Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Structure of the article

Should the "Information from JK Rowling" section come under "Background to the series"? Could the Background Knowledge be renamed to Plot or storyline or something similar or the Information from JK be moved to its own section? 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:28 8/11/2006 (UTC)

As I got no reply, I've edited the titles. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:05 19/11/2006 (UTC)
Not really. Information from rowlings is fore-knowledge, not background knowledge. It is things she has said about what will be in it. Background is about general info relating to all the books, particularly the existing ones.

References spoiler

On the regular wikipedia page, it says nothing about Ron and Hermione's budding romance, but JK Rowling said it herself in a Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron Interview that Ron and Hermione will get together after Hermione has a brief fling with Neville Longbottom. --rcfant

Alrighty then. But as Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy might say: Why don't you PROVE IT!. In other words - provide a Verifiable link to a Reliable Source and we can talk. Otherwise, sorry but no. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the references it titled "Dumbledore definitely dead". Should a spoiler tag be added, or the title changed (although it is the title of the web page)? 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:41 23/11/2006 (UTC)

No, leave it. Anyone reading the references at the bottom of the page ought reasonably to expect to discover things, but I don't think this article should get too hung up on spoiler warnings. Who reads right through an article about a forthcoming book unless they want to know what is in it, and know what is in the earlier ones? Sandpiper 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right - I was comparing it to: '"[He who died in book six] definitely dead" says Rowling', but the name was removed from the external website, rather than from the Wikipedia cite title. 0L1 Talk Contribs 16:36 1/12/2006 (UTC)


At the end of the first paragraph, it says:


I have removed this, but if it serves a purpose, then please revert my edit. 0L1 Talk Contribs 16:55 1/12/2006 (UTC)


Where does it 'suggest' Flitwick will be deputy headmaster? Kochdude388 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's just more fancrap. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret of Godric

Source it or prepare to be terminated -er- reverted. Kochdude388 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Until someone can put a source, that title is just a rumor. WIKI-GUY-16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

verylong template

I just reverted the removal of practically everything except the first paragraph in each section. Someone either vandalizing or attempting to shorten the article. Sorry if I'm treading on anyone's toes with this. Daggoth S 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Sorry to make another post, but I couldn't help but notice the constant use of "it is expected". Unfortunately, that falls under weasel words, unless sources are provided (NOTEWORTHY sources!). 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New DADA teacher

I removed the bullet point about how Hogwarts will "of course need a new Defence against the Dark Arts teacher" per WP:V and WP:RS - there is no source, and the only results for this quote on Google are this page, and a page that has mirrored this page. 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:14 16/12/2006 (UTC)

And Hogwarts will only need a new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher if it re-opens, which is far from certain at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, so it isn’t even something that can be inferred. David Arthur 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection

I've requested that this page be semiprotected, due to repetitive vandalism by IPs. See WP:RPP if you would like to see the entry. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:29 19/12/2006 (UTC)

Update: The page is now semi-protected. 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:09 19/12/2006 (UTC)
Is it protected? I edited a minor section correcting some grammatical mistakes. Just want to check if it's properly protected ir not.Zuracech lordum 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's semi-protected meaning only registered users can edit it. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First chapter excerpt

I found this on the Internet:

"Harry Potter awoke to the sound of birds gleefully chirping in the wild of their makeshift campsite. Hermione and Ron had already yanked themselves from slumber and were daintily cooking the chosen one's breakfast. The three heroes needed their energy if they were to destroy Harry's immortal enemy who gets discussed a lot, but never really does anything and will never really die until the money dries up. Harry, Ron, and Hermione must band together as vicious vigilantes and harness Professor Dumbledore's dying gift, a purple AK-47 that fires magic bullets and wizard lightning if they want to destroy yet another outlandish reincarnation of Voldemort once and for all."

It is an excerpt from the first chapter of Book Seven. Is it fake or real? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Fake. But even if it was "real", it still does not belong here. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for posting the latest rumours, gossip, and unsubstantiated tripe that you found on the internet on some idiot's blog page, or that was made up out of thin air, or whatever. The rules for the wikipedia are clear. Verifiability, and traceability from Reliable Sources, is far more important than an unverifiable "truth". Original research, speculation, and other such material that "other people" made up is forbidden. In addition, we avoid weasel wording like "some fans feel" and "experts agree" - if the statement cannot stand as verifiable truth without adding the "some people think" part, then it does not qualify. Anyway, thanks for playing. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lol. That's a pretty funny passage... the first sentence I wondered if it was at least a well-written forgery... then I read about Ron being "dainty" and cooking for "the chosen one", and knew it was a joke. But then all the stuff about "immortal enemy who gets discussed a lot but never does anything", and the purple AK-47 just had me laughing out loud. I really hope the original questioner wasn't really serious about asking... --Maelwys 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If HP7 or most of it publishes on the web in spring 2007 it may be under the title "Harry Potter and the Grottner revelations". Some russkies simply cannot forgive Ms. Rowling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Edinburgh interview

I removed information recently added about her dream about being in the seventh book [1]. She said that, being the narrator, she knew the Horcrux was in a hidden nook in the fireplace. However, I think this was in a dream, rather than in the book. I may be wrong here - if so, please reply. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:04 20/12/2006 (UTC)

Agreed. First of all - this was NOT an interview. It appeared on her web site, and the Edinburg paper picked up on it. She clearly stated she was dreaming, and found herself in the role of the "narrator" and as "Harry" in the dream. Things happened in the dream and she described them. The full text reference is on the front page of her web site or on the text only version:
For years now, people have asked me whether I ever dream that I am 'in' Harry's world. The answer was 'no' until a few nights ago, when I had an epic dream in which I was, simultaneously, Harry and the narrator. I was searching for a Horcrux in a gigantic, crowded hall, which bore no resemblance to the Great Hall as I imagine it. As the narrator I knew perfectly well that the Horcrux was jammed in a hidden nook in the fireplace, while as Harry I was searching for it in all kinds of other places, while trying to make the people around me say lines I had pre-arranged for them. Meanwhile waiters and waitresses who work in the real café in which I have written huge parts of book seven roamed around me as though on stilts, all of them at least fifteen feet high. Perhaps I should cut back on the caffeine?
Rowling would not have revealed a crucial plot element of the "real" HP7 story, especially not on the front page of her web site, without specifically saying that this was what she was up to. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


As a bit of a Christmas present today at, the secret door was unlocked. Inside was a hangman game where the user would guess the title of the seventh installment of the series. If you completed the game you found out that the title of the final Potter book is, "Deathly Hallows".

JK stressed

Title Revealed!

Don't revert the move! -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we find the original post (by Rowling herself)? This article only references mugglenet. Michaelsanders 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC) -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's another source:

Should we not move the article?-- 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It already has been moved. AxG (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard it on the radio this evening, so it must be an official press anouncement. - Redmess 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely official, now is listing it on their front page. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Title For 7th Book Revealed.

The Title Has Been Revealed On as:

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows

A bit slow on report, the page is already called that and the section above says the exact same thing. ;-) --Maelwys 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


J.K. Rowling's site has what looks like the title of the seventh book: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I'd cite Leaky or HPANA but it looks like they're both down...

Sigh... Wiki-newbie 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So anyone want to start a betting pool on how many times someone starts a new "the title was announced!!!" section at the bottom of this page today? My money is on 27. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally! I've beeen waiting for this for a long time! :D Half-Blood Auror 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the MuggleNet cite with a Bloomsbury Publishing cite. No offense to MuggleNet, but I think the UK publisher of the series is a better source. Also, couldn't find (let alone link) the source at the Rowling site. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The author's site has it as the reward in a Flash-based game, so it's not a suitable source just now. The publisher, of course, works fine. Radagast 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Confirmed by the publisher of Harry Potter. The title of the seventh book is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows.[2]

Actually, take a closer look. It is Hollows, not Hallows. Sewnmouthsecret 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Scholatic, Bloomsbury and the BBC conclude that it's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Only Yahoo against this. RHB 18:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Sewnmouthsecret 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the A. See this, from the scholastic site, no doubt about it. [3] --Milo H Minderbinder 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the "Deathly Hallows" has anything to do with Godric Hollow? Simply south 18:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope - [4]. RHB 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Comment I originally made here moved to it's own section) --Reverend Loki 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Should the archives be renamed with the proper title of the book. AxG (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It's an archive. Wiki-newbie 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hangman at

The way to find the title is to go to, click on the eraser, you will be brought into a room with a mirror and a hallway. You then click on the farthest door handle, then a christmas tree pops up. Click on that, and then click the middle of the door next to the mirror. A wreath will pop up. Click on the upper portion of the mirror and a some garland will pop up. Click on the spiderweb and it will dissapear. Then click on the second to right chime and hold it down. It will turn into a key, which you will use to open the door. In the door will be a wrapped present. Click on the present twice, and you will play hangman. The correct answer will be "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"

Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

No, this is too fancrufty to be included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- if people want to find out they can go to Wikipedia, which is not a fan site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian In Trouble!

Hi, I'm an Israeli wikipedian in translation emergency. how do you translate "Deathly Hallows"? is it Hallow as in Halloween, or the british way of writing Hollow as in Godric's Hollow?

I've taken a comment I already made and given it new prominence below; I'd suggest you see it for a bit more info. Yes, it is as in "Halloween" - Halloween was once called "All Hallows Eve", being the night before "All Hallows Day", more commonly called "All Saint's Day". Read the definition I link to below for more help deciding on a good translation, but if all else fails, maybe just translates "Hallows" as "Saints". --Reverend Loki 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
We hope Rowling would have said "Hollow" if she meant something like Godric's Hollow. She said "Hallows" and specifically "Deathly Hallows", and not "Deathly Hollows". There was some confusion in the press as to whether she meant "Hollows" instead of "Hallows", probably due to automated spelling and grammar checkers and correctors in most word processors picking up on the "problem".
Anyway "Hallow" is and derives from an old English verb, meaning to sanctify, to consecrate, to venerate, to respect, or to set apart to make holy; as in "Hallowed be Thy name...". There should be plenty of candidate words to translate to in Hebrew - we shudder to ask though. Meanwhile what exactly a "Deathly Hallow" is, or what it implies, Rowling is not saying, but it seems pretty bizarre. The form suggests a conversion of the verb form of "Hallow" to a related noun - as in for example the expression "Deathly Marches" comes from the verb "March" as in to war. Not sure what that noun-form "Deathly Hallows" might imply as yet - perhaps "Deathly Consecrations"?. Stay tuned - perhaps Rowling will get asked that question soon in the press. By the way - the origin of "Hallowe'en was "All Hallow Even" - not "Hallows Eve" as commonly reported - check any legitimate dictionary. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't want this discussion to become derailed, but... Random House Unabridged acknowledges "All Hallows Eve", derived from "All Hallows Even". American Heritage acknowledges "All Hallow Even", citing prior ancestry as "All Hallowmas Even". I never intended to give a full etymology of the word, just enough of one to give an idea of the connection between the two. Yes, All Hallow Even is a correct archaic term, but to say that it is the correct archaic term is erroneous. And no, I never could leave well enough alone... why do you ask? That said, you do raise a good question - I had assumed that she was using the term "Hallows" as a noun, the definition as a Saint or holy person, and not as the verb to sanctify, which could fit as well. I'd imagine that bit of information could make a huge difference in the translation... --Reverend Loki 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I had not found any legitimate traceable source for "Hallows" as a plural noun meaning "saints", but plenty of evidence to show it is a very old mistranslation and misinterpretation - something like an urban legend, but much older. Unfortunately many dictionaries, particularly online ones, pick up on common improper usage by the ignorant, and then make it "authorized" and thus canonical. Thanks for the lead on the Random House Unabridged - will have to see what in the world THEY were thinking when they converted "Hallow(ed)", as in "God's name is ~", to "Hallows", as in "the 'Saints' eve/day". Incidently, in the Latin version of The Lord's Prayer, the word for "Hallowed" is "Sanctificetur", meaning "sanctified", and the English word "saint" comes through the Latin "sanctus" (holy), from the verb "sancire" (to consecrate). So, we are back to what - "Deathly Consecrations"?
By the way - here are the instructions for getting to the new Title for Book 7, directly from Rowling's web site (source:
Go to her English home page, and land on her "desk top". Click on the pink eraser and you will be taken to her "front door". You'll see a window with a plant and chimes, a door and a mirror. In the mirror reflection, you'll see a hallway with some doors. Click on the farthest doorknob on the left in the mirror, and a Christmas tree appears. Then click on the upper-half center of the door next to the mirror, and a wreath appears on the door. Then click in the top area of the mirror (ceiling) and you'll see a garland appear along the hallway. Look for a cobweb, at the upper right corner of the door. Click on it, and it will disappear. Now, look at the chimes in the window. Click on the second chime from the right, and hold it down for a few seconds and release. The chime will turn into a golden key. Click and drag it to the door lock and click at the lock - the key turns, then open the door latch. Click on the wrapped gift behind the door, then click on it again to open the puzzle, and figure out the title yourself by playing a game of hangman. This process reveals the authoritative direct-from-Rowling version of the title - without any possible contamination or distortion by the conspiring Press (j/k). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
After some reflection, I'm leaning towards "Hallows" being a synonym for "Consecrations", though admittedly it is after some speculation on my part. I'm thinking that the "Deathly Hallows" refers to the imminent tasks of finding and "taking care of" the remaining horcruxes. But again, that's pure speculation on my part and has no part in the article. We may not be able to pin this one down until Rowling or another source drops us some idea on the subject. --Reverend Loki 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

More speculation - Rowling's titles have all, thus far, been purely literal (although 'Halfblood Prince' was a bit iffy, since it was a nickname rather than an actual Prince). Whilst it is possible that she has bucked precedent by making the title descriptive rather than literal (it certainly seems slightly odd compared to the others), precedent would suggest the Deathly Hallows to be either a place, a person/people, an organisation or an object. With the first probably being most likely. Just my thoughts. Michaelsanders 17:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The Israeli Wikipedian community thanks you for your help and wishes you happy holidays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Hallow vs Hollow

I mentioned this previously under a different topic, but decided ultimately that it should be it's own based in part on discussion that followed that topic. So, here we go.
It is important to note at this time that "Hallow" means a saint or holy person, or to sanctify, make holy [5], whereas "Hollow" means a sunken valley or an empty space [6]. --Reverend Loki 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Just thought I'd let you know, the title of Book 7 has been released as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". It's on numerous Harry Potter sites, by now.

Quick question

Other than the phrase being the answer on a hangman game on J K Rowling's website, is there definite confirmation that it's the title? Or are we all just assuming that it'll be the title? Proto:: 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been confimed by and and widely reported by mainstream news media. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. It's just that Scholastic, Bloomsbury and the mainstream media's entire definitive source for this is all just the one flash Hangman game. I've added a screenshot of the game. Proto:: 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well since they're the publishers, I would guess they know what the title is. They probably don't use flash games to figure out what their author is writing. --Phoenix Hacker 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

After it gets released...

Will the content of this page remain in some form? Even though some of the speculation will inevitably be proven incorrect, will there be some way of Wikipedia acknowledging what the popular theories were about the novel's content? Cherry pizza 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this problem strongly illustrates exactly why it is that speculation about a future "reality" is to be avoided in "just the facts please" encyclopedias, and the Wikipedia, and why so many editors have been working so hard for so long to stamp it out. Theoretically, the only thing that should be required to change in the article after the book is released, is the addition of a plot summary, and perhaps some information about book sales and public reaction to the conclusion of the series. Everything else that has to be changed should probably have never been there in the first place. Unfortunately that constitutes the majority of the article, which is why it cannot be a "Good Article". The HP fanatics insist on constantly adding to the Wikipedia all the latest theories and speculations that show up on their favorite web sites and blog pages - primarily because they are somewhere halfway between bored and excited about the prospects of the next book, searching for their own answers about the fate of Harry et al. And with a practically unlimited base of fans, the theories and speculations are practically unlimited. It is a terrific cultural phenomenon, but also a major pain in the neck for the more mature Wikipedians. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with wikipedia... and it will most likely be deleted by then. But if you are interested, you can dig the history (going to the date right before the release) and read it yourself.-- 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The only speculation on the page is cited speculation. Minor fan theories should not be there, and if they are, remove them immediately. But if there is present "speculation", as in "Rowling has stated this will happen or something about this will be relevant in the seventh book", then it definitely belongs there, as those are facts, with references, which are relevant at this point in time to the book, despite its not being published. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. What we can and should allow in the article is direct quotes or paraphrases from the HP books (with citings of "chapter and verse", as they say...), information from the HP films (with a "canonical asterisk" wherever they might contradict the books), information posted on Rowling's web site (with a direct link to the text-only english version), and quotes from Rowling interviews that are Verifiable from Reliable Sources. Fan-based Interpretations and projections into the unpublished "future" should always be avoided, except perhaps in the context of a separate "fan reactions" section, and those should preferably be documented and cited from the reputable Press organizations, in order to Avoid Weasel Wording, such as "Some fans feel..." --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Circumstances alter cases. But in this case there is a lot of information from Rowlings which has collected over the years about her books, and logically everything she has mentioned which hasn't happened yet, has to be in the last book. So there isn't much need to include fan speculation, there is plenty of Rowling teaser information to make up an article. Geting back to the issue of content, once the book is out and people can read for themselves what is in it, and indeed we will no doubt have a summary here, then the pre-release tips become considerably less important. What may remain of interest would be a comparison of the final work with any statements she has made beforehand which contradict what actually is in the book. That sort of thing might be of interest where it sheds light on how the books were written. But I would imagine that after publication Rowling herself will be more willing to talk about the writing process, and any plot changes she had to make. So again, the existing information may be overtaken by new stuff and be removed as no longer important. But anyone wishing to see what is here now, can always go back through the page history. Sandpiper 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I've just removed a lot of speculation from "Known plot details" which followed the form of "Harry is expected to / will probably...". Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; even if certain details seem likely (for example, Harry fighting a final battle with Voldemort), stating that they will happen is still speculative. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You wanted some discussion why I put the info back on which you deleted? Ok, here it is. You didn't discuss the removals either. You just removed the info and then you told us you did it instead of first giving us a chance to discuss which info should be removed and which shouldn't. I think you took it a bit too easy. Many people contributed to the section truncated by you, including myself. Don't you think it would have been wise to talk that over with everyone before taking action? I think you deleted a lot of non-crystal-orb things in your haste to get the article changed. That's why I restored the text. --Maxl 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, then, I'll enumerate the deletions...
This is indeed quite likely, but I don't think it's been confirmed anywhere.
  • "[Harry won't be returning to Hogwarts - sourced] ...but that doesn't mean he [Harry] might not make an appearance on Hogwarts grounds at some point during the story."
This doesn't say anything. At best, it's a random bit of equivocation.
  • Minerva McGonagall is the most likely [new Headmistress], as she served as deputy headmistress under Dumbledore, and because she seems to have inherited the office from Dumbledore. Additionally, when Dumbledore was removed from office in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, it was McGonagall who took over as Headmistress."
Pure speculation.
These are likely (although they could very easily be skipped if the book doesn't pay much attention to Hogwarts). However, again, they're unconfirmed.
  • "If Hogwarts is re-opened, then a new Head Boy and Head Girl will be appointed."
Like the rest: likely but unconfirmed.
  • "The quest to identify, locate, and destroy Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes will continue. The remaining Horcruxes must be destroyed before Voldemort can be successfully conquered."
I would be extremely surprised if Deathly Hallows didn't focus on the Horcruxes. However - again! - we don't know. The last part is pure speculation.
  • "There is no suggestion in the prophecy that Harry will prevail over Lord Voldemort; at this time it is unknown. More of the things that happened on the night this prophecy was made will be revealed, and that most probably play a very important point in the survival of Harry or Voldemort."
The first sentence says nothing. The second one is totally speculative.
  • "The true and final loyalties of Severus Snape will be revealed, with an explanation of Dumbledore's death at the hands of Snape, and in Snape's reporting of the prophecy about Harry Potter to Voldemort. A confrontation between Snape and Harry is expected."
Pure speculation. Expected by who?
  • "In the third book, Wormtail incurred a debt to Harry when Harry saved Wormtail's life. Wormtail has not yet had the opportunity to discharge this debt. (page 459, Bloomsbury pocket edition)(Page 375, Scholastic Press edition). On that very night, Dumbledore said to a sceptical Harry that he would one day be glad that he had saved the life of Voldemort's servant."
This one manages to avoid speculation only by failing to say anything.
  • "More will become known about Harry's scar."
  • "Also, this book will explain why some people can become ghosts while others cannot{{fact}}. One of the important characters will appear as a ghost in this book {{fact}}. (This may have already been answered, at least to a certain degree, in Order of the Phoenix Chapter 38, where Nearly Headless Nick explains that wizards who are afraid of death often return as ghosts.)"
This was already tagged as needing citation, and the last sentence makes this look rather questionable.
  • "It will become clear in this book the meaning of the howler letter sent to Aunt Petunia by Dumbledore in the opening of book five. Till now, it is unknown what "remember my last" means, although Rowling addressed the question on her web site <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=J.K. Rowling Official Site Section: FAQ}}</ref>. Also, Rowling had stated that we will find out more about Aunt Petunia in the last book.<ref name=edinburg_book>{{cite web|url=|title=J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival|work=J.K.Rowling Official Site|accessdate=June 30|accessyear=2006}}</ref>"
This one has a reference. However, the reference doesn't confirm anything: all it tells us is that JKR isn't saying much. Extrapolating from this to a statement that Deathly Hallows will elaborate is quite a jump.
  • "She refused to comment when asked whether the locked door in the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic would feature in the final book.<ref name=tlc_mug_inter_3>{{cite web|url=|title=MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling (part 3)|work=Mugglenet|accessdate=July 2|accessyear=2006}}</ref>"
This doesn't tell us anything about the book. It's an interesting jumping-off-point for speculation, but there are plenty of those already. The reference is irrelevant, as there's nothing being stated.
  • "We will discover what Dudley Dursley's worst memory was when he stood in front of the Dementors in the passage between Magnolia Crescent and Wisteria Walk.{{fact}}"
Already tagged as needing citation. I might have seen this somewhere else, but I'd want to see a reference before putting this in the article.
  • The only time I've seen this mentioned is on one interview - reference here; . It would've been interpolated or whatever from this one statement.
Amy: What did Dudley see when he faced the Dementors in book five?
JK Rowling replies -> Ah, good question. You'll find out! Daggoth S 14:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Rowling has stated that there will be a member of the Order of the Phoenix who has been seen very little so far who will be important in the seventh book.{{fact}}"
As above: needs citation to stand in the article.
  • "Rowling has been consulted on the film versions of the books, so as to ensure that important aspects of the story do not get omitted or changed that might contradict her future plans for the series. After completion of Prisoner of Azkaban she was interviewed and commented that she was startled by clues which had crept into the film, relating to the final outcome of the series.{{fact}}"
Again, needs citation. Also, this doesn't really say anything about the book anyway.
Citation found: see below.
  • "Rowling has promised fans that they'll, "See [stuff] again" from Ginny in book seven, implying that at some point, whether Harry likes it or not, she will become involved in the fight against Voldemort.{{fact}}"
Needs citation. Also, "implying" is a word to be avoided. Wikipedia shouldn't be drawing conclusions.
Comment inline if you think you can resurrect one of the statements I killed with a citation - if you can cite a JKR interview or other reliable source which confirms one of these statements, I have no problem with them being in the article. Please don't mass-restore, though; a lot of these are pretty blatant speculation. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that was a good trimming, Zetawoof. I'm just going to restore the second-to-last one, about the PoA film, as per this source (search for "Alfonso had good intuition…" to find the paragraph where she says the quote). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the sort of citation I was looking for, thanks. I'm still not sure that this belongs in the article, though, as it doesn't really say anything about Deathly Hallows, except perhaps very indirectly. It might fit nicely in the PoA film article, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

if the title is known

than why isnt it on the main article? are we getting slow here? strange 2 secs after i post here it appears?

You posted your message at 3:54 UTC, December 22. The article was moved to reflect the appropriate title some 14 hours earlier, and 10 minutes later it was inserted into the main body of text. If you didn't see this before you posted, you may have needed to purge the page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sentence structure

Rowling has stated that,more so than the other books in the series, the final volume is a continuation of the story line from the sixth book of the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

This suggests that the other books in the series could and have followed book six. I think what someone is getting at is that the seventh book is more of a continuation from the last book and that the other books in the series have not followed each other as closely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fruitjunk (talkcontribs) 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

7/7/7 release

I see someone keeps adding that potential date and the signficance it has. While an interesting idea, it is all original research and speculation. And until it can be proved to be anything other than that, do not add it. 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[Funny . . .There is a lot of speculation on this page and original research. Hum . . . No wonder I do not allow my students to use it in their term papers.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
I agree with you here. Although there is a good chance of this release data, is still speculation, and should therefore be deleted per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 0L1 Talk Contribs 19:15 15/12/2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the likely release date is one of the most interesting things about the next book, what readers want to know, so it is rather important we include whatever is known. and while I'm not necessarily convinced 7/7/7 is likely, it has occurred to a lot of people that it would be a very apt date. That deserves pointing out. Sandpiper 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys I changed the release date to "Unconfirmed. Presumed 2007". This is basically down to the fact that a lot of people take Wikipedia as official. I know Leaky has recieved many emails about it so I changed it so save confusion. Thanks. Andthehouseelf 22:11, 21 December 2006 (GMT)
Just a thought but if the release date is 7/7/7 then the book should been sent to the publishers around now. The announcement that HBP was sent to the publisher came out just before Christmas and was released in the middle of summer. So, there must be a roughly 6 month lead time between sent to the publisher and it appearing on bookshelves. --[[Image:European flag.svg|20px[[Image:Flag of Scotland.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Colin Angus Mackay|Colin Angus Mackay]]''']] 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see it being 7th July, given that that was the date of this. I wouldn't think Bloomsbury would want the sort of publicity and Press comment that releasing on that date might generate. I've just put in a pre-order on Amazon for a copy, and the order confirmation says Dispatch estimate for these items: 22 Feb 2007. Whether that's a Big Clue, or whether it just happens to be "two months less one day from today" I don't know. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the movie comes out a week after that. I doubt they'd want to have the two fighting for media attention and/or turning two potential huge events into one (since a release further apart would stretch out the media coverage and public attention. I have no problem with deleting the 7/7/7 speculation, even if there are references to people speculating it. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I work for a large chain bookstore. 7/7/7 is the date we've been given. I'm not going to add it again because obviously i have no published source to back that up . . . but i'm pretty sure the date is correct. makes sense, numerology-wise. --heah 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And I work for a large company selling a bridge in brooklyn. When the date is decided, it will be announced. If they gave the date to bookstores first, it would leak (and it would be in the mainstream press, not an anonymous person who knows this guy...). It will be announced when it is announced, enough with the speculation. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
(note: comments previously posted by this editor were subsequently deleted) font color="FF0000">heah 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The criteria for allowing information in the Wikipedia is not the "truth", for example something that you have been told and very firmly believe, but Verifiability from a Reliable Source.
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
If you can produce proof from a reliable source, then it is allowable. If not, then sorry, your information does not meet the requirements, and must be disallowed. Sorry, but these are the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. If you want to play, then you have to play by the rules. Sorry. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I don't even know what to say, heah. I would think an admin and someone who has been around would know better. And lay off the incivility already. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, i really just thought you guys might be interested. as i've said TWICE already, this wasn't for inclusion in the article. i said that right off the bat, said it a second time, and have now said it again. (my exact words the first time being I'm not going to add it again because obviously i have no published source to back that up.) There isn't any need to explain verifiability to me, and i'm surprised that my comments didn't make that clear. Sorry for abusing the talk page with chatter going beyond the scope of this article, but i just thought you guys might be interested, and i thought i had made it very clear that i was in no way trying to suggest that we take my word and include the date in the article.
personally i don't think my second comment was all that uncalled for in light of the sarcastic "i can sell you a bridge in brooklyn" comment, as not being a dick is a pseudo-policy-ish-type-thingy 'round these parts, and i was referencing that in light of the sarcastic comment. but perhaps i was wrong in saying it, so i apologize for that as well, milo. I should know better than to escalate such things. I guess i just kinda feel like i had made it very clear that i wasn't trying to get approval to put this in the article, and that my several years here and the fact that the community trusts me enough to have approved me as an admin should be enough to suggest that i'm probably not simply full of it--on top of simple assume good faith--meaning that the sarcastic comment was simply uncalled for.
So again, sorry. other than cluttering up the talk page, i'm just not sure what the problem was with me telling you all what i found out at work. i mean, i was excited. i hadn't heard the date or the name yet, until a few hours before i posted it here.
heah 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you've seen User:Cyde/Don't_be_a_fucking_douchebag. Robin Johnson (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait . . . are you calling me a fucking douchebag? . . . ;)
anyways . . . i apologized . . . i was wrong . . . shouldn't have said it . . . So i'm not sure what else to say . . .
--heah 16:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. This is just speculation, not proven fact.Codelyoko194 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Book Image

Anyone else think we could use this image as a placeholder for the book's cover:

It's from (obviously) --Brand Eks 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Amazon crated it, it would be copyrighted. I don't see why we need to use a fair use image to demonstrate a cover that doesn't exist anyway. —Cuiviénen 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Scholastic created the image, Amazon just uses it. --Brand Eks 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we know for sure that Scholastic created that image? Is it available somewhere on the scholastic website? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Even if we were to use a placeholder image it wouldn't be that one. The picture that goes in the infoboxes are the Bloomsbury covers, not Scholastic ones. If you still want to add one you should be using the one on, here. But like I said, I'm just pointing that out (I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with the proposal) - Рэдхот(tce) 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Brand Eks 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone added the Scholastic image. Now that I see what it's like in the article, I've decided it shouldn't be there (not even the Bloomsbury one) cause, let's face it - it doesn't serve any real purpose does it? I've nominated the Scholastic one for deletion on the grounds that it's unencyclopaedic. - Рэдхот(tce) 12:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archive

I'm planning on archiving this page. Any objections? 0L1 Talk Contribs 22:06 23/12/2006 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of archiving going on of late. Why do we need to archive so much? Also, is there a way to consolidate existing archives so there are not so many of them? They are supposed to be for reference, but it gets absurd to have lots of short archives. This page is not currently unmanageably long. Sandpiper 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
See WP:ARCHIVE first. "It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large. Bulky talk pages are difficult to navigate and usually contain obsolete discussion. Additionally, large talk pages are a burden for users with slow Internet connections, and some users may not be able to edit pages larger than 32 kB because of browser page size limits. If possible it is better to archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion, as it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together." Some of the discussions on this page are very up to date - from just the last few days - and archiving these hot topics will invite newbies to restart previously discussed and resolved issues. I think a good rule of thumb would be to archive only those topics that are clearly obsolete, and at least a month old. If the page is clearly getting too large and bulky, then perhaps archiving a major discussion under a suitable archive name (eg: "Discussion on This Topic...") would help direct other users to that page, and a short summary of the topic with a link to the archive might also be helpful. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I was planning to leave the last few discussions on the front page, as they may not yet be finished. Also, this page is much more than 32kb - it's 50kb, thus breaking browser size limits. Finally, most of the discussion on this page is announcing the title, showing how to get the title, and updating the article because of the title. I think that now this has been done, it would be an appropriate time to archive the page. 0L1 Talk Contribs 12:05 24/12/2006 (UTC)
We are in agreement. I was only pointing out some suggested guidelines for what to archive and what to leave. The Title Announcement group, comprising several topics, could be archived as a group and referenced with a short one-liner topic saying essentially "see Deathly Hollows Title Announcement discussion in the archives", with a link to the specific archive page. Other topics that were discussed and are clearly obsolete and not particularly active in the last week or two can also be archived. I did not mean to come across as being against archiving. I would only be opposed to archiving currently actively discussed topics, because once they are archived, they cannot (or should not) be further commented on. I think we are in agreement, and I apologize if it appeared I was not. Must be getting cranky over the burned out Christmas Lights that are just out of reach. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


How do you get the key to open the door? 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is for discussing the article, not its content. From HPANA:
  1. Click doorway in mirror to see Christmas tree.
  2. Click on the top half of the door to get the wreath.
  3. Click on the top of the mirror to get the garland.
  4. Click on the spider web right next to the door to make them go away.
  5. Click the 4th chime in the window and get the key for the door.
  6. Drag key to unlock the door.
  7. Door opens to show a desk with a package.
  8. Click the bow on the package and it will open.
  9. Click the inside of the package and a game of Hangman is shown where you can play a game to guess the name of the seventh book.
  10. You can keep playing till you get it right and when you do a check mark will appear.
0L1 Talk Contribs 19:42 24/12/2006 (UTC)
I cant dragf the key. Ho do you drag it? 04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Now I've tried again, I can't drag it either. Perhaps you could get some help by posting at a Harry Potter forum. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


A good chunk of this page is dedicated to lists of facts. Lists and lists and more lists! It seems more like a collection of random facts than encyclopedic content to me. --Cadby (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As the book hasn't been released, we only have strands of information available from JK Rowling. If you can find a way to make it more fluent, please do. 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:52 24/12/2006 (UTC)

What is this doing here?

'On National Public Radio's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" News Quiz Show, the Fill in the Blanks Question on December 24th, 2006, was phrased:"An online puzzle revealed to readers the title of the soon to be released book, BLANK and the Deathly Hallows."'Is this a legit Surce? Or Relevant? I'm inclined to answer no to both my annoyingly retorical questions. But am open to imput. Eldonkeyo 05:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your question? The "HP&the Deathly Hallows" title for Book 7 was revealed on Rowling's web site on the 21st of December. All the major news media carried the story extensively. Who cares what NPR's quiz show did 3 days after that? The truth was already out there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in the page

At Information from J. K. Rowling:

When further questioned in June 2006 about authors who kill off their main characters, Rowling said "I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks, well, I'm going to kill them off because that means there can be no non-author-written sequels'".

I suppose who=why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

No, it doesn't. John Reaves 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Over-extensive Speculation

IMO this page would be just as satisfying if it simply stated 'DH is the announced title of the seventh HP book, which has not yet been published,' and included links to the (four or five) most relevant fansites. This is not an article about DH; it's an article about speculation on DH, whether there are supporting statements in JKR's chat transcipts or not. It's quite an interesting compilation of info, and harmless, as it's time-limited, but it is not what I would call encyclopaedic. Njál 21:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there's a fine l ine between speculation and what JKR has said will be in the book, which is certainly encyclopedic. People come to the article to learn what the book's about, JKR has said this, this and this, so we "report" that, as it were. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry but this has to be said.

Go here and read this. I removed it, but it is absolutely amusing if not disgusting. --JohanTenge - /spit 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did that come from??? What an KathzzZzcHat | siGn heRe 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--- For some reason it's not amidst the history anymore. Pity. Would've liked to contact the writer of this. --JohanTenge - /spit 02:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


"With the departure of Severus Snape,HBP Ch.28 a new teacher is needed in the Defence Against the Dark Arts postHBP Ch.8 and Head of Slytherin House.PS Ch.8 With the death of Albus Dumbledore,HBP Ch.27 a new Headteacher is needed. In the time that he was dead in Half-Blood Prince, Minerva McGonagall, Deputy Headmistress, took over this position.HBP Ch.29 If she succeeds Dumbledore, the positions of Deputy Headteacher,PS Ch.4 Transfiguration teacher, and Head of Gryffindor HousePS Ch.8 are vacant." As you can see, the title as referring to specific people has been left gender-appropriate, as used in the books: thus "Minerva McGonagall, Deputy Headmistress." But it is thoroughly inappropriate to use those terms when not referring to specific people. First, it is politically incorrect. Second, since we know that the two posts are open to both men and women, without prejudice, it is unlikely that the official post is 'Headmaster'. Third, it is misleading: it implies that Dumbledore's replacement will be a man, and McGonagall's (if necessary) will be a woman. Headteacher (or head) is a perfectly acceptable and accepted title when referring to the position (as opposed to a specific person), so why complain? Michaelsanders 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't try and denfend it with P.C. b---s---. Surely you don't need to stoop to that, see WP:NOT#CENSORED. The books use the terms "Headmaster" and "Headmistress", so this is what we should use. And 5 or 6 words is hardly "unecessary elongation". John Reaves 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Polite today, aren't you? And it is unnecessary: what is the point of saying "Headmaster or mistress", when one can simply say "Headteacher" or "Head"? If you already recognise that both options need to be acknowledged, it is far simpler to use the non-specific term. Michaelsanders 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know how sensitve you were with the political corectness and what-not - I've edit my comments so that they may not offend you anymore. "Head" could be confusing to an American or other non-British nationality. "Headteacher" simply doesn't reflect what J.K. Rowling has written, if 'Headmaster' and mistress where not so frequently used throughout the text, I would not be opposed. John Reaves 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No doubt all the lack of 'z's is confusing to Americans. Since we use British English in HP articles, however, that really isn't an issue. Michaelsanders 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I realized the British English point to late to beat you to it. Americans are crafty enough to deduce the 's' and 'z' connection, don't worry. I think Head is a good compromise in the midst of my BE revelation. Would you link "Head" to whatever article is most appropriate for explaining the meaning?

Crafty enough? Not judging by the editors who repeatedly hypercorrect 'recognise' to 'recognize', 'realise' to 'realize', etc. I have linked head to Head teacher, which begins, "A head teacher, headmaster or headmistress (all often referred to simply as the head)...". It also, incidentally, states, "The terms "headmaster" and "headmistress" used to be the standard throughout both the state and private sectors, with "head teacher" usually only being used to refer to them collectively.In recent years, however, it has become usual to officially use the gender-neutral term in state schools." Michaelsanders 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on the idiot editors, they're the ones that give us a bad name. You have to consider the ones who don't change the spelling too. Despite what the article says, it doesn't regulate which term is used in a fictional, private magic school. I say it's fine the way it is. John Reaves 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you mean 'the way it currently is' (my fault here: I'm too tired to work out if you mean 'is' as the way it was before we started fiddling, or the way it currently is). Incidentally, if I were to describe Hogwarts according to British standards, I'd call it a state school (if one accepts the state to be 'The wizarding population of Great Britain and Ireland'): it doesn't restrict access, it takes everyone, and it is non-fee paying. That's better than a grammar school. Michaelsanders 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. We're straying from the subject, so I'll just leave it here. John Reaves 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content

To be quite honest,this entry on Wikipedia reads more like a poorly written supported opinion paragraph than an encyclopedia. I don't see other encylopedias using the term I as if it were a person refering to themself. (note that I am talking about the Con sections) if the sections written like this could be cleaned up this could be a much better article.

On an unrelated note, I tried editing out some things on the page ( A small comment "the longer the better, lol") on the article page, and yet when I went to remove it I couldn't find it on the edit page. 04:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "longer the better" comment was among about 40k of speculation put in by an anonymous user, which I reverted - you probably tried to remove it at the same time. Robin Johnson (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

film split confirmed

the following is from

"Well guys you will get the news first. Today I went down to Millennium Bridge to check out the filming for HBP. They were set up at the base of the bridge, there was quite a lot of equipment. I got speaking to one of the crew who was really friendly. There were about 120 extras standing on the bridge. There was a helicopter that was filming it all and coming down right close to the bridge to get the shots. The crew member told me that they will have stunt men jumping/falling into the Thames from the bridge later on (shame I couldn't stay to watch it).

They closed off the area when the scenes were being filmed but you could still see everything. They are only allowed to film every half hour, so as to allow members of the public onto the bridge. I then started speaking to the crew member about filming, I asked him about Deathly Hallows and YES IT WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO MOVIES!!! which will be shot continuously. There are also still location shoots to be done in London but he said he's not allowed to tell me where."

shall we mention this or wait for someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

mugglenet is now reporting this as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)