Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Merge Proposal:

Until Further information should come out, I think we should merge this page with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows under a FILM section, and remove the long cast list for now. WP standards do say that when prodution on a film begins, to create a seperate film page, but I think if we removed the long and (unnessacary) cast section, this would be fit for a merge into the book article until we get more information on the two films. This will settle a dispute over the two films and whether they should be one or two articles, and will condence an article that could be placed in a better suited spot.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Opposed : I don't agree. There is information coming about the production of the movie every week. It would be unnecessary to merge and recreate the article in a month. As for creating 2 article, one for each part, I do not take position. --Stroppolotalk 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose : Per WP:FILM, an article should exist for the motion picture as long as principal photography has begun, and filming of Deathly Hallows (Part I and Part II) is nearing completion.--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Even if ts a small article?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Oppose. Andrea (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per WP:FILM. Good luck trying to ignore all rules for the sake of "condensing" though. Alex Douglas (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Opposed: There is plenty of sufficient information on the film and its production state to have this article on its own. SMSstopper0913 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.138.172 (talk)
Opposed All the other films in the series have their own articles, so this one should too. DP76764 (Talk) 02:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Both WP:IAR? and WP:IGNORE state: "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)"


and


"Ignore all rules does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus."


The film page is way too short for a seperate film page. The only thing that is taking up space is the Cast Section. While rewrighting the cast section could help, but why would you want to go to a seperate page after clicking on the book, where you can get a short descirption of production, exc. on the film in the book page.


"Ignore all rules does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was."


Yes, and thank you. :)ChaosMaster16 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Strong Opposed Try expanding it if you think 30,401 bytes, 64 refs, and 4 healthy sections are too short. Airplaneman talk 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


spelling error

instalments should be installments 66.190.244.233 (talk)

There is no spelling error : this article uses British Spelling. Have a good day. --Stroppolotalk 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

future

"Future In April 2010, Rowling announced she has plans for an 8th and final book for the series. However, no further announcements have been made"

I'm curious as to why this unsubstantiated and almost certainly false bit of gossip is in the entry (about a possible 8th book in the Potter series) and why it has its own section?? There is no talk of an 8th Potter book that I'm aware of, certainly nothing from Rowling's own site, and her recent comments on the subject contradict the idea: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2010/4/5/jkr-sometime-in-the-not-too-distant-future-i-will-bring-you-another-book-and-it-will-not-be-harry-potter "Sometime in the not too distant future I will bring you another book and it will not be Harry Potter." She went on to relate that she is "enjoying taking a break from publishing," and, regarding in earlier question, reiterated prior comments saying she has never ruled out revisiting the Harry Potter series, but she "always planned seven." She also noted that while she is indeed writing again, she is not ready to talk about it just yet.

It's not even punctuated correctly. I'm removing it. Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

vandalism?

When did Ron and Hermione divorce? 164.100.170.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

Never, according to this book. The statement has been removed. DP76764 (Talk) 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Publication Date?

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't hp7 come out july 7th, 07, not july 21? I have a keychain from the part that has the date 07/07/07 written on it. just wanted to see if anyone agrees before i go a make a change that might not be right.

No, it was the 21st. Because 7/7/7 would have just been too awesome. (I remember being very annoyed it was the 21st and not the 7th.) Propaniac (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"One reader in Maryland"

If this isn't meant to be me, fine. But if it is, I can assure you, no one denied that I had received the book early - in fact, I was contacted by Scholastic and asked not to reveal the contents of the book. And then they offered me "compensation ($50 in Scholastic merchandise)" for the "difficulty" - yeah, a bribe. And yeah, I took it! FlaviaR (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

redirects?

Why does the video game redirect here? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

redirect?

Why does "HP7" redirect here? There are other things that HP7 may stand for (such as the crap listed in the see here links) that rate a lot higher than Harry Potter. I like the Harry Potter stories but that redirect is bullshit. If anything it should go to a disamg page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation

The article cited for some of the post-DH info (Hannah Abbot, Dumbledore is gay) - i.e. the one from Newsweek, actually has nothing whatsoever in it about either of these things. The article is titled "JK says Dumbledore is gay!!" or some such, but the article itself is completely devoid of the information it has been used as a citation for. I couldn't edit this because it's protected. Can anyone fix this?Anannya.authorshipclass (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.129.76.10, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article about the book, the following quote is actually untrue. "They recover the Sword of Godric Gryffindor; it is one of a few objects that can be used to destroy Horcruxes (being dipped in Basilisk venom), and they use it to destroy the locket."

They do recover the Sword of Gryffindor, but it is not because it was dipped in Basilisk venom. It is actually because it is Goblin-made metal, which is supposedly very difficult to destroy and is one of the few things that can destroy a horcrux.


24.129.76.10 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The property of goblin-made metal is that it takes in what strengthens it. Basilisk venom can destroy horcruxes, not goblin made swords et al. Hamtechperson 16:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Movie Release Dates

{{Edit semi-protected}} In the first section it says "A two-part film based on the novel is in the works, with part one's release date in November 2010 and the second part in July 2011." The first part has been released, so the text should be changed to "The second part of a two-part film based on the novel is in the works to be released in July 2011, with part one having been released on November 11, 2010 in London."

A couple of edits by Tony Sidaway

I tried to fix some grammar in the lede. I hope that helps a bit.

Also I tried to reword the opening semtence of the "Epilogue" subsection, to try to keep it from getting too far in-universe, up-arse, or whatever you want to call it.

I removed what I think was an excessive expansion of the already over-the-top response to a single statement by Rowling on an in-universe topic. Dumbledore may be gay and he may keep quiet about it, but in Britain of the 1990s when the novel is set this isn't such an issue as it would have been in former decades. There are some muggles who want to make a big deal out of it? Fine, but not on Wikipedia. --TS 00:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ISBN

Please add the ISBN for the book: 0545010225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan51 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done OSbornarfcontributionatoration 23:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fix this typo

There is a typo in the first paragraph of the Plot Summary. The sentence; "Where the two founders' objects areis unknown, and Nagini is presumed to be with Voldemort." needs a space and possibly a comma to separate the "areis" into "are is" or "are, is" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.170.188 (talk • contribs)

Changed it to "are is". OSbornarfcontributionatoration 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Review

From Kirkus Reviews: [1]. Note that it's the only HP novel to achieve a starred review. Glimmer721 talk 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Two reviews in one: [2] Glimmer721 talk 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested source

To make this article comprehensive probably a good idea to read and add information from this book. I don't know how much is available through google books - might have to borrow it from a library instead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophe

In the section 'Christian allegories' it says "The Dumbledore's family tomb" which should either be just "Dumbledore's family tomb" or "The Dumbledores' family tomb" - right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.248.111 (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cover Picture

Anyone vote for an American cover to be displayed, as well as the UK? It is very expectable for users of Wikipedia to see the American cover as well. Perhaps lower down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Holmes II (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover art is copyrighted, and the use of the UK cover is limited by the Fair Use Rationale provided with the image media file. Use of non-free images on Wikipedia is limited, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Use of images with free licenses is encouraged instead. The other images in this article have free licenses. Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Elizium23; adding the US cover would not be covered by Non-free content criteria, it would add nothing to the article and presents no new information to a reader. And why US cover-art? If one was to advocate for that you may as well advocate for using every single different cover ever made by each individual country. Using the UK cover for fair use rationale is fine - it illustrates the article and adds to the text, and is the cover from the country of origin. Adding US cover art purely from a copyright point of view is indefensible, not to mention pretty pointless in every other aspect. Patyo1994 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on Facebook

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - the seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling - has a fan page for the movies on Facebook which is growing at a rapid. It currently has more than 280,000 fans worldwide who have "liked the page" and growing at an average of around a thousand likes a day. It is perhaps one of the few fan pages with the most active participation of fans. It is important to make a mention of this page - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starry ghost (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can i know how this piece of information adds to the overall understanding of the book? sure, this proves that the book has a good fanbase but it is not important in a encyclopedic article about the book Robin 15:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.206.23.97, 6 August 2011:

Plot Summary, first paragraph: Change "...Helga Hufflepuff, and the third may be..." to "...Helga Hufflepuff and a third may be..." After all, there are seven (eight counting Voldemort himself) horcruxes, not three. Also, British English would omit the comma before that "and".

Dick Kimball (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Glimmer721 talk 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

typo

In the Critical Response part: the book was more serious than the previous novels in the serious

Another in Plot summary: It is also revelaed that Dumbledore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.69.76 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

typo

middle of the 4th paragraph of the plot summary, "seaking" should be "seeking", shouldn't it?

corrected. Thank you. Mezigue (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity change

In the paragraph is this sentence: "Harry surrenders himself to death at Voldemort's hand, using the Resurrection Stone to bring back his deceased loved ones for a short while, who casts the Killing Curse at him, sending Harry to a limbo-like state between life and death." This is somewhat confusing as it almost points to his deceased loved one casting the killing curse. More appropriately would be this suggestion:

Harry surrenders himself to death at Voldemort's hand in the forest. But before meeting Voldemort Harry uses the Resurrection Stone to bring back his deceased loved ones for a short while giving him comfort. Then he meets Voldemort who casts the Killing Curse at him, sending Harry to a limbo-like state between life and death.

'Accuracy change Harry does not leave when he is 17 and the protection is broken, he leaves before that date.

--TonyinJersey (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Waried" Text currently says that Snape's loyalty never waried. No such word; should probably be "wavered". 174.7.104.200 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo

'...climatic duel...' should be '...climactic duel...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkly1982 (talk • contribs)

fixed! DP76764 (Talk) 17:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

There's a hatnote for people searching for the Amersham postcode district HP7. Realistically how often does this happen? I can't say that I've ever searched WP for a postcode area and don't see any rationale for doing so, as result I see this hat as completely pointless. Since one competent editor saw fit to add it, I'm reluctant to remove it without consensus, so if anyone else agrees.... danno 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot hole

Ron gave Dobby the location of Bill an Fler's house. But later Ron stated that Bill was the secret keeper for it's location. Therefor Ron could not give the location even though he knew it. Herogamer (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumably that's why Dobby had to take them near to the cottage instead of right into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.100.201 (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

I want to edit the page on Harry Potter because it is not up to date. I want to add that J.K. Rowling admitted to originally wanting Harry and Hermione to end up together romantically. I feel like it is an important aspect and should be added to the wikipedia page. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/jk-rowling-admits-that-harry-and-hermione-should-have-ended Keharris25 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That is not actually what JKR said, the reference you quoted is a blog referring back to this article in the Sunday Times where she admits "she got it wrong by pairing off Hermione Granger with Ron Weasley" but not that she originally wanted them to end up together. Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Taboo

No mention of the taboo on the word “Voldemort”? JDAWiseman (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

At the end, Hermione Granger or Hermione Weasley?

I see from the talk page that previous versions of this wikipedia entry state simply that Ron married Hermione, without mentioning any change in last name for Hermione:

"In the story's epilogue, taking place 19 years after the Battle of Hogwarts (presumably 2017), Harry has married Ginny Weasley and has three children named James, Albus Severus, and Lily. Ron has married Hermione and they have two children named Rose and Hugo. Draco has a child named Scorpius. They all meet at King's Cross, about to send their children to Hogwarts at the beginning of term. It is revealed that Harry's scar has not hurt since the Dark Lord's defeat, and there, the story ends."[1]

The current entry refers to her in the epilogue as Hermione Weasley. This seems contradictory to her character, and Emma Watson herself said that Hermione would "would have kept her maiden name."[2] Why was the entry changed? Did J.K. Rowling confirm the married name change? If it's unclear, please revert to the previous state or rewrite it so that Ron and Hermione are referred to by first name only.

24.25.207.119 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)W.Dust

 Done A valid point. Any assumption that Hermione's name has changed is just that - an assumption and OR. The book makes no mention of her surname; I've removed it. Of course, if a valid source comes up confirming her name change, so be it - but in the meantime... Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_21#Marriage_.28potentially_flammable_....29
  2. ^ http://www.bustle.com/articles/5727-emma-watsons-rebuttal-to-hermione-granger-fan-on-twitter-makes-us-so-happy

Are Ukrainian, Swedish, and Hindi some kind of special languages?

I would like to know why somebody emphasized these three languages, I mean "The novel has also been translated into over 120 languages, including Ukrainian, Swedish, and Hindi.". Are these languages special among the other 120? I ask seriously, because it may have something I have no idea about Tashi Talk to me 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I agree, it makes no sense. "The novel has also been translated into over 120 languages" seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
arrow Reverted I disagree; it serves to demonstrate the diversity and variety of the 120 different languages (are they all dialects of English? Only Romance languages? Did they translate into Quenya or not?) and also by extension it proves the popularity of the novel in far-flung areas of the globe. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the disagree. Although Swedish is nothing special (no offence to any Swedes), both Hindi and Ukranian are non-Latin alphabets, so as Elizium points out are good examples of diversity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks you all. This is what I needed to know. Tashi Talk to me 08:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit requests

"Harry re-enters the wizarding world at age 11 and enrolls" (Plot: Background) Rowling is a British author, so the British spelling enrols should be used.

Mad Eye (mentioned twice in Plot: Summary) should be Mad-Eye. UK editions consistently write the name this way.

"Harry learns that Voldemort is seeking the Elder Wand, recognises the Resurrection Stone from the second Horcrux, which Dumbledore destroyed, and realises that his own Invisibility Cloak is the one mentioned in the story, but he is unaware of the Hallows' significance." (Plot: Summary). Suggest inserting "true" before "significance". Their significance has just been explained (by Xenophilius) but there is a true significance that is revealed later.

Forest of Dean (mentioned in Plot: Summary). Link to Forest of Dean (yes, it exists!)

Due to its worldwide fame, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' has been translated into many languages (Translations). Remove apostrophe.2.24.117.123 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done – These seem like good suggestions, so I've gone ahead and done them. The apostrophe in the last one appears to have just been a mistake in the italics markup, not an intentional grammatical feature. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dumbledore = Death

Rowling confirmed the old fan theory that Dumbledore represents death, Voldemort represents the Peverell brother who claimed the elder wand, Snape represents the brother who wished to use the stone to bring back the dead and Harry represents the 3rd brother, literally greeting Dumbledore as an old friend when he was temporarily dead, like Death in "The Tale of Three Brothers".

I believe that the confirmed theory should be mentioned in this article as the theory stems from the "Deathly Hallows" book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.220.173 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Rowena Ravencourt?

In the plot summary section, when talking about the part with the diadem, Ravenclaw is changed to Ravencourt... is it supposed to be like that? If not, can someone change it? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.118.52 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

Add page count from new editions.

607 (UK Edition)
620 (2014 UK Edition)
759 (US Edition)
800 (2013 US Edition) Londonrush (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Please change the the latest to "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is not latest )

Anunay.j1 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is still the last novel Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is "a rehearsal script, not a novelisation of the play" - Arjayay (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_30&oldid=1092026423"