![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
no archives yet ( create) |
I propose to merge Harry Potter (character): Book Seven into this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.21.29 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that references are quire important, but I'm noticing alot of inconsistancy, in fact, almost none of the references are done is what is the normal method. See WP:CITET for some ways to make references, and use the ref tags to put them in the reference section. I'll go through this when I have time, but thought I'd post this first. Tuvas 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that at least one pair of the new references was using the same identifying name. I think i sorted it out, but I am certainly not confident enough of working with this pea soup system to be sure it is correct. If I didn't know vaguely the references myself i would not have been able to sort out the mix up using this integrated referencing system. I do not understand the complex referencing commands well enough to be able to debug them reliably, and still have seen no sensible help page explaining them. (though admittedly this page is now the best example of their use I have seen). The thing about standards is they can always be improved. This one has two serious issues now, being too complex for occasional users to understand is a very serious one. Sandpiper 10:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This should be interesting...
Harry Potter: Wanted dead or alive
Vote now!
Just a few comments on this section. This section is for things which are clearly supported from previous books for what might happen in book 7. It is for obvious things, such as the hunt for the Horcruxes, Snape's lingering loyalties, etc. Also, it is not the section for anything quoted from JKR, please include these statements in the following section. Please remember that this page is not for speculation, which is very difficult for a book that hasn't even been released yet. Believe you me, I've been as guilty of it as any of you... Still, this article has come a long ways! Tuvas 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has put on the article page that the Order of the Pheonix film is going to released 6 days after Harry Potter book 7 is released. If you go on this countdown to the Order of the Pheonix fim (I found it on the leaky cauldron website) it says Order of the Pheonix film is going to be released on the 13/7/07. That's 6 days after the 7/7/07! Is that proof that it's going be released on the 7/7/07 or not? Here's the website:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/countdown_ootp.swf
--
Daniel O
my talk.
08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Many fans want the realease date to be 7.7.07. I know i do. andrew 08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I realise that this article is aimed mostly at fans wanting to have a place where all the information about book 7 can be found without looking around lots of websites. However, this is still wikipedia and the degree of previous knoledge assumed by the article is a bit excessive. Untill my morest recent edit the first mention of the word wizard or a derative was "Each volume contains a complete problem and task for the heroes to complete, but each has also added to the background information about the wizarding world in general", even though the article has never mentioned that the books take place in a "wizarding world". In the next section characters are referd to by their first names only with no explination as to who they are and what diffrence it makes tht harry is going to "Bill's wedding". Most of this stuff can be fixed by adding a few words here and there, linking to people full names to show who is related to who etc. Dalf | Talk 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe you are thinking about the various quotes which tend to be terse and unexplained unless you know the story. I am not sure how much we can pad these out without this part getting rather too wordy for something intending to get across the points to someone who is familiar with the plot, at least well enough to know the characters. Sandpiper 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the mention of book length for philosophers stone (223 pages UK) and phoenix (766 pages UK) seem to change about. Possibly the US page counts are different (well, I'm sure they are, as page numbering for quotes is different, which makes it difficult to do). So are we adhering to the Uk ones, or what? Sandpiper 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
JK is from the UK, so UK page count. ( 11987 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
I don't know wht it is called, but my friend's, mom's, old boss is a friend of Rowling's (or so he says), and claims to have the first eight chapters. User:Jntg4
Quoted from the final line in the section "Continuing storylines from previous books" on this article: The title of book 7 is most likely already decided by J.K. Rowling, and will most likely begin with "Harry Potter and the...". Well gee whiz you think? Anyway I'm removing it, unless anyone can explain to me what it means/if it has any importance at all besides making me laugh. Code E 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a joke, it's an encyclopedia. So no it's not worth including. Code E 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just removed some vandalism - this page was made a redirect to Talk: Harry Potter Book Seven on! (or something like that). It's all fixed now but I thought I should point it out. 0L1 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Here it says how Harry Potter's birthday is July 31. I always thought it was July 30. In the first book, it mentions how the day when the Dursleys spent the night on the hut was Harry's birthday. The next day, Hagrid takes Harry to Diagon Alley and takes the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. Later they mention that the Gringotts day was July 31, so I assumed Harry's birthday was the day before, July 30.
Did I miss something? Or should Harry's birthday be put as July 30 instead? Thank you! Jonathan talk 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
At least two main characters are slated to be killed off, and some rumors claim that one of them may be Harry himself.
(→Other - actually, the interview says two MORE characters have been killed)
We need to cite our references before we can post this. What interview? When was it? and "some rumors claim" is weasel wording and is not allowed in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. -- T-dot 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
i didnt say rumors claim; i hate speculation. the quote is already in the info from JK section. ( 11987 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I wasnt adding tht potter thing, but the sentance said that two characters will die; which isnt comnpletley true. ( 11987 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
This is just light hearted you can skip if you want. If not .... can someone explaine to me what the irristable draw of vandalizing the book title thing is? I mean honestly is every 13 year old boy in the enaglish speaking workd going to have a go? I mean why the book title when they could be bragging about a friend's homosexuality or some thing. Anyway I was a bit curious and bord so I thought I would compile a list, if any vandals happen to be reading this (because I know you all check the talk page first) please not that the follwing titles have been tried (since July 10th):
What ever the title turns out to be this edit assures us that it will be aswsome. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted speculation. ( 11987 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
While it is true that i did my deletions hastily, it is also true that much is speculation. Speculation about the roles of characters should not be in the article, and rumored release dates do not belong either. ( 11987 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
I heard that Harry kills Snape from someone that goes to my school he has claimed to have gotten a rough draft of the seventh book from the black market but I don't believe him. -- 70.171.190.17 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
One word; L-I-A-R. The book isnt even completed yet. ( 11987 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Hi there. On the Information from JKR section, a line reads:
And on Dolores Umbridge, "It's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish
and a link goes to citation 15, ( [1]). Now, I've not read the whole thing, but I searched for "dolores" and "umbridge", and she mentions her only when questioned about characters' personalities and her own. I've also searched specifically for the word torture and it is not there.
So, whoever added that line might have either linked it to the wrong reference, or just invented those lines. VdSV9• ♫ 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the primary school for wizards?
The result of the debate was Do not move. Either title would be only temporary anyway. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Why bother - it'll have to move again once the title is known. -- Beardo 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-- SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) >>Therefore, I...
It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". SNS 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
According to a Washington Post article [2] she was set with one title until she thought up of another one that would be just as appropriate.
“ | I was quite happy with one of them until the other one struck me while I was taking a shower in New York [. . .] They would both be appropriate, so I think I'll have to wait until I'm further into the book to decide which one works best. | ” |
I don't know if it's suitable for the article. Throw 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well i have just un-archived it. Yes, I did see that someone had deleted the entire end of this talk page, though i was not able to put it back. The editor was doing some very odd things and refusing to produce pages from the history list. was anyone mucking about with it? I have still to receive an explanation why this page was moved in the first place, and why it should not go back where it came from . I know the explanation given was that the original title was against some policy, but i'm damned if i know what policy. No one has explained this. it was moved by someone with very few edits, then the whole discussion here deleted by someone with no edits. What is goihg on? Sandpiper 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Of Book 7 has been stated by JK Rowling to be "scar."
It is jumping to conclusions that this will be used in connection with Harry Potter himself - when it could be somebody else's.
Jackiespeel 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the row over the previous suggested move (see three sections above, or so), moving the article anyways seems to be rather unilateral and will inevitably bring about more strife. Why the move? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh! C'mon! Just because he wants to kill main character he must be evil?!
The release date keeps changing between 2007, 2007 (persumed), 2007 (tentative) and 2007 (rumoured). Could we choose one as it is regularly changing between them? 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 21:55 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts as to what the 'gleam of triumph' in Dumbledore's eye at the end of "Goblet of Fire" might mean? JK Rowling has already said that it's significant to Book 7, but I've wracked my brain and I can't think what it might signify.
Hey. I was scooting around the Internet and I found this: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=17289 Just thought you guys may be able to put that to use, I'm not much of a Potter fan (any more). Tell me what you guys do with it.
Hello. I'm reviewing this article as a GA nomination, and there are several things I'd like fixed before I pass the article. Here's a bulleted list to make things easier.
When you've finished with all that, please give me a poke and I'll take another look. This should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 03:02, 26 February 2008 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
no archives yet ( create) |
I propose to merge Harry Potter (character): Book Seven into this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.21.29 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that references are quire important, but I'm noticing alot of inconsistancy, in fact, almost none of the references are done is what is the normal method. See WP:CITET for some ways to make references, and use the ref tags to put them in the reference section. I'll go through this when I have time, but thought I'd post this first. Tuvas 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that at least one pair of the new references was using the same identifying name. I think i sorted it out, but I am certainly not confident enough of working with this pea soup system to be sure it is correct. If I didn't know vaguely the references myself i would not have been able to sort out the mix up using this integrated referencing system. I do not understand the complex referencing commands well enough to be able to debug them reliably, and still have seen no sensible help page explaining them. (though admittedly this page is now the best example of their use I have seen). The thing about standards is they can always be improved. This one has two serious issues now, being too complex for occasional users to understand is a very serious one. Sandpiper 10:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This should be interesting...
Harry Potter: Wanted dead or alive
Vote now!
Just a few comments on this section. This section is for things which are clearly supported from previous books for what might happen in book 7. It is for obvious things, such as the hunt for the Horcruxes, Snape's lingering loyalties, etc. Also, it is not the section for anything quoted from JKR, please include these statements in the following section. Please remember that this page is not for speculation, which is very difficult for a book that hasn't even been released yet. Believe you me, I've been as guilty of it as any of you... Still, this article has come a long ways! Tuvas 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone has put on the article page that the Order of the Pheonix film is going to released 6 days after Harry Potter book 7 is released. If you go on this countdown to the Order of the Pheonix fim (I found it on the leaky cauldron website) it says Order of the Pheonix film is going to be released on the 13/7/07. That's 6 days after the 7/7/07! Is that proof that it's going be released on the 7/7/07 or not? Here's the website:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/countdown_ootp.swf
--
Daniel O
my talk.
08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Many fans want the realease date to be 7.7.07. I know i do. andrew 08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I realise that this article is aimed mostly at fans wanting to have a place where all the information about book 7 can be found without looking around lots of websites. However, this is still wikipedia and the degree of previous knoledge assumed by the article is a bit excessive. Untill my morest recent edit the first mention of the word wizard or a derative was "Each volume contains a complete problem and task for the heroes to complete, but each has also added to the background information about the wizarding world in general", even though the article has never mentioned that the books take place in a "wizarding world". In the next section characters are referd to by their first names only with no explination as to who they are and what diffrence it makes tht harry is going to "Bill's wedding". Most of this stuff can be fixed by adding a few words here and there, linking to people full names to show who is related to who etc. Dalf | Talk 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe you are thinking about the various quotes which tend to be terse and unexplained unless you know the story. I am not sure how much we can pad these out without this part getting rather too wordy for something intending to get across the points to someone who is familiar with the plot, at least well enough to know the characters. Sandpiper 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the mention of book length for philosophers stone (223 pages UK) and phoenix (766 pages UK) seem to change about. Possibly the US page counts are different (well, I'm sure they are, as page numbering for quotes is different, which makes it difficult to do). So are we adhering to the Uk ones, or what? Sandpiper 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
JK is from the UK, so UK page count. ( 11987 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
I don't know wht it is called, but my friend's, mom's, old boss is a friend of Rowling's (or so he says), and claims to have the first eight chapters. User:Jntg4
Quoted from the final line in the section "Continuing storylines from previous books" on this article: The title of book 7 is most likely already decided by J.K. Rowling, and will most likely begin with "Harry Potter and the...". Well gee whiz you think? Anyway I'm removing it, unless anyone can explain to me what it means/if it has any importance at all besides making me laugh. Code E 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a joke, it's an encyclopedia. So no it's not worth including. Code E 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just removed some vandalism - this page was made a redirect to Talk: Harry Potter Book Seven on! (or something like that). It's all fixed now but I thought I should point it out. 0L1 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Here it says how Harry Potter's birthday is July 31. I always thought it was July 30. In the first book, it mentions how the day when the Dursleys spent the night on the hut was Harry's birthday. The next day, Hagrid takes Harry to Diagon Alley and takes the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. Later they mention that the Gringotts day was July 31, so I assumed Harry's birthday was the day before, July 30.
Did I miss something? Or should Harry's birthday be put as July 30 instead? Thank you! Jonathan talk 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
At least two main characters are slated to be killed off, and some rumors claim that one of them may be Harry himself.
(→Other - actually, the interview says two MORE characters have been killed)
We need to cite our references before we can post this. What interview? When was it? and "some rumors claim" is weasel wording and is not allowed in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. -- T-dot 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
i didnt say rumors claim; i hate speculation. the quote is already in the info from JK section. ( 11987 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I wasnt adding tht potter thing, but the sentance said that two characters will die; which isnt comnpletley true. ( 11987 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
This is just light hearted you can skip if you want. If not .... can someone explaine to me what the irristable draw of vandalizing the book title thing is? I mean honestly is every 13 year old boy in the enaglish speaking workd going to have a go? I mean why the book title when they could be bragging about a friend's homosexuality or some thing. Anyway I was a bit curious and bord so I thought I would compile a list, if any vandals happen to be reading this (because I know you all check the talk page first) please not that the follwing titles have been tried (since July 10th):
What ever the title turns out to be this edit assures us that it will be aswsome. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted speculation. ( 11987 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
While it is true that i did my deletions hastily, it is also true that much is speculation. Speculation about the roles of characters should not be in the article, and rumored release dates do not belong either. ( 11987 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
I heard that Harry kills Snape from someone that goes to my school he has claimed to have gotten a rough draft of the seventh book from the black market but I don't believe him. -- 70.171.190.17 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
One word; L-I-A-R. The book isnt even completed yet. ( 11987 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Hi there. On the Information from JKR section, a line reads:
And on Dolores Umbridge, "It's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish
and a link goes to citation 15, ( [1]). Now, I've not read the whole thing, but I searched for "dolores" and "umbridge", and she mentions her only when questioned about characters' personalities and her own. I've also searched specifically for the word torture and it is not there.
So, whoever added that line might have either linked it to the wrong reference, or just invented those lines. VdSV9• ♫ 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the primary school for wizards?
The result of the debate was Do not move. Either title would be only temporary anyway. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Why bother - it'll have to move again once the title is known. -- Beardo 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-- SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) >>Therefore, I...
It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". SNS 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
According to a Washington Post article [2] she was set with one title until she thought up of another one that would be just as appropriate.
“ | I was quite happy with one of them until the other one struck me while I was taking a shower in New York [. . .] They would both be appropriate, so I think I'll have to wait until I'm further into the book to decide which one works best. | ” |
I don't know if it's suitable for the article. Throw 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well i have just un-archived it. Yes, I did see that someone had deleted the entire end of this talk page, though i was not able to put it back. The editor was doing some very odd things and refusing to produce pages from the history list. was anyone mucking about with it? I have still to receive an explanation why this page was moved in the first place, and why it should not go back where it came from . I know the explanation given was that the original title was against some policy, but i'm damned if i know what policy. No one has explained this. it was moved by someone with very few edits, then the whole discussion here deleted by someone with no edits. What is goihg on? Sandpiper 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Of Book 7 has been stated by JK Rowling to be "scar."
It is jumping to conclusions that this will be used in connection with Harry Potter himself - when it could be somebody else's.
Jackiespeel 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the row over the previous suggested move (see three sections above, or so), moving the article anyways seems to be rather unilateral and will inevitably bring about more strife. Why the move? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh! C'mon! Just because he wants to kill main character he must be evil?!
The release date keeps changing between 2007, 2007 (persumed), 2007 (tentative) and 2007 (rumoured). Could we choose one as it is regularly changing between them? 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 21:55 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts as to what the 'gleam of triumph' in Dumbledore's eye at the end of "Goblet of Fire" might mean? JK Rowling has already said that it's significant to Book 7, but I've wracked my brain and I can't think what it might signify.
Hey. I was scooting around the Internet and I found this: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=17289 Just thought you guys may be able to put that to use, I'm not much of a Potter fan (any more). Tell me what you guys do with it.
Hello. I'm reviewing this article as a GA nomination, and there are several things I'd like fixed before I pass the article. Here's a bulleted list to make things easier.
When you've finished with all that, please give me a poke and I'll take another look. This should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)