![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
no archives yet ( create) |
I reverted these edits by 69.177.41.96. There was no citation, but after digging around, I found it mentioned here on HPANA; however, even this article notes in big bold letters that this is only a theory, and that Rowling has made no such announcements. Therefore, this is fan speculation. What do you think? -- D e ath phoenix 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We have the ability to do something with this page as is now. I know Wikipedia not for speculation, but there are some things that are known to be true about book 7. Perhaps we could compile the factual things, things verifable through interviews, etc? Tuvas 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is the correct theroy because she always talks about how 7 is the most powerful magicla number. well why not give out your book on the day will 3 7s? [[User:unknown}]] 20:04, October 2006 (UTC)
She is also a British author more than aware that the London Bombings are still fresh in people's minds. And like others have said, never has JKR ever suggested the book will be released on 07/07/07. That is just a fan rumour. [[Cosmic quest:Cosmic quest}]] 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this article was lifted from the Book 7 page of the Harry Potter lexicon site ... but I do think that the idea is wrong ... anyone comment. 24.255.115.243 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
JKR herself confirmed these dates when she drew the Black family tree, citing 1980 as the year of Draco's birth. Cosmic quest 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have just compared the Lexicon's page on this with our article. Pretty much everything on this page except for the leading section is a copyvio, either directly quoted or with a few words altered here and there. I don't know how you want to handle this (remove? reword?) but we need to take care of it quick. H e rmione 1980 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says there are some clues in the Azkaban film about the upcoming books. I've been thinking and do you know any things that are in the film that aren't in the Azkaban book, I've made a short list, please add to it.
I added that Marauder's Map thing. A user on IMDB reported it. It's supposedly when Harry's looking on the map and he sees Peter Pettigrew...can someone confirm? -- Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I just looked over the movie, it's true. It's when Harry gets out of bed looking for Pettigrew in the corridors. -- Thrashmeister 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read in a Harry Potter essay somewhere that during the scene when Harry is learning the Patronus Charm from Lupin, Harry uses the memory (he's not even sure if it's a real memory) of his parents talking to him, just talking, as being a happy enough thought to conjure a Patronus. And in the book, Harry doesn't have this thought. Harry racks his brain a thrid time on page 241 of my American version of the book. "The moment when he'd first found out he was a wizard, and would be leaving the Dursle's for Hogwarts! If that wasn't a happy memory, he didn't know what was..." I think that an essay I read about how "the power the dark lord knows not" (a.k.a. love), is not truly evident in any spell other than the Patronus Charm. In the movie, Harry produces his Patronus based on his love, this time his LOVE for his family. Perhaps something with a Patronus produced by love will help defeat Voldemort... Emily 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can people please knock off the speculation? Fan forums abound, but this is not one of them. Thank you. H e rmione 1980 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
But J.K. Rowling SAID that there were clues to future books in the third movie. Perhaps it was books 6 when there's Dumbledore's trick with extinguishing and re-lighting a candle, along with the remark that "But you know, happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light." And sorry. Emily 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard this somewhere, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Apparently in the movie, Sirius comments about how it will be nice to walk through the halls as a free man. Also, on his wanted poster it has the number 390. 199.126.166.13 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
People are too heavy handed about speculation. There is speculation out there, you can't deny it. Summaries of speculation should be included especially where it can be referenced to a peer reviewed source, which would include any web site where readers can post comments on submitted theories.-- SmokeyJoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
An example might be: "There is widespread speculation that Dumbledore is not dead (see for example http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=44049&p=4)". It should be OK to cover fan speculation. I'd like to create a distinction here: this is not the place to speculate, but speculation, as it occurs out there and is verifiable, is OK to summarise. I'm not advocating a lowering of standards.-- SmokeyJoe 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The contents of a fan forum are "peer-reviewed" by any reasonable definition. But what kind of "source" are they? They a not a source of facts on the Harry Potter books, certainly. They are a source for the existance of speculation. Information on the speculation surrounding the books is worthy information for inclusion, just like other real-world information such as dates of release and numbers of books sold. The crude warnings against "speculation" should be changed to a warning to "not add your own speculation".-- SmokeyJoe 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the guidelines, especially "no original research". Actually, I have been trying to take the same position as you did in the talk archive in July 2005. But, I've been trying to say that the apparent ban on speculation is wrong. On this point, I am pleased to see that Evilphoenix has removed the offensive header. The real problem in my opinion is the insertion of uncited information. There is nothing wrong with speculation/theories (per se), as long as they have been published elsewhere. Recently, it has looked like Evilphoenix is an aggressive deletionist with a vendetta against speculation. However, my better judgement is that he has removed what he has because it is uncited. I note that among the fan forums, possibly acceptable publications of theories exist. In contrast, I would criticize http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ as an individual’s opinion piece that does not invite comments (aka peer-review). (It is, however, redeemed by its high quality)-- SmokeyJoe 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is something that someone wants to add: "There is no official title yet but rumoured title Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat is not the title of book seven. However there has been mild speculation that Harry Potter and the War of the Wizards. When the title is reaveled is unknown. Many think the mysterious Room of Requirement (Now locked) on J.K. Rowling's personal site will tell the title and release date of seven when it opens again. When it does, we do not know."
Speculation removed. H e rmione 1980 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My dad thinks (not seriusly of course) that Harry and Hermione will die, leaving Ron to marry Ginny.:-D Hybee 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Could some people help out at the Harry Potter Wiki, it's a fan club for Harry Potter fans. We are running out of users, so just click on this link the Harry Potter Wiki and please help out. Daniel O my talk. 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it was inevitable that people would start adding stuff to these outstanding questions, but since I've seen these sections grow to massive proportions, I should probably start a section about it. How big should this section be? I don't want the past to repeat itself and have dozens of trivial questions take over this article again. I'm getting rid of the professions of James and Lilly Potter because that's not an explicit outstanding question arising from the book. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think these outstanding questions should be explicitly stated. Nowhere in book six does Harry Potter wonder what his parents did for a living. -- D e athphoenix ʕ 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
One good way to judge the value of these outstanding questions would be to see if there's already a Wikipedia article about it. Every one of the questions now posed has some reference to it on Wikipedia, with the only questionable being Hogwarts. Each of these has a pretty well-written list as to why people think it might happen, and why people think it won't, generally all quite accurate. Perhaps that should be the qualifying factor to add more stuff? -- Tuvas 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you all think it appropriate to place dates on the statements here? I don't believe that there is an official timeline, and don't think it belongs here. Tuvas 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
One example: Harry will turn seventeen on 31 July 1997. There are about 4-5 of these statements. Tuvas 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am more interested in the thought that in a year or two, after the release of Book 7, the entire article will be re-written. Or will this page be moved to a Prior speculation page, as per Book 6? I guess that it will be, in which case the dates will not belong, as they are not the subject of speculation/anticipation of the release of Book 7. SmokeyJoe 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason I mention these dates is they really have no real proof, nor signifigance. They are a somewhat accepted theory, and that's about all. There is only one place in the books that even gives a hint of a date, to which all of these dates are based off of. In my mind they don't really belong here. Tuvas 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Prune the dates. SmokeyJoe 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
JKR just published some more dates with her release of the Black family tree (Harry Potter), though the wiki version does not list the dates, presumably because of the difficulty cramming them into the page. Warner brothers also published dates on their film DVDs (though admittedly I have yet to make the software work so I can see it). I imagine that relevant info from here will be carried forward to the new book 7 page, and this page will be kept for reference, as is the case for the equivalent page written before HBP was published. The book is about one year at school, so the relative dates/ages of all the characters are very well defined.
Jo say in her website that she almost say one time the title of the seven book (In the F.A.Q. area, about the books, page 3 the last question). Anybody know when did that happen? -- ometzit 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page protected? It keeps fans from otherwise contributing to the page.
Whilst I'm at it, I might as well mention that in the "What to look for" section, someone should add something about the Phoenix imagery rampant in book 6 (especially at Dumbledore's funeral) and throughout the series. If you remember your Egyptian mythology, its quite likely that Dumbledore will make a Phoenix style comeback in book seven; Rowling isn't sadistic enough to kill off one of her fans' favourite characters.
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7
This has a great rundown of what will happen in the book, based on past interviews; also great information.
And for a list of what the outstanding questions of Harry Potter are:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft
If you are looking for a well researched speculation check out this page SNAPE DIES: A THEORY ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BOOK 7 ( Cvgbook7theory 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
"It is currently unknown, despite rumours, if Rowling will allow other authors to write novels set in the Harry Potter Universe not concerning Harry or the events covered in the series."
Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that Rowling isn't going to do this. -- DearPrudence 16:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
She specifivaly stated that she is going to "kill off" sevral of the main charicters to prevent this rather this means hair or not i dont know
I know this article bobs up and down like the remains of a shipwreck, but it really has been stripped of even the basic obvious elements which it must contain to be a coherent article. For example, an overview of the very very basic plot of the entire series Good=Harry v. bad=Voldemort, wizards/magic/mystery/whodunnit. Someone totally unfamiliar with the series who heard there was to be a new book and looked it up would get no idea what it is about. Sandpiper 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles just cry out for pictures. I don't know if anyone has suggestions for one suitable image we might use? Sandpiper 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What's this?? http://harry-potter-fansite.ifrance.com/book6.jpg Daniel O my talk. 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a citation for this but Harry and Neville do not come of age at the "same time". Harry's birthday is on 31st July and Neville's on 1st August. Oli
Do we actually know that it will be called "Harry Potter and the ..." (as obvious as it seems)? That's what's currently in the infobox. Brian Jason Drake 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt she'll change it now. It does seem a little forward but there's not much we can do about it now. There'll never be a consensus for removing it because everyone will leap up and say "She's bound to keep it" and if someone removes it without a discussion it'll be back there in five minutes. There's so many Harry Potter fans and they're generally so young that common sense doesn't apply to them.-- Simondrake 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, but I think in the interview she had with Emerson and Melissa she did say it was going to be Harry Potter and the _____, but I could be mistaken. Tuvas 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's possible she won't. Look at the Unfortunate Event books. All EXCEPT the last have alliterative titles, maybe J.K. will do something differen't with the last. Flight29Down 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of the page.....the first book is called Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone. Edit? Why can't we edit this page?
Yeah, sorry, I didn't know that when I posted that comment. Sorcerer's Stone is better, though, in my opinion.
The Philosopher's stone is a historical fact. Although no real person is known to succeed in making it, many people tried! Including Nicholas Flamel who was a real person. Therefore, it makes no sense to call it the “Sorcerer’s Stone”. The reason they did it in the US is because the editors believed that American kids are too afraid of a serious topic like philosophy and would not read a book about a philosopher’s object, whatever it was. I would like to believe this is not true. What do you think? ( Cvgbook7theory 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
The section contains good information, but should it strictly be in the Book Seven article? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I looked at it. As I said, I think the facts of JKR's known intentions do belong in this article. It is relevant that book 7 is intended to be the last, so all storylines will be tied up. The section doesn't really say very much else, just makes a joke about wizarding universities, which logically would be harry's next year of education, were the series to continue. i am not attached to the notion of mentioning universities, but it forms part of the quote where JKR says no more books. I judge it would not misrepresent the quote if it were shortened to remove mention of universities, but it is not really doing any harm. Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If the given comparison ( [1]) is correct (I've never heard of it), why remove it? Brian Jason Drake 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Information from JK Rowling" it says:
"After completion of Goblet of Fire 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. In particular, she referred to the scene where Remus Lupin talks to Harry about his mother, but she may have meant other scenes as well."
The movie that is suposed to be referenced is Prisoner of Azkaban. This is the movie Lupin talks to Harry about his mother. Remus Lupin is not even in Goblet of Fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luv2luvem ( talk • contribs)
"Severus Snape has been an important and enigmatic character throughout the books, with it never being quite clear which side of the war he is on." Please, could we, PLEASE, have that in proper English such as "and his true loyalty has always remained unclear"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.57.25 ( talk • contribs)
I would, but I can't edit the page. 87.122.57.25
Hey, can the protection be removed from this article? Someone who is an admin will have to do it, but I know there are a few admins around here. Yes, we run the risk of vandelism, but, there's always that risk. Tuvas 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Under Notable Unanswered Questions:
Snape links to a Disambiguation page instead of Severus Snape
Elfich
15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When it was edited, one of the links was linked properly, the other is linked as an edit request to Severus Snape. Elfich 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
He could not be dead. I think you should take time to read this page. [2]
The comment is not directed to anyone. I put it on so people can read the clues on the page. I found it interesting. -- Daniel O my talk. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In the section continuing storylines from previous books the section on Harry refers to Dumbledore being dead. The statement that Dumbledore is has been confirmed by JK Rowling. The rest of the sentance (headmaster portrait yada yada yada) is completely speculation. This should be addressed. Elfich 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It says in the infobox that the book is to be released in 2007, however, it says in the relevant section that the date is speculated to be 2007. Do we have proof of a 07 release date? If so, it should be put in the section or refrenced... -- Bane s 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the 07/07/07 possible release date I think it should be mentioned that this is now even more unlikely due to the London bombings. 82.109.228.38
The first harry potter book was 300 pages, not 200 pages -- and also, the largest one was close to 900 pages (around 870) rather than the stated 600 pages.
This topic was discussed above, but nobody added them in the end even though it was agreed that they could be added. I think that I should add them. Does anybody have any objections? If nobody replies, I'll assume not. Oli 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [Fixed link. Brian Jason Drake ( diff)]
I removed How did Harry actually get Voldemort's powers? because Harry doesn't have HWMNBN's powers, so the question is meaningless. Matchups 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is something that should be in the article somewhere (under "Editions", or in the infobox thingy on the right side, that sorta thing I guess)... anyway, the release date for the paperback will be Jul 5 2008, at least according to my Amazon search. - Ugliness Man ( talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
the end is near
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
no archives yet ( create) |
I reverted these edits by 69.177.41.96. There was no citation, but after digging around, I found it mentioned here on HPANA; however, even this article notes in big bold letters that this is only a theory, and that Rowling has made no such announcements. Therefore, this is fan speculation. What do you think? -- D e ath phoenix 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We have the ability to do something with this page as is now. I know Wikipedia not for speculation, but there are some things that are known to be true about book 7. Perhaps we could compile the factual things, things verifable through interviews, etc? Tuvas 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is the correct theroy because she always talks about how 7 is the most powerful magicla number. well why not give out your book on the day will 3 7s? [[User:unknown}]] 20:04, October 2006 (UTC)
She is also a British author more than aware that the London Bombings are still fresh in people's minds. And like others have said, never has JKR ever suggested the book will be released on 07/07/07. That is just a fan rumour. [[Cosmic quest:Cosmic quest}]] 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this article was lifted from the Book 7 page of the Harry Potter lexicon site ... but I do think that the idea is wrong ... anyone comment. 24.255.115.243 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
JKR herself confirmed these dates when she drew the Black family tree, citing 1980 as the year of Draco's birth. Cosmic quest 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have just compared the Lexicon's page on this with our article. Pretty much everything on this page except for the leading section is a copyvio, either directly quoted or with a few words altered here and there. I don't know how you want to handle this (remove? reword?) but we need to take care of it quick. H e rmione 1980 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says there are some clues in the Azkaban film about the upcoming books. I've been thinking and do you know any things that are in the film that aren't in the Azkaban book, I've made a short list, please add to it.
I added that Marauder's Map thing. A user on IMDB reported it. It's supposedly when Harry's looking on the map and he sees Peter Pettigrew...can someone confirm? -- Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I just looked over the movie, it's true. It's when Harry gets out of bed looking for Pettigrew in the corridors. -- Thrashmeister 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read in a Harry Potter essay somewhere that during the scene when Harry is learning the Patronus Charm from Lupin, Harry uses the memory (he's not even sure if it's a real memory) of his parents talking to him, just talking, as being a happy enough thought to conjure a Patronus. And in the book, Harry doesn't have this thought. Harry racks his brain a thrid time on page 241 of my American version of the book. "The moment when he'd first found out he was a wizard, and would be leaving the Dursle's for Hogwarts! If that wasn't a happy memory, he didn't know what was..." I think that an essay I read about how "the power the dark lord knows not" (a.k.a. love), is not truly evident in any spell other than the Patronus Charm. In the movie, Harry produces his Patronus based on his love, this time his LOVE for his family. Perhaps something with a Patronus produced by love will help defeat Voldemort... Emily 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can people please knock off the speculation? Fan forums abound, but this is not one of them. Thank you. H e rmione 1980 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
But J.K. Rowling SAID that there were clues to future books in the third movie. Perhaps it was books 6 when there's Dumbledore's trick with extinguishing and re-lighting a candle, along with the remark that "But you know, happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light." And sorry. Emily 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard this somewhere, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Apparently in the movie, Sirius comments about how it will be nice to walk through the halls as a free man. Also, on his wanted poster it has the number 390. 199.126.166.13 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
People are too heavy handed about speculation. There is speculation out there, you can't deny it. Summaries of speculation should be included especially where it can be referenced to a peer reviewed source, which would include any web site where readers can post comments on submitted theories.-- SmokeyJoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
An example might be: "There is widespread speculation that Dumbledore is not dead (see for example http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=44049&p=4)". It should be OK to cover fan speculation. I'd like to create a distinction here: this is not the place to speculate, but speculation, as it occurs out there and is verifiable, is OK to summarise. I'm not advocating a lowering of standards.-- SmokeyJoe 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The contents of a fan forum are "peer-reviewed" by any reasonable definition. But what kind of "source" are they? They a not a source of facts on the Harry Potter books, certainly. They are a source for the existance of speculation. Information on the speculation surrounding the books is worthy information for inclusion, just like other real-world information such as dates of release and numbers of books sold. The crude warnings against "speculation" should be changed to a warning to "not add your own speculation".-- SmokeyJoe 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the guidelines, especially "no original research". Actually, I have been trying to take the same position as you did in the talk archive in July 2005. But, I've been trying to say that the apparent ban on speculation is wrong. On this point, I am pleased to see that Evilphoenix has removed the offensive header. The real problem in my opinion is the insertion of uncited information. There is nothing wrong with speculation/theories (per se), as long as they have been published elsewhere. Recently, it has looked like Evilphoenix is an aggressive deletionist with a vendetta against speculation. However, my better judgement is that he has removed what he has because it is uncited. I note that among the fan forums, possibly acceptable publications of theories exist. In contrast, I would criticize http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ as an individual’s opinion piece that does not invite comments (aka peer-review). (It is, however, redeemed by its high quality)-- SmokeyJoe 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is something that someone wants to add: "There is no official title yet but rumoured title Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat is not the title of book seven. However there has been mild speculation that Harry Potter and the War of the Wizards. When the title is reaveled is unknown. Many think the mysterious Room of Requirement (Now locked) on J.K. Rowling's personal site will tell the title and release date of seven when it opens again. When it does, we do not know."
Speculation removed. H e rmione 1980 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My dad thinks (not seriusly of course) that Harry and Hermione will die, leaving Ron to marry Ginny.:-D Hybee 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Could some people help out at the Harry Potter Wiki, it's a fan club for Harry Potter fans. We are running out of users, so just click on this link the Harry Potter Wiki and please help out. Daniel O my talk. 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it was inevitable that people would start adding stuff to these outstanding questions, but since I've seen these sections grow to massive proportions, I should probably start a section about it. How big should this section be? I don't want the past to repeat itself and have dozens of trivial questions take over this article again. I'm getting rid of the professions of James and Lilly Potter because that's not an explicit outstanding question arising from the book. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think these outstanding questions should be explicitly stated. Nowhere in book six does Harry Potter wonder what his parents did for a living. -- D e athphoenix ʕ 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
One good way to judge the value of these outstanding questions would be to see if there's already a Wikipedia article about it. Every one of the questions now posed has some reference to it on Wikipedia, with the only questionable being Hogwarts. Each of these has a pretty well-written list as to why people think it might happen, and why people think it won't, generally all quite accurate. Perhaps that should be the qualifying factor to add more stuff? -- Tuvas 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you all think it appropriate to place dates on the statements here? I don't believe that there is an official timeline, and don't think it belongs here. Tuvas 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
One example: Harry will turn seventeen on 31 July 1997. There are about 4-5 of these statements. Tuvas 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am more interested in the thought that in a year or two, after the release of Book 7, the entire article will be re-written. Or will this page be moved to a Prior speculation page, as per Book 6? I guess that it will be, in which case the dates will not belong, as they are not the subject of speculation/anticipation of the release of Book 7. SmokeyJoe 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason I mention these dates is they really have no real proof, nor signifigance. They are a somewhat accepted theory, and that's about all. There is only one place in the books that even gives a hint of a date, to which all of these dates are based off of. In my mind they don't really belong here. Tuvas 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Prune the dates. SmokeyJoe 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
JKR just published some more dates with her release of the Black family tree (Harry Potter), though the wiki version does not list the dates, presumably because of the difficulty cramming them into the page. Warner brothers also published dates on their film DVDs (though admittedly I have yet to make the software work so I can see it). I imagine that relevant info from here will be carried forward to the new book 7 page, and this page will be kept for reference, as is the case for the equivalent page written before HBP was published. The book is about one year at school, so the relative dates/ages of all the characters are very well defined.
Jo say in her website that she almost say one time the title of the seven book (In the F.A.Q. area, about the books, page 3 the last question). Anybody know when did that happen? -- ometzit 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page protected? It keeps fans from otherwise contributing to the page.
Whilst I'm at it, I might as well mention that in the "What to look for" section, someone should add something about the Phoenix imagery rampant in book 6 (especially at Dumbledore's funeral) and throughout the series. If you remember your Egyptian mythology, its quite likely that Dumbledore will make a Phoenix style comeback in book seven; Rowling isn't sadistic enough to kill off one of her fans' favourite characters.
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7
This has a great rundown of what will happen in the book, based on past interviews; also great information.
And for a list of what the outstanding questions of Harry Potter are:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft
If you are looking for a well researched speculation check out this page SNAPE DIES: A THEORY ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BOOK 7 ( Cvgbook7theory 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
"It is currently unknown, despite rumours, if Rowling will allow other authors to write novels set in the Harry Potter Universe not concerning Harry or the events covered in the series."
Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that Rowling isn't going to do this. -- DearPrudence 16:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
She specifivaly stated that she is going to "kill off" sevral of the main charicters to prevent this rather this means hair or not i dont know
I know this article bobs up and down like the remains of a shipwreck, but it really has been stripped of even the basic obvious elements which it must contain to be a coherent article. For example, an overview of the very very basic plot of the entire series Good=Harry v. bad=Voldemort, wizards/magic/mystery/whodunnit. Someone totally unfamiliar with the series who heard there was to be a new book and looked it up would get no idea what it is about. Sandpiper 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles just cry out for pictures. I don't know if anyone has suggestions for one suitable image we might use? Sandpiper 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What's this?? http://harry-potter-fansite.ifrance.com/book6.jpg Daniel O my talk. 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a citation for this but Harry and Neville do not come of age at the "same time". Harry's birthday is on 31st July and Neville's on 1st August. Oli
Do we actually know that it will be called "Harry Potter and the ..." (as obvious as it seems)? That's what's currently in the infobox. Brian Jason Drake 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt she'll change it now. It does seem a little forward but there's not much we can do about it now. There'll never be a consensus for removing it because everyone will leap up and say "She's bound to keep it" and if someone removes it without a discussion it'll be back there in five minutes. There's so many Harry Potter fans and they're generally so young that common sense doesn't apply to them.-- Simondrake 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, but I think in the interview she had with Emerson and Melissa she did say it was going to be Harry Potter and the _____, but I could be mistaken. Tuvas 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's possible she won't. Look at the Unfortunate Event books. All EXCEPT the last have alliterative titles, maybe J.K. will do something differen't with the last. Flight29Down 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of the page.....the first book is called Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone. Edit? Why can't we edit this page?
Yeah, sorry, I didn't know that when I posted that comment. Sorcerer's Stone is better, though, in my opinion.
The Philosopher's stone is a historical fact. Although no real person is known to succeed in making it, many people tried! Including Nicholas Flamel who was a real person. Therefore, it makes no sense to call it the “Sorcerer’s Stone”. The reason they did it in the US is because the editors believed that American kids are too afraid of a serious topic like philosophy and would not read a book about a philosopher’s object, whatever it was. I would like to believe this is not true. What do you think? ( Cvgbook7theory 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
The section contains good information, but should it strictly be in the Book Seven article? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I looked at it. As I said, I think the facts of JKR's known intentions do belong in this article. It is relevant that book 7 is intended to be the last, so all storylines will be tied up. The section doesn't really say very much else, just makes a joke about wizarding universities, which logically would be harry's next year of education, were the series to continue. i am not attached to the notion of mentioning universities, but it forms part of the quote where JKR says no more books. I judge it would not misrepresent the quote if it were shortened to remove mention of universities, but it is not really doing any harm. Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If the given comparison ( [1]) is correct (I've never heard of it), why remove it? Brian Jason Drake 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Information from JK Rowling" it says:
"After completion of Goblet of Fire 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. In particular, she referred to the scene where Remus Lupin talks to Harry about his mother, but she may have meant other scenes as well."
The movie that is suposed to be referenced is Prisoner of Azkaban. This is the movie Lupin talks to Harry about his mother. Remus Lupin is not even in Goblet of Fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luv2luvem ( talk • contribs)
"Severus Snape has been an important and enigmatic character throughout the books, with it never being quite clear which side of the war he is on." Please, could we, PLEASE, have that in proper English such as "and his true loyalty has always remained unclear"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.57.25 ( talk • contribs)
I would, but I can't edit the page. 87.122.57.25
Hey, can the protection be removed from this article? Someone who is an admin will have to do it, but I know there are a few admins around here. Yes, we run the risk of vandelism, but, there's always that risk. Tuvas 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Under Notable Unanswered Questions:
Snape links to a Disambiguation page instead of Severus Snape
Elfich
15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When it was edited, one of the links was linked properly, the other is linked as an edit request to Severus Snape. Elfich 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
He could not be dead. I think you should take time to read this page. [2]
The comment is not directed to anyone. I put it on so people can read the clues on the page. I found it interesting. -- Daniel O my talk. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In the section continuing storylines from previous books the section on Harry refers to Dumbledore being dead. The statement that Dumbledore is has been confirmed by JK Rowling. The rest of the sentance (headmaster portrait yada yada yada) is completely speculation. This should be addressed. Elfich 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It says in the infobox that the book is to be released in 2007, however, it says in the relevant section that the date is speculated to be 2007. Do we have proof of a 07 release date? If so, it should be put in the section or refrenced... -- Bane s 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the 07/07/07 possible release date I think it should be mentioned that this is now even more unlikely due to the London bombings. 82.109.228.38
The first harry potter book was 300 pages, not 200 pages -- and also, the largest one was close to 900 pages (around 870) rather than the stated 600 pages.
This topic was discussed above, but nobody added them in the end even though it was agreed that they could be added. I think that I should add them. Does anybody have any objections? If nobody replies, I'll assume not. Oli 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [Fixed link. Brian Jason Drake ( diff)]
I removed How did Harry actually get Voldemort's powers? because Harry doesn't have HWMNBN's powers, so the question is meaningless. Matchups 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is something that should be in the article somewhere (under "Editions", or in the infobox thingy on the right side, that sorta thing I guess)... anyway, the release date for the paperback will be Jul 5 2008, at least according to my Amazon search. - Ugliness Man ( talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
the end is near