![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
I know that the summary needs to be trimmed, but it should mention the mystery surrounding the Dumbledore family, which does affect serveral charcters' motivations. CharlesTheBold 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No it is but an important coincidence worthy of at least recognition. Harry: "Expelliarmus" Voldemort: "Avada Kedavra". Like the fourth book. Also Harry refused to use the killing curse. Rembrant12 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a subplot page from which you are very welcome to work on. Here is the link: Harry Potter (subplots)
I have been forced to move the page so here is its new location: User:Rembrant12/Subplots . Rembrant12 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone please fit this into the main page for it is very relevant.:
Dumbledore had a very disfunctional family. His sister, Ariana, going crazy after being beaten by Muggles for doing magic in her childhood years. Their Azkaban prisoner father who saught revenge on the muggles who attacked Ariana. Their mother who dealt with much stress and died. His brother Aberforth who was imprisoned for a short while for illegal charms on a goat (mentioned in fourth book). Under these conditions Dumbledore was, understandably, exstatic to find an equal, Gellert Grindewald, who was able to bring Dumbledore over to a part of thinking Dumbledore was already thinking, that wizards have the power, therefor the responsibility to rule muggles as to prevent another incident like that of poor Ariana. Before gathering followers, Dumbledore and Grindewald set out to find the Deathly Hallows. 3 objects, the perfect Invisibility Cloak, the Ressurection Stone, and the Elder Wand, all created by the 3 Peverall brothers. The Elder Wand, otherwise known as the Deathstick or the Wand of Destiny, was said to be the "unbeatable" wand, and that the possesser of the Wand would control power beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunetly, or fortunetly, before Dumbledore or Grindewald ever began their search a duel started between Aberforth, Grindewald, and Dumbledore. Ariana supposedly wanted to help and was killed in the process. Grindewald fled and was able to find and take the Elder Wand from its previous owner, the wand maker Gregorovitch. Dumbledore then defeated Grindewald and took the Wand. Draco Malfoy then was able to win the Wand from Dumbledore the night when Snape killed Dumbledore. Voldemort was able to take the Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and believing its master was Snape, had Nagini kill Snape. Yet it the Wand was Harry's for Harry was able to disarm Draco then winning the alleigance of the Elder Wand. The Wand refused to kill its master and Voldemort's killing curse rebounded upon him, thus killing him.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rembrant12/Subplots" Rembrant12 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Add it to Dumbledore, Gellert Grindelwald and/or Harry Potter (character). This is not the place. chgallen 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rembrandt, there isn't enough room for everything that is relevant to be included in the article. We'd duplicate the book eventually. A lot is going to have to be left out. Claudia 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not agreed. I believe that it is very relevant. More relevant the snatchers catching them and going to Malfoy Manor. More relevant and better that the explanation of the Hallows that we have now. This one shows the good connection between the Wand and Voldemort's death, and talks about the other 2 Hallows also. This is very relevant, NOT RELEVANT info, but VERY relevant information. Rembrant12 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Did we decide that the word " Horcrux" should always be capitalized? If we did, why? Is that how Rowling always uses it? (I have no books handy) If we didn't, may I suggest that we place the word into the lower case? I see that the horcrux page itself capitalizes it always too, so maybe we should keep it that way for consistency. But if Rowling doesn't capitalize it, we shouldn't either, should we? Can someone let me know if she does or not? Thanks! Stanselmdoc 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I'm glad I didn't jump the gun and place them all into the lower case. Stanselmdoc 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Harry's last thoughts before being hit by Voldemort's curse go to Ginny, and that Snape, dying, asks Harry to look at him, probably to look into his (Lily's) eyes?
I REALLY think a spoiler warning should be put up for people who are killed in the book. Someone who hasn't read the book may come her and see the list, not expecting such a huge spoiler... -- Jaydeejj 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We are well beyond the date any facts are spoilers. If someone is reading this page either 1) they've read the book, or 2) they don't mind spoilers. Any other circumstance is user stupidity.
Thing is guys, it is common curtousy to put up a spoiler worning as I have been trying to do. Everytime I do someone deletes it. I was reading a Harry Potter page years back and it did not say "spoiler warning" on it so I thought it was like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details, gave away the entire book. I was very angry. It is just common curtousy to others. So I will be putting up the spoiler warning endlisly as to be nice to those new to Wikipedia. Rembrant12 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1. It was not a threat but a statement, there is a difference. 2. And though it "Current fiction" may be enough under regulations but Wikipedia should be nicer to people than this. Rembrant12 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on people! If they don't see the large headings of "Plot Summary" or "List of Character Killed", what would make them see the spoiler warning? The headings ARE spoiler warnings because the clearly state what you are going to read. People going "OMG you jerks! You spoiled the book for me!! Why wasn't there a warning?!?!" Are just people looking for a scapegoat to cover up their stupidity.-- Crazybizi 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For heavens sake! If you have not read the book yet, why are you looking at the Wikipedia article and then moaning when you read the plot? I have a simple solution for al such people. Turn off you computer, and pick up the book and read it!!!!! Dewarw 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are making me mad. It was not this book but the third one. And it was long after it came out. There are people who have never been on Wikipedia, who have never read these discussions, etc. they do not know that plot summary means EVERYTHING IMPORTANT but like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details and others may beleive this to. SO be nice to people. It takes like 10 seconds of your time to do so just add a spoiler warning every other book site does so. Rembrant12 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is redundant now, because the List of Deaths has been moved to a new article. However, it is now an afd! This means it might be brought back! Oh well, Dewarw 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's just rude to many people who haven't read the entire thing. Rubyandme 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the top of the article needs a big honking SPOILER ALERT. I can't speak for others, but for myself, I usually ignore the fine print in those warnings at the top, or in the contest list. Make it clear, there are spoilers here.
In further defense of a Spoiler Warning:
Look, I know the Wiki guidelines (see WP:Spoiler) say that you shouldn't put a spoiler warning in front of a plot summary, but this book is a very unique case.
Finally, I'd like to ask, what's the big deal with putting a spoiler up anyway? It's not like it makes the page an eyesore or anything. There's still plenty of articles floating around Wiki with spoiler warnings in "Plot Summary" sections. Nobody's going to care if this one does, and it doesn't degrade the value of the website at all.
I don't think Harry Potter fans (or anybody for that matter) will find it particularly important that we editors are extraordinarily meticulous in following guidelines that are meant to be warped in special case scenarios anyway.
At least for the next few months, we should have a spoiler warning up. After that, we can discuss to see if we want to keep it, or leave it.
-- Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ current fiction}}
I would propose adding to the top of the plot summary the text
which is modelled on the standard warning the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine gives in its online examples of encyclopedic articles on current movies. (See eg http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3814/).
The appropriate place for such a warning is at the plot section, where it is relevant, not at the top of the page, where I believe the vast majority of readers will overlook it.
Most online resources discussing the plot will not give full plot and ending details -- not even the fansites. It is right that Wikiepdia is different, but we should make it clear to readers that Wikipedia is different. I don't think that currently we are doing that in nearly a noticeable enough way. Jheald 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone put up the sign that says the text below gives the book away? I've finished the book already, but I think some people (kids are reading this, remember) might not know what they're reading till it's too late.
Thanks, great book! 68.55.235.179 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Please go to a fan forum. Thanks, Dewarw 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
well he did say thanks. that was nice of him 124.176.91.150 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the article mentions the epigraphs, but neglects to mention that this is the first and only books to include epigraphs. Anyone want to add a comment after the article becomes unlocked? -- Self-Cannibal
There has been speculation on the subject here in this talk page, and news on this just hit the Leaky Cauldron site moments ago, it has now been revealed that Arthur Weasley was the character who "got a reprieve". He was actually slated to die back in book 5. reference. Don't know if it belongs in the article, but now we know. - Ugliness Man 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It could also be mentioned briefly in the page for Arthur Weasley, if you wanted.
DarthSidious 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
The section labeled "Deaths," whatever its merits may be, is misplaced. It is at the end of the synopsis, but it is clearly not part of the plot summary. My own view, clearly shared by many others, is that it's just miscellaneous trivia. But as editors delete it, others keep adding it back.
As now written, it says:
Can we finally give this section a proper burial? Marc Shepherd 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there has already been discussion on this, but I wanted to bring up the fact that discussion has occurred on this question on a different talk page, and they came to a different conclusion:
On this page, Harry and Ginny are not stated to be married. On Ginny's page, they are stated to be married. Harry's page also states that they are married.
I would like these pages to be consistent. Ginny's page has had an extensive discussion. Harry's page a small one. This one a slightly longer one. No matter what decision is made, I just think we should be consistent in all three.
Are there any objections to re-opening discussion on this page about the potential marriage of Harry and Ginny? Stanselmdoc 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ooookay, for some reason it seems that my original post was taken incorrectly. Just to clarify, I wasn't in any possible way suggesting that we somehow "make the plot summary longer." I was pointing out that different conclusions have been found by different talk pages, and would like to see consistency between them, since they're all about the exact same topic. If the revision on this page is what is finally decided on, then those pages should be changed so that THEY don't say Harry and Ginny are married. So I guess I'll just go present the topic on those pages. Stanselmdoc 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Under plot summary, you have Minister for Magic. It should be Minister of Magic. 205.241.11.6 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The UK editions follow Jo's (JK Rowling's) original text better than the US editions do. It's Minister for Magic, not Minister of Magic, Trelawney's first name is spelled Sybill, not Sibyll, etc. The British editions also prefer to use description rather than illistration and formatting. For more info., see this page. (scroll down to "Differences between the British and American versions".) ( TehLostBug 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
The review by The Christian Science Monitor seems decent. Anyone looking for something to add to the reception section might want to check it out, especially if you're looking for something representative of the negative reviews. --- RockMFR 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of the dull little silver lock in the top right, I propose we create a custom template for this article and any other protected Harry Potter articles with a wand beside it that says:
"Protego! This article has been protected from Muggle edits until further notice! Contact the Ministry for Magic if you wish it to be unprotected, and if you wish edits to be made, you may discuss them by owl post."
And don't you go saying "but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia!". This article is 15 pages long. That's over 5000 words. Our article on macular degeneration is barely 3000. Come now! Embrace the Potter-mania, Wikipedia! Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is so stupid. This is not the Harry Potter wiki. Vodak 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling has stated that "she probably will" write a Potter Encyclopedia and that it would include background stories of characters she has already written but had to cut - such as Harry's school friend Dean Thomas.
She also said the book would include details of a new headmaster at Hogwarts, and who was teaching defence against the dark arts at the magical school.
In addition, she also stated that the release might be years into the future.
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1159322007
would mentioning that the dedication is a lightning bolt shape be unessecary? 124.176.91.150 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
ok i thought it best to ask. though i dont think unregistered users can edit this page anyway. thanks 124.176.91.150 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
in the synopsis it states that after he is (aparantely) killed by voldemort he awakens in kings cross station. this wasnt exactly correct as the place he awakens in just reminds him of kings cross station and dumbledore is actually amused when harry mentions this. dumbledore then says metaphorically that harry could catch a train out of there i.e he could die if he wanted to. 124.176.91.150 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to: " . . . a place resembling King's Cross station. PNW Raven 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the Australian children's version, 1st edition hardcover, and it's ISBN is (978) 0747591054, not 0747591059. Maybe the Australian edition has a different ISBN to the UK edition. Perhaps someone can add the AU edition? -- 58.167.124.170 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary is practically the only part of the article that is likely to endure. Everything else is highly ephemeral stuff that eventually won't matter very much. It is therefore amusing that most of the energy going into the article is directed at keeping the plot summary short. That might actually make sense if there were anything more substantial to say about the book. But there isn't. So plot details keep getting axed—which might or might not be a good thing—but nothing of substance is replacing them. The plot is practically the only substance the article has. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an article from MSNBC that goes into great detail about the characters and expands a lot from what was in the epilogue: click here!
I just figured it'd be a good source to use. The basics are that Harry and Ginny/Ron and Hermione are married, Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter, Harry and Ron are aurors, Hermione is in law enforcement, Luna is out exploring, Neville and Luna are not together, Neville's parents will forever remain in St. Mungo's, Hogwarts has a headmaster that we have not been introduced to before, and there's a DADA teacher that can remain for longer than a year since the jinx on the position was broken. Anywho, have at it. -- 74.137.227.117 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. I am getting a bit tired of people insisting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Rowling refers to the family as "the five Potters". Now, unless you think Ginny just up and changed her name for no reason, please stop asserting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Thank you. 72.208.25.18 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
um, the book says that james referrers to Victoire as "our cousin" and for her tobe thier couisin, harry would have had to marry a weasly!
Has this figure been debunked yet? Seems very farfetched considering there were 8.3M sold in the US and around 2.6M sold in the UK, the two largest markets. I couldn't imagine 60M+ coming from elsewhere. -- Cdman882 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it again. The figure can't possibly be correct. --- RockMFR 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's no way that figure could be correct. jj137 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
12 Million copies were shipped in the US alone, but that figure seems waaay to hign
Yoman786 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a Bloomsbury published edition for Australia, of which the ISBN is ISBN 978 0 7475 9105 4. This differs from the ISBN listed in the article for the Bloombury edition for Australian distribution. I think it is possible that the ISBNs differ between countries as the prints themselves also differ. E.g. the Australian distribution edition says it was "Printed in Australia by Griffin Press". I would assume the South African addition would not say this. Should the other ISBNs be listed? I think this is the Australian Adult Jacket Edition - ISBN 9780747591061 Tinkstar1985 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The timing on the bot was not changed so things are still being archived to Archive 22, instead of now 26. Are some of the stuff in 22 (now 69kb) in 23-25 as well? Should tthey have been moved there? Can someone sort this out? Simply south 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This plot needs some serious bulking up. Not very thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.30.108.114 ( talk) 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the seventh and final of the Harry Potter novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The book was released on 21 July 2007, ending the series that began in 1997 with the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. This book chronicles the events directly following Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005), and leads to the long-awaited final confrontation between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort.
In the paragraph, it's stated the the name of J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter book is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". It's actually called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
-- 65.191.64.72 ( talk) 02:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Overall, a pretty good start to a good article, and plenty of solid info. That said, here's a rundown of what I consider the biggest issues:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to respond. A member of my family had a seizure and it was unknown whether he would make it (although things look much better now). I'd say the soonest I can get back to you would be Saturday or Sunday. Sorry, Malinaccier P. ( talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
I know that the summary needs to be trimmed, but it should mention the mystery surrounding the Dumbledore family, which does affect serveral charcters' motivations. CharlesTheBold 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No it is but an important coincidence worthy of at least recognition. Harry: "Expelliarmus" Voldemort: "Avada Kedavra". Like the fourth book. Also Harry refused to use the killing curse. Rembrant12 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a subplot page from which you are very welcome to work on. Here is the link: Harry Potter (subplots)
I have been forced to move the page so here is its new location: User:Rembrant12/Subplots . Rembrant12 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone please fit this into the main page for it is very relevant.:
Dumbledore had a very disfunctional family. His sister, Ariana, going crazy after being beaten by Muggles for doing magic in her childhood years. Their Azkaban prisoner father who saught revenge on the muggles who attacked Ariana. Their mother who dealt with much stress and died. His brother Aberforth who was imprisoned for a short while for illegal charms on a goat (mentioned in fourth book). Under these conditions Dumbledore was, understandably, exstatic to find an equal, Gellert Grindewald, who was able to bring Dumbledore over to a part of thinking Dumbledore was already thinking, that wizards have the power, therefor the responsibility to rule muggles as to prevent another incident like that of poor Ariana. Before gathering followers, Dumbledore and Grindewald set out to find the Deathly Hallows. 3 objects, the perfect Invisibility Cloak, the Ressurection Stone, and the Elder Wand, all created by the 3 Peverall brothers. The Elder Wand, otherwise known as the Deathstick or the Wand of Destiny, was said to be the "unbeatable" wand, and that the possesser of the Wand would control power beyond their wildest dreams. Unfortunetly, or fortunetly, before Dumbledore or Grindewald ever began their search a duel started between Aberforth, Grindewald, and Dumbledore. Ariana supposedly wanted to help and was killed in the process. Grindewald fled and was able to find and take the Elder Wand from its previous owner, the wand maker Gregorovitch. Dumbledore then defeated Grindewald and took the Wand. Draco Malfoy then was able to win the Wand from Dumbledore the night when Snape killed Dumbledore. Voldemort was able to take the Wand from Dumbledore's tomb and believing its master was Snape, had Nagini kill Snape. Yet it the Wand was Harry's for Harry was able to disarm Draco then winning the alleigance of the Elder Wand. The Wand refused to kill its master and Voldemort's killing curse rebounded upon him, thus killing him.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rembrant12/Subplots" Rembrant12 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Add it to Dumbledore, Gellert Grindelwald and/or Harry Potter (character). This is not the place. chgallen 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rembrandt, there isn't enough room for everything that is relevant to be included in the article. We'd duplicate the book eventually. A lot is going to have to be left out. Claudia 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not agreed. I believe that it is very relevant. More relevant the snatchers catching them and going to Malfoy Manor. More relevant and better that the explanation of the Hallows that we have now. This one shows the good connection between the Wand and Voldemort's death, and talks about the other 2 Hallows also. This is very relevant, NOT RELEVANT info, but VERY relevant information. Rembrant12 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Did we decide that the word " Horcrux" should always be capitalized? If we did, why? Is that how Rowling always uses it? (I have no books handy) If we didn't, may I suggest that we place the word into the lower case? I see that the horcrux page itself capitalizes it always too, so maybe we should keep it that way for consistency. But if Rowling doesn't capitalize it, we shouldn't either, should we? Can someone let me know if she does or not? Thanks! Stanselmdoc 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I'm glad I didn't jump the gun and place them all into the lower case. Stanselmdoc 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Harry's last thoughts before being hit by Voldemort's curse go to Ginny, and that Snape, dying, asks Harry to look at him, probably to look into his (Lily's) eyes?
I REALLY think a spoiler warning should be put up for people who are killed in the book. Someone who hasn't read the book may come her and see the list, not expecting such a huge spoiler... -- Jaydeejj 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We are well beyond the date any facts are spoilers. If someone is reading this page either 1) they've read the book, or 2) they don't mind spoilers. Any other circumstance is user stupidity.
Thing is guys, it is common curtousy to put up a spoiler worning as I have been trying to do. Everytime I do someone deletes it. I was reading a Harry Potter page years back and it did not say "spoiler warning" on it so I thought it was like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details, gave away the entire book. I was very angry. It is just common curtousy to others. So I will be putting up the spoiler warning endlisly as to be nice to those new to Wikipedia. Rembrant12 01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1. It was not a threat but a statement, there is a difference. 2. And though it "Current fiction" may be enough under regulations but Wikipedia should be nicer to people than this. Rembrant12 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on people! If they don't see the large headings of "Plot Summary" or "List of Character Killed", what would make them see the spoiler warning? The headings ARE spoiler warnings because the clearly state what you are going to read. People going "OMG you jerks! You spoiled the book for me!! Why wasn't there a warning?!?!" Are just people looking for a scapegoat to cover up their stupidity.-- Crazybizi 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For heavens sake! If you have not read the book yet, why are you looking at the Wikipedia article and then moaning when you read the plot? I have a simple solution for al such people. Turn off you computer, and pick up the book and read it!!!!! Dewarw 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are making me mad. It was not this book but the third one. And it was long after it came out. There are people who have never been on Wikipedia, who have never read these discussions, etc. they do not know that plot summary means EVERYTHING IMPORTANT but like a summary on the back of the book, an overview not giving away details and others may beleive this to. SO be nice to people. It takes like 10 seconds of your time to do so just add a spoiler warning every other book site does so. Rembrant12 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is redundant now, because the List of Deaths has been moved to a new article. However, it is now an afd! This means it might be brought back! Oh well, Dewarw 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's just rude to many people who haven't read the entire thing. Rubyandme 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the top of the article needs a big honking SPOILER ALERT. I can't speak for others, but for myself, I usually ignore the fine print in those warnings at the top, or in the contest list. Make it clear, there are spoilers here.
In further defense of a Spoiler Warning:
Look, I know the Wiki guidelines (see WP:Spoiler) say that you shouldn't put a spoiler warning in front of a plot summary, but this book is a very unique case.
Finally, I'd like to ask, what's the big deal with putting a spoiler up anyway? It's not like it makes the page an eyesore or anything. There's still plenty of articles floating around Wiki with spoiler warnings in "Plot Summary" sections. Nobody's going to care if this one does, and it doesn't degrade the value of the website at all.
I don't think Harry Potter fans (or anybody for that matter) will find it particularly important that we editors are extraordinarily meticulous in following guidelines that are meant to be warped in special case scenarios anyway.
At least for the next few months, we should have a spoiler warning up. After that, we can discuss to see if we want to keep it, or leave it.
-- Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ current fiction}}
I would propose adding to the top of the plot summary the text
which is modelled on the standard warning the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine gives in its online examples of encyclopedic articles on current movies. (See eg http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/3814/).
The appropriate place for such a warning is at the plot section, where it is relevant, not at the top of the page, where I believe the vast majority of readers will overlook it.
Most online resources discussing the plot will not give full plot and ending details -- not even the fansites. It is right that Wikiepdia is different, but we should make it clear to readers that Wikipedia is different. I don't think that currently we are doing that in nearly a noticeable enough way. Jheald 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone put up the sign that says the text below gives the book away? I've finished the book already, but I think some people (kids are reading this, remember) might not know what they're reading till it's too late.
Thanks, great book! 68.55.235.179 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Please go to a fan forum. Thanks, Dewarw 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
well he did say thanks. that was nice of him 124.176.91.150 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the article mentions the epigraphs, but neglects to mention that this is the first and only books to include epigraphs. Anyone want to add a comment after the article becomes unlocked? -- Self-Cannibal
There has been speculation on the subject here in this talk page, and news on this just hit the Leaky Cauldron site moments ago, it has now been revealed that Arthur Weasley was the character who "got a reprieve". He was actually slated to die back in book 5. reference. Don't know if it belongs in the article, but now we know. - Ugliness Man 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It could also be mentioned briefly in the page for Arthur Weasley, if you wanted.
DarthSidious 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
The section labeled "Deaths," whatever its merits may be, is misplaced. It is at the end of the synopsis, but it is clearly not part of the plot summary. My own view, clearly shared by many others, is that it's just miscellaneous trivia. But as editors delete it, others keep adding it back.
As now written, it says:
Can we finally give this section a proper burial? Marc Shepherd 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there has already been discussion on this, but I wanted to bring up the fact that discussion has occurred on this question on a different talk page, and they came to a different conclusion:
On this page, Harry and Ginny are not stated to be married. On Ginny's page, they are stated to be married. Harry's page also states that they are married.
I would like these pages to be consistent. Ginny's page has had an extensive discussion. Harry's page a small one. This one a slightly longer one. No matter what decision is made, I just think we should be consistent in all three.
Are there any objections to re-opening discussion on this page about the potential marriage of Harry and Ginny? Stanselmdoc 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ooookay, for some reason it seems that my original post was taken incorrectly. Just to clarify, I wasn't in any possible way suggesting that we somehow "make the plot summary longer." I was pointing out that different conclusions have been found by different talk pages, and would like to see consistency between them, since they're all about the exact same topic. If the revision on this page is what is finally decided on, then those pages should be changed so that THEY don't say Harry and Ginny are married. So I guess I'll just go present the topic on those pages. Stanselmdoc 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Under plot summary, you have Minister for Magic. It should be Minister of Magic. 205.241.11.6 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The UK editions follow Jo's (JK Rowling's) original text better than the US editions do. It's Minister for Magic, not Minister of Magic, Trelawney's first name is spelled Sybill, not Sibyll, etc. The British editions also prefer to use description rather than illistration and formatting. For more info., see this page. (scroll down to "Differences between the British and American versions".) ( TehLostBug 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
The review by The Christian Science Monitor seems decent. Anyone looking for something to add to the reception section might want to check it out, especially if you're looking for something representative of the negative reviews. --- RockMFR 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of the dull little silver lock in the top right, I propose we create a custom template for this article and any other protected Harry Potter articles with a wand beside it that says:
"Protego! This article has been protected from Muggle edits until further notice! Contact the Ministry for Magic if you wish it to be unprotected, and if you wish edits to be made, you may discuss them by owl post."
And don't you go saying "but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia!". This article is 15 pages long. That's over 5000 words. Our article on macular degeneration is barely 3000. Come now! Embrace the Potter-mania, Wikipedia! Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is so stupid. This is not the Harry Potter wiki. Vodak 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Rowling has stated that "she probably will" write a Potter Encyclopedia and that it would include background stories of characters she has already written but had to cut - such as Harry's school friend Dean Thomas.
She also said the book would include details of a new headmaster at Hogwarts, and who was teaching defence against the dark arts at the magical school.
In addition, she also stated that the release might be years into the future.
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1159322007
would mentioning that the dedication is a lightning bolt shape be unessecary? 124.176.91.150 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
ok i thought it best to ask. though i dont think unregistered users can edit this page anyway. thanks 124.176.91.150 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
in the synopsis it states that after he is (aparantely) killed by voldemort he awakens in kings cross station. this wasnt exactly correct as the place he awakens in just reminds him of kings cross station and dumbledore is actually amused when harry mentions this. dumbledore then says metaphorically that harry could catch a train out of there i.e he could die if he wanted to. 124.176.91.150 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to: " . . . a place resembling King's Cross station. PNW Raven 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a copy of the Australian children's version, 1st edition hardcover, and it's ISBN is (978) 0747591054, not 0747591059. Maybe the Australian edition has a different ISBN to the UK edition. Perhaps someone can add the AU edition? -- 58.167.124.170 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary is practically the only part of the article that is likely to endure. Everything else is highly ephemeral stuff that eventually won't matter very much. It is therefore amusing that most of the energy going into the article is directed at keeping the plot summary short. That might actually make sense if there were anything more substantial to say about the book. But there isn't. So plot details keep getting axed—which might or might not be a good thing—but nothing of substance is replacing them. The plot is practically the only substance the article has. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an article from MSNBC that goes into great detail about the characters and expands a lot from what was in the epilogue: click here!
I just figured it'd be a good source to use. The basics are that Harry and Ginny/Ron and Hermione are married, Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter, Harry and Ron are aurors, Hermione is in law enforcement, Luna is out exploring, Neville and Luna are not together, Neville's parents will forever remain in St. Mungo's, Hogwarts has a headmaster that we have not been introduced to before, and there's a DADA teacher that can remain for longer than a year since the jinx on the position was broken. Anywho, have at it. -- 74.137.227.117 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. I am getting a bit tired of people insisting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Rowling refers to the family as "the five Potters". Now, unless you think Ginny just up and changed her name for no reason, please stop asserting that Harry and Ginny might not be married. Thank you. 72.208.25.18 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
um, the book says that james referrers to Victoire as "our cousin" and for her tobe thier couisin, harry would have had to marry a weasly!
Has this figure been debunked yet? Seems very farfetched considering there were 8.3M sold in the US and around 2.6M sold in the UK, the two largest markets. I couldn't imagine 60M+ coming from elsewhere. -- Cdman882 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it again. The figure can't possibly be correct. --- RockMFR 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's no way that figure could be correct. jj137 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
12 Million copies were shipped in the US alone, but that figure seems waaay to hign
Yoman786 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a Bloomsbury published edition for Australia, of which the ISBN is ISBN 978 0 7475 9105 4. This differs from the ISBN listed in the article for the Bloombury edition for Australian distribution. I think it is possible that the ISBNs differ between countries as the prints themselves also differ. E.g. the Australian distribution edition says it was "Printed in Australia by Griffin Press". I would assume the South African addition would not say this. Should the other ISBNs be listed? I think this is the Australian Adult Jacket Edition - ISBN 9780747591061 Tinkstar1985 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The timing on the bot was not changed so things are still being archived to Archive 22, instead of now 26. Are some of the stuff in 22 (now 69kb) in 23-25 as well? Should tthey have been moved there? Can someone sort this out? Simply south 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This plot needs some serious bulking up. Not very thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.30.108.114 ( talk) 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the seventh and final of the Harry Potter novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The book was released on 21 July 2007, ending the series that began in 1997 with the publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. This book chronicles the events directly following Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005), and leads to the long-awaited final confrontation between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort.
In the paragraph, it's stated the the name of J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter book is "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". It's actually called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
-- 65.191.64.72 ( talk) 02:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Overall, a pretty good start to a good article, and plenty of solid info. That said, here's a rundown of what I consider the biggest issues:
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to respond. A member of my family had a seizure and it was unknown whether he would make it (although things look much better now). I'd say the soonest I can get back to you would be Saturday or Sunday. Sorry, Malinaccier P. ( talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)