldn't have changed the title of the first book for the US audience, and there's still a great deal of British English in the US text - like "take in turns" where we would say "take turns", for example. We know that it's a British book. We love that it's a British book. But the American edition's cover might be a nice addition. By the way, some of my best friends on Wikipedia are British - shall I have them pop over here and vouch for me?Tvoz |talk 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the marriges mentioned?

I got a plot, which might be fake the epilogue mentioned about 4 years after the battle of hogwarts....it's fake, isn't it?

The epilogue is a scene nineteen years after the end of the story. Bryanc 02:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that all she gives for the futures of all the characters folks? Is there not anything said about any of the other weasleys or any of the other characters effected like Luna or the teachers. I would really like to know what happens to the surviving twin as if I have read one dies. I would also like to know what has happened to Nynthadora Tonks and Lupin as all I know is that she has obviously died as she has an orphan son. Any more questions to be left answered please I am getting annoyed with the vandalism! Keep the plot as good as possible so we can all join in celebrating the end of an era. Your choice, don't read it if you don't want to!!! delightedeyes 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the Epilogue does not answer many questions at all. It doesn't tell us when Harry and Ginny get married, if at all. It doesn't tell us who took Lupin & Tonks child in. It is incomplete, and unsatisfying. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use the word "marriage" when summarizing the epilogue. The book never refers to it, and we should not assume that all couples are married. Wikipedian06 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am gutted. What a way to leave it. It does seem a little pompus to assume that you have to be married to have children. But if the rest of them are married with children than I guess it can be assumed they are unless they are rebels delightedeyes 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<EDIT by Yixin: I'm pretty sure Harry and Ginny take Teddy Tonks in since Harry is Ted's Godfather>

We do not know this for sure, and therefore it is not put in. For all we know, Andromeda, Teddy's grandmother, could of taken him in. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 04:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only do we not know it for sure, we have slight evidence to the contrary in that Teddy comes to dinner several times a week. If he'd grown up there surely "why don't we just invite him to live with us" would read "move back in" or similar.

My money's on him being raised by his grandmother, but that is speculation which doesn't belong in the article.Claudia 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it figured out why Dumbledore has left Ron the thing for the light and Hermione the childrens book in Runes or is it just a joke about their future. Are they any use to them in the rest of the book apart from the sword and snitch to Harry? delightedeyes 04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC). Yes, it is. --Dave. 10:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I join those who believed the Epilogue to be unsatisfying and inappropriate. When I saw it in earlier online sites, assumed it to be a fake. Would have preferred the story to have simply ended after the battle and victory over Voldermort and left the "future" to itself. Rather seemed childish to have all the happily-ever-afters to end with high school sweethearts. -- dmf 14:30 EDT 22 July 2007

Yeah, the epilogue was pretty disappointing, much like the rest of the book. But surely it's correct to assume that the main characters who have children are married? One would consider the heroes to have some degree of morality, after all. So they should use the term "marriage."

This is completely absurd - I can only hope you're all joking. In fact, the Epilogue refers to "the five Potters" so yeah, maybe they're not married, and Ginny took on the name Potter for old times' sake. Sometimes it's a duck, folks - they're married. (And Victoire is Fleur and Bill's daughter, but I see all reference to her has been extinguished, so never mind.) Tvoz |talk 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I am quite indifferent to he nature of the protagonists' unions and was speaking of the epilogue in general. I suppose we could assume, however, that none of the referenced couples was married in the local Anglican Church. :-) dmf 15:30 EDT 22 July 2007

Harry's Eyes and Late-Life Magic

I read the book today, and I still have no clue why Rowling said that Harry's eyes resembling his mother is so very, crucially imporant. Can someone fill me in? Also, Rowling said that a non magical character will peform magic late in life, under desperate circumstances. Who did this? I recall nothing.Piggins 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. Go to a fan-forum. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is relevant. It is answering the information put up on the page when it was still pre-release. This may be in the article, but Harry's eyes = his mother's is important because Snape loved Lily; his eyes remind him of her. The character was someone "thought" to be a Muggle/Squib. This was Dumbledore's sister Ariana Dumbledore. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the "Muggle driving test" is probably a reference to Rupert Grint (the actor who plays Ron in the films), as he was in a TV programme in 2006 called 'driving lessons' which JK ROwling was known to have enjoyed.202.83.35.62 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

US child Edition

On the US child edition, where did that take place in the actual story?

Once again, this is not the place to discuss this. Go to a fan forum. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This actually is NOT relevant. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• there isn't a children's edition in the US, you meant to say UK.
• Lestrange's Vault
• I expect things will calm down here when the fan sites are available again... they are all currently frozen.

Deep Discount doesn't carry the book anymore...

Head on over to Deep Discount, and enter a search for either 'Harry Potter' or 'Deathly Hallows'. You'll simply be redirected to the front page.

And no matter how hard you search through their list of new releases... you'll find NO Harry Potter books at all.

Gee-wizards Batman! I wonder why they don't carry Harry Potter books anymore.T ConX 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They were sued for releasing the book early. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux list and casualty list

• At 05:59, 22 July 2007 User:17Drew deleted these 2 lists "removed listcruft, important information should already be in the plot summary or the Horcrux article". But to many readers the information in these lists is useful important information and not cruft, and putting it in a list means that readers do not have to ferret for it through a mass of general information. Anthony Appleyard 06:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think Scrimgeour's death can be placed at the time of Fleur and Bill's wedding. Patronus messages are pretty much instant in reaching their recipients, as demonstrated by the message sent to them after the wedding. 202.131.163.123 06:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• The plot needs to be condensed. When this happens, not all of the deaths will be listed (for example, Colin Creevy's death is so minor, and gets so little time, that it is not worth putting into the plot. Therefore, we have a list for people who were killed. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• They missed bathilda bagshot as well I think. Reincaster 06:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the two lists, I think WP:TRIVIA applies here as both lists are mostly trivia. I also think the lists are listcruft that don't add anything to the article, the Horcrux list is already covered by the article on Horcruxes and the casualty list is not a legitimate encyclopedic topic in itself. --Farix (Talk) 14:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge and agree with the concept of listcruft, but I don't think these two lists are crufty. In fact, they are concise, legible summaries of the information a large number of people consulting the article will be looking for. The hunt for horcruxes is the core of the plot of the book. I would be willing to see it moved to the Horcrux article, as that seems to fit the guideline better, but not removed entirely. Claudia 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have just had to reinstate these 2 lists AGAIN. They seem to be forever in and out like owls at the Hogwarts owlery. Anthony Appleyard 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:USEFUL. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and all information should have real world importance. If people are coming here to find out about unimportant plot points, they're at the wrong place. If any or all of the deaths are important, they should already be in the plot summary. And there's no reason to have a list of Horcruxes, when the Horcrux article already has that. 17Drew 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The Horcrux article has a pile of dense text. The table pulls out the essential information. Perhaps it should be in the Horcrux article instead of here, but it out to exist. These aren't unimportant plot points: the identification of the Horcruxes and their elimination is the main thrust of the book. Claudia 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Do we have a list of every character who was beheaded in Highlander (film) and by whom? Of course not. Such detail is trivial and not encyclopedic, and the same goes for these listcruft. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I really don't know enough about Highlander to address the analogy. I'm not talking about the death list, though, I'm talking about the Horcrux list. This is not trivia, it is the spine of the plot. Claudia 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Horcrux serves the purpose in a much better fashion. --Farix (Talk) 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux/Casualty Lists: Official Vote

(vote removed by 007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters)

Wikipedia not a place for Listcruft. All Horcruxes already listed in Horcrux. Important deaths should be covered in the plot summary and minor deaths shouldn't be in a separate list. Sounds like the only point of this is for easy spoiling. Wikipedian06 06:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HANG ON A MINUTE! You can't just hold your own vote like this. The only votes on this website are for things like AfD's. And furthermore, you cannot just put other users names into the vote! Get lost, seriously. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's far from unknown for talk pages to hold polls like this although maybe he should not have filled in your name for you. Additionally saying things like "Get lost" is uncivil so please refrain. Thank you :) --Meridius 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be removed. It's an awkward and unnecessary list, and it violates the manual of style. Right now, the plot summary for this book is longer than the plot summary for Lord of the Rings.-Wafulz 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

'Longer than the summary for LotR' may in fact be appropriate. Tolkien wrote far more setting, far less plot than JKR has in her series. The experience of reading Deathly Hallows for me was watching a bunch of tapestry threads each get neatly tucked away. Whether the right stuff is summarized is a more useful question than how many words it takes to get there.Claudia 15:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LotR spans three books, dozens of battles and characters, and several separate plots lines, and still manages to be more brief than this one single book. Not every single piece of plot needs to be detailed here, and not every step taken in the book needs its own sentence. Why can this:

With the Dursleys escorted to safety by a pair of wizards, the Order of the Phoenix arrives to sneak Harry out of his house. Despite an attempted decoy involving six younger members of the Order of the Phoenix taking Polyjuice Potion to make themselves look like Harry, the real Harry, accompanied by Hagrid, is correctly identified by his "trademark" disarming spell and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry's wand, surprisingly, still reacts with Voldemort's new, borrowed wand, destroying it. Hedwig, Harry's owl, is killed by a stray Killing Curse. After narrowly escaping, Harry and the Order eventually reach the Weasley residence, The Burrow. George Weasley has lost an ear to Snape, and Alastor Moody had been killed by Voldemort himself. Reacting to Voldemort's anger at his escape, Harry has a vision, now common again, of the Dark Lord questioning Ollivander the wand maker why his borrowed wand still reacted with Harry's.

Not be shortened to this?

With the Dursleys escorted to safety by a pair of wizards, the Order of the Phoenix arrives to sneak Harry out of his house. Despite an attempted decoy, the real Harry, accompanied by Hagrid, is correctly identified and attacked by Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Harry's wand reacts with Voldemort's new wand, destroying it. Hedwig is killed by a stray Killing Curse. After escaping, Harry and the Order reach the Weasley residence. George Weasley has lost an ear to Snape, and Alastor Moody had been killed by Voldemort. Harry has a vision of the Dark Lord questioning Ollivander on why his borrowed wand still reacted with Harry's.

This is just one example of how people document every breath a character takes as its own sentence. There's a lot of needless detail. Oh well, odds are it will only continue to grow as long as this article is linked on the main page. -Wafulz 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means tighten the prose. But comparing it to another series (/book) doesn't really make sense. Tolkien wasn't setting up puzzles early on to be resolved later the way Rowling was: this book has a lot of answers. Claudia 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This should stay !!!!! 83.104.225.189 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Financials

There are a number of things that should be considered with the final sentence of the 'After Deathly Hallows' section. Firstly, it doesn't state a currency, and since Bloomsbury is registered on the London exchange, the value should be in GBP, not USD (of which I assume the writer has converted to). Also note that the USD value would only be valid if it were calculated at the time the decreased value of Bloomsbury was measured, and not any other time. Secondly, and I am not suggesting to rewrite history, the article that is cited is dated over 5 weeks before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Given this, it is not even appropriate for it to appear in a section titled 'After Deathly Hallows'. A more up-to-date article would be more appropriate, but this will not be viable until some time has passed since the release of the 7th Harry Potter book. I'll add that this footnote-like sentence would be better off in an article about Bloomsbury, be that an article on it's stock market history (which is rather interesting), or an article on the effects of Harry Potter on the publisher. Psydexzerity 06:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

second battle of hogwarts

While I am all for linking to the separate article in an attempt to condense the plot, you cannot remove everything. Write a condensed version of the battle. Include only the important points, and important deaths. Try and get it down to 2 paragraphs, three max, and that should be good enough to leave, and remove the rest. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The book calls it "The Battle of Hogwarts" so to have "second" in front of it is incorrect. Sophia 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You could argue that point, but I think it's too late to do anything about it now that it is being called that all over wikipedia. However, it can be called that if you assume the first battle to be when Malfoy let the death eaters into hogwarts. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the world and we should not fall into the trap of creating fiction - if this article is to stand a chance the only thing to do is stick faithfully to what is actually is in the book. Sophia 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're asking, and it's an awful lot. It means changing and splitting a lot of articles, because we'll need a new name for current first battle of hogwarts, we'll need to edit everything that references to it, and change a lot of work that's gone into the 2nd battle of hogwarts over the past 36 hours. I just don't see it happening, but if you feel very strongly about it, take it up on the wikiproject talk page. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First I'm quite happy to do a lot of the work - second I shall give up now if the criteria we edit by is how bothered we are with accuracy. Other articles in wikipedia are pinned to the wall with preciseness. The only way to save an article such as this is to rigorously stick to canon. Sophia 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will support you in your endeavours. I agree with you that articles should stick to the strongest fact. The only way, however, that you will effect a site-wide change, is through the wikiproject. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 09:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the list of them it's not obvious which one would be appropriate - which do you suggest? Sophia 09:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels does jack all. The one you need is the Harry Potter WikiProject. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 09:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Sophia on this one - the book specifically calls it The Battle Of Hogwarts - therefore it is obvious that Rowling doesn't consider it the second battle. We should go with the Chapter name (cannon) and not another title (which is I believe more of a continuity issue - note that it is not Wikipedias job to fix continuity issues between books only to create an article based on said books. A note in the first sentence that it can also be considered the second battle would, IMO suffice. 03swalker 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Sabbath contoversy

I put this back in (with an extra sentence on legal ramifications), since what I could find in the discussion was inconclusive. Thoughts?—Wasabe3543 07:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It definitely needed to be included. It is good and informative, thanks for contributing. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be cleaned up and clarified, as it makes it seem like the Rabbi and others who deem the release controversial are critical of the publishers with their choice of release date, when in fact, it seems they are irritated with bookstores and other Israeli avenues that sell the book in violation of their Jewish law.

SPELLING

Minor point -- in a post in an earlier archive, someone says 'artefact' should be spelled 'artifact'. This is incorrect. 'Artefact' is the British English spelling and probably at least as popular as 'artifact' in the US. Dougweller 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in wikipedia guidelines I read that if the subject is British, British spelling should be used. If it is American, American spelling should be used. If it discusses a general topic neither British nor American, either may be used (As long as it's consistent), so I think British spelling should be used in this article. :) --isis4563 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, the mentioned article may be found here. Dust Filter 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings are in use in the UK, but the "e" spelling could be seen as more correct to its latin roots. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my edition the word 'succeeded' is misspelled. Unless the Brits like it with only one 'c'. ActuarialFellow 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An article about mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed

Hi, I am looking for an article that will contain a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed. As for example, I remember reading in the part 1 or part 2 about Dudly throwing away a Playstation. If I know it correctly, the 'Deathly Hallows' is supposed to happen in 1996, so in 'Chamber of Secrets', we cannot expect Dudley to use a play station, which shipped first in 1994. I'm sure there are minor mistakes like this. Please give a link, or create the article

Perhaps you mean this link? [[1]]Kanamekun 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

US page count

According to Barnes and Noble, the US edition has 784 pages. The article says 759. --Isis4563(talk) 15:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• The US hardcover edition here in my hand has 759 pages. android79 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Mine has 759 as well. Miles Blues 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Barnes and Noble has it wrong, mine also has 759 pages. Bryanc 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright :) thanks. --Isis4563(talk) 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually... that's 759 *numbered* pages... taking into account the table of contents and other such unnumbered pages, there are indeed 784 physical pages in the book. Bryanc 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I figured that was why, because Books-a-million and wal-mart also say 784. I guess 759 should be the number put in the article, though. :) --Isis4563(talk) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even counting all the pages (numbered and otherwise, and front and back red inserts)in the US edition there are still only 774 pages.

Does that count blank pages as 1 page or 2 (one for each side)?Claudia 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for following the reliable sources policy. Two reliable sources say 784. Amateur internet sleuths with the book say 759. This is is a no brainer from a policy respect. --Tbeatty 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 7 leaves of paper before the numbered pages start (14 pages). There are 759 numbered pages, followed by a blank page (1 page), and 5 leaves (10 pages). 14 + 759 + 1 + 10 = 784. No mystery. The reliable sources and the "amateur" sources do not conflict. It's a matter of what we are counting... physical pages in the book, or numbered pages of the story. Bryanc 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes little sense to count blank pages, even if the booksellers do. android79 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sword's name

In the plot summary, should "Godric Gryffindor's sword" or "sword of Gryffindor" be used? Miles Blues 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

whichever flows better, either is fine.

Speculation

Where has the speculation gone (things like "plot details known form book 6, and what JKR had said about the book)?

Wouldn't this be useful for the article.

Finally, I would like to know what things were put into the third film, which apparently foreshadow events in this book. Shouldn't these be mentioned?

Is there a web page where this mentioned? That could be added as an alternative. Dewarw 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

such things are discussed extensively on forums found at websites such as the-leaky-cauldron.org and mugglenet.com. A far more extensive coverage than what is appropriate for wikipedia of this book will evolve on hp-lexicon.org in due time. These sites are under lockdown this weekend for obvious reasons. Bryanc 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Errant Code...

Why in the bloody hell am I seeing the sentence "Perhaps some egyptians believe" at the end of the Epilogue, yet when I attempt to view the editing screen for the section, it's not there!? Edit Centric 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it on the page. Try doing a cache dump reload? crtl-shift-r Lynnae 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Muggle-borns / Mudbloods

I think it's editorializing to change every instance of the second to the first. The stated goal of the search was to find Mudbloods. Note that "blood traitors" is equally as tricky a term. Claudia 19:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort "Killed By"

This is going to be taken as a reason to delete the table entirely, isn't it? The table column is "killed by", which needn't mean a person. It can be a method. Look at the Peter Pettigrew entry. It's debateable whether it was Voldemort or Harry, so let's leave it at the how rather than a name. Claudia 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind on closer inspection of the table. Still, it's a debatable point. Claudia 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it debatable? It's obvious that Voldemort of all people was not the person who cast "Expelliarmus" while Harry cast "Avada Kedavra". Thus, Voldemort was the one to cast the spell. It's also obvious that it wasn't just a random ricochet since only the Avada Kedavra ricocheted while the Expelliarmus hit. The only debatable point is whether or not we should put "The allegiance of the wand" in there in place of "Voldemort". But there's no debating whether or not Harry was the one who killed Voldemort since he wasn't. FallenAngelII

Well, he's the proximate cause. If he hadn't acted, he'd have died instead of Voldemort. Claudia 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot 'summary'?

I think it's safe to say that the current plot 'summary' is at least 2000 words too long (a rough count gives 3,243 for the total). Okay, I'm not saying we should set a hard word limit, but it is far too long. I presume I'm not alone in thinking this? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not alone. It currently has two too many lists, seven too many subsections, and a ridiculous amount of detail. Although we pretty much predicted this would happen three days ago. Such is the cycle of Wikipedia....-Wafulz 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Way too long - agreed. I think we will have to wait for activity to slow down to make much progress tightening things up however. Sophia 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long. However, there's a way to make everyone happy. I've seen a lot of articles with both a short summary and an in-depth summary. For those who would like a much shorter summary that reveals only the most important details of the plot, we should make a short version to place before the long one. FallenAngelII 23:00, 22 July 2007 (GMT +1)

I've been trying to get rid of the lists, if anyone else wants to help...-- John Reaves 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter book-related articles seem to suffer from the overly long plot synopsis problem as a rule. I personally favour very short synopses. They're more academic, and they result in more manageable, more readable articles. Anyone who wants minute plot details can easily just read the book. Exploding Boy 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, again, think that we should create two summaries, a Plot Synopsis and a Plot Summary. This is a very common thing on Wikipedia for both books and movies. Whoever wishes to can write one and then we can all jump in and edit it to create a very academic and short, but still good, synopsis. This will satisfy both those who wish for a long summary a short one. FallenAngelII

I've remove both lists as "superfluous bloat". Which is what they are. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis is too long. However, it is going to be longer than the norm even when reduced to an appropriate length. Each book has an unusually complex plot anyway, and the seventh book acts ties up all the loose ends in 4195 pages of prose. It's going to be long. Once it's off the front page it can be shortened to an appropriate length. At the moment, it should be enough to prevent it becoming a chapter-by-chapter paraphrasing. (chgallen 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Tagging Spoilers (who gets killed ect)

I REALLY think a spoiler warning should be put up for people who are killed in the book. Someone who hasn't read the book may come her and see the list, not expecting such a huge spoiler... --Jaydeejj 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No one would accidentally stumble upon the list. It specifically says "List of characters killed" in the able of contents and the lists come after the long plot summary, right after the epilogue. FallenAngelII

(edit conflict) The section is titled List of characters killed, so it would be quite clear that it will list the character who where killed in the book. There is absolutely no need for a spoiler tag for something so self-evident. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Information

On my talk page please post (if knkown) the jobs of surving characters at the end of the book. There are tings that need explaining. On a website who's name escapes me, it said that there was more to the sorting hat and that someone who normally cannot do magic does it in desperate circumstances. Whatever these are (if they are true) should be added to the page. Rembrant12 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)