Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Leak?

See also: Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 11 § Leaked_Table_of_Contents

There have been leaks of the book apearing on torrent websites. Are they real?71.206.136.69 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the book. If there was any evidence to suggest that the leaks were real, you'd see it on the fansites and the news pretty quickly. Brian Jason Drake 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the "leaks" are not real. Like Brian said, if they were real, you'd hear about it on the news or at fansites such as MuggleNet. dposse 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing since it is leaked no one truely knows if it is real or not. also that is why the fansites are not posting that information, because they don't want to post non-accurate information. Mamamia2 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the ToC (as well as a "leaked" version of the book) is clearly faked, fan sites like MuggleNet and HPANA have very strict anti-spoiler rules, so leaks that are real but not "authorized" would not get reported there :(

accually the one chapter I read was fairly good. If it is fake I hope that the person who wrote it would become an author. Though, i have read some leaks that are just stupid.

Please sign your comments. I would expect both the news and fansites to report the existence of a real leak, even if they don't report the location or content of such a leak. Brian Jason Drake 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This book is a prime target for leaks, and Rowling would be very upset if it was leaked by fansites or media outlets, so it would be hard to tell what is real and what is not. Of course Rowling can afford to pay for people she can trust, so it also makes it hard to leak, thus I am skeptical, but not dismissive, of any stories of chapters being leaked, let alone the whole book JayKeaton 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I happen to have a copy of the whole book on hand. Apparently someone linked the whole book, found the PDF file on 4chan (http://www.4chan.org/). Really highly doubt it's a fake leak, especially when there is 659 pages of it (not 608 like many say, and also this is not including the pictures) and all too well written to be just a fake copy. RedKlonoa 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RedKlonoa, it IS a fake. Someone up there said they had the exact same thing. If you get around page 120, when Harry is at Godric's Hollow, he encounters Wormtail, who confirms he is a Horcrux. Now, if your "real copy of the book" says that then it IS A FAKE!!!! And not only that but just because it is 659 pages doesn't make it real. If I had a Bible and another book with exactly the same amount of pages, that doesn't make it the Bible, does it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.233.118 (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't say that at page 120. Sorry, but you failed to prove it fake. Btw, I'd think 658 pages is more than 608 pages, while you say opposite of what I believe here. ("If I had a Bible and another book with exactly the same amount of pages") RedKlonoa 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To borrow and bastardise someone else's quote: PDFs or didn't happen. I've looked in the usual places where I look for leaks and nothing genuine has turned up ... yet. Daggoth | Talk 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not knnow whether it is fake or not but I can tell you this. At the end of the 5th chapter, there's is an author's note that goes as follows: "A/N: This chapter was written before JKR clarified how a Secret Keeper worked, so I left it as is. I do need others able to get into Grimmald Place." Does this mean someone is writing a book according to what they think the 7th should be like and when sharing with friends it got leaked? Or is it the real thing that someone has typed out and left a note which I don't fully understand to be honest? GBobly 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GBobly: it means it's a standard piece of 'next-year' Harry Potter fanfiction of the sort that you can find many examples of at Schnoogle, that someone else has copied and is passing off as the real book 7. Not news. -- Simxp 00:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I found another reported leak from a user on the popular website newgrounds link he either seems to know what hes talking about or is making a good lie. Is anyone able to confirm this? JNee 08:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

HAHA XD No offense but I find that comical, because the "spoilers" on that page COMPLETELY contradict the "leaked" version I'm reading now, it's pretty much the exact opposite (for the first three ones anyway, didn't read any further XD). Anyway I've come to the end of one of the "leaks" and it is a fake IMO simply because it doesn't live up to what JKR said we would expect to find out about in the 7th, however whoever wrote it is nearly as good an author as JKR herself, shame the author can't really claim anything as it's a huge copyright infringement XD.GBobly 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Daily Star tabloid newspaper's leak, Harry will have to give up all his magical capabilities in order to be able to vanquish Lord Voldemort and save his friends from "eternal darkness", whatever that means. The leak is claimed to have come from a Bloomsbury employee, who suggests there will be more boks about adult Harry as husband and father, based on what the HP7 book feels like. 82.131.210.162 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Now how about if we check with the reliable sources and verify that? Oh wait, sorry, there are none. Is the Star a "tabloid" rag sheet? If so, then its mission is to trick curious folks into buying extra papers, preying on their hopes to get some "inside information" on a topic of significant interest. That is why we do not source to them. They are not interested in the facts, or what can be verified, only in tricking dupes into spreading made-up gossip and rumours. Congratulations! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Time of release for the US is incorrect

The article states that the US version will be released at 00:01 local time. This is incorrect. The reference to Rowling's site only states British Standard Time for the UK and other English speaking countries in the world. It does not specify the time for the USA. This might be a simple omission but in any case the release time cannot unambiguously be derived from that source. However, Bloomsbury's site does state that "Sale of the book in all time zones is embargoed until 00:01 BST (British Summer Time) on Saturday 21st July 2007." [1] (Click on "News" then "Publication announcement" and scroll to the bottom). This means that the book is released at the exact same moment all over the world, including the USA. AberforthD 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The info comes from Rowlings own website. It says Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be published on Saturday 21st July 2007 at 00:01 BST in the UK and at 00:01 in the USA. It will also be released at 00:01 BST on Saturday 21st July in other English speaking countries around the world. I agree this is perhaps not as clear as it might be, but it says in the USA it will be released at 00.01. I take it this means local time, since it takes the trouble to say that elsewhere it will be released at 00.:01 UK time. I don't know quite what that means for Canada? Sandpiper 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But have you checked out the reference I gave above to Bloomsbury's site? It is as clear as it can be.AberforthD 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the reference. This may just be referring to the Bloomsbury edition of the book, which is not published in America. I can't imagine that they'll break the tradition of a midnight party just for the last book, where people in Los Angeles would be lining up to get the book at 5pm and people in New York at 8 pm. The last three books have had midnight parties, seems weird to change it for this one. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will definitely be released at midnight here in America. I checked here and on several other reputable websites. All sources say that Deathly Hallows will released one minute after midnight in America and all english-speaking countries. Arwen undomiel 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was forgetting that the USA is so big. Yes, multiple time zones woiuld account for the slightly odd way the US entry is phrased by Rowling. I agree that Bloomsbury are not likely to talk about when a different company is publishuing a book. Sandpiper 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that JKR doesn't want to release the book before it's been released in England anywhere, meaning places like Australia. But after it's been released there, I assume that it will be released at 12:01 everywhere else. Just a guess. Tuvas 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you have to admit that it would be a tad unfair if her own home country didn't get the final book first. I would imagine that the books will be released at midnight all over the world, so some countrys will get it before others (just like the previous releases). Wild ste 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Oft-Made Edits, and What We Can Do About It

This is to those who have been watching this page for a while. We've all seen a few edits come up a few times too many, to be corrected yet again by whichever of those standing vigil catches it first. The example that comes to mind right now is the horcrux issue - every so often, someone comes along and wants to change it to 7 instead of 6. But there are more. To this end, I ask you: would it be helpful to create a brief list of these commonly modified facts? Something we can point to, or that might catch a new editor's eye before they make that change. Maybe something we can add to the top of this talk page. We could even include non-rendered comments in the article near these facts, pointing to the list.

Secondly, if it is worthwhile to make such a list for this page, what should we put on it? What bit of info have you had to revert back to correctness one too many times? Or maybe just seen reverted time and time again?

Just throwing this out... --Reverend Loki 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times that someone has helpfully tried to change the cover graphic at the top of the page to the U.S. version, although that has been slowing down recently. The info/debate on that subject has been moved into archive, and I've been toying with the idea of restoring the beginning of it to here, for much the same reasons that you describe. (I also inserted a hidden comment next to the graphic refering to the talk page on the article - it's still in there.)

Other than that, and the 6/7 horcrux thing ... I haven't seen anything that really sticks out as being constantly inserted/reverted. Just general speculation and vandalism. Daggoth S 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think for now there is no need to create a list, maybe when there is more traffic as we get closer to D-day, we should reconsider it or even protect the page. Lizrael 14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this has already been discussed, but why wouldn't the American cover be the graphic at the top of the site? There are probably more American readers who come than British (just because of population numbers). This is just my idea, I don't know if it has anything to it. -MSauce 66.191.101.26 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because Rowling is a British author, and the book is a British publication. Also, every other Harry Potter book article utilizes the British cover. MelicansMatkin 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been discussed at length and we reached a consensus: the British cover is the "official"cover and it stays to ensure uniformity. MelicansMatkin summed it up pretty well, but I would like to point out that a lot of Harry Potter fans read this article; their nationality is irrelevant. Arwen undomiel 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Two people (don't make me say the S word) have been repeatedly adding links to "teaser" lists from web forums over the past day or so. I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning somewhere on here that leaks, teasers etc shouldn't be linked or mentioned on here unless there is clear evidence, I would say cited by the media, that they are verifiable. (Of course, there's a message just like that on every "edit this page" dialog, but people tend to disregard that particular one.) The top of this talk page spells it out for discussion on the book's contents on here, maybe we could re-word it for the article itself? Daggoth | Talk 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, all of these revisions are starting to get annoying. If the same people keep persisting despite everything being said not to include them, perhaps using the edit test templates would be more useful. MelicansMatkin 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other registered titles

This section is for debating including other titles trademarked in ways relating to Deathly Hallows. Please keep commentary to the commentary post, and include a signed very brief comment to the survey section. Thanks! Tuvas 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Okay, this seems to be the current editing war, let's talk about it. I've seen it posted/removed at least a half dozen times, and I'm not really looking. Should we include the other titles that were trademarked, or not? Let's just settle the discussion here, and that way we avoid an edit war. Tuvas 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not, unless we report what representatives of JKR said about it: that they were "never contenders for book 7" and just "a few spares to keep the fans guessing" (things that, strangely, certain editors are trying to hide from the readers).

Also, why would we cite only 2 titles ? Dozens of titles have been registered, it is POV to cite only 2 of them (implying they are the right ones).

But anyway, since the 2 other titles for book 7 were never revealed, and since JKR said she wouldn't reveal them before publication, I think it's perfectly useless to have any selective mention of other titles, since it would only bring POV conflicts (why mention some titles and not others, who are some editors to decide that certain titles are relevant and likely to be the ones, etc). Since we don't know, we don't know and that's all, we don't try to push our POV on the subject, since there really is nothing substanciated to include...We don't know'...Folken de Fanel 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, what on earth are you talking about? The text you object to, under the section (Meaning of Hallows) discussing the use of the title, is as follows: "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts HallowsTwo additional titles were registered at the same time as the actual title, but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives." All of that is sourced. It is relevant to state that two titles similar to the genuine title were registered, particularly if sourced. It is relevant to state that the titles registered at the same time as HPDH were not the possible titles to which she alluded as existing, particularly if sourced. There is also no problem with using web-based sources as additional sources, provided that they merely support the main source on which a contention in the text is based, rather than acting as the main source themselves. Michael Sanders 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does the source says about it ? Folken de Fanel 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it is clear now, from Sandpiper's recent revert, that it is not a contents problem, but merely a personal problem. He's obviously disturbing the articles just to express his hatred for me.Folken de Fanel 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Moving swiftly along, since copyright information is publically known and traceable, there is no need to refer in the text body to who precisely stated the titles were copyrighted and when, since there is no need to emphasise that they are the assertions of a particular writer - it is a piece of sourced public domain knowledge. So a simple reference is just fine - no need to state specifically who said what if the matter is not controversial (which this isn't). Michael Sanders 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't know where this 'we sometimes register a few spares' comes from. But I suspect it is WP:SYNTH: an editor mixing two published sources (a published list of titles and a published quote about creating spares) to create the novel and original position that the referenced titles were 'a few spares' never intended to be used. Unless it is specifically stated, or suggested, in sources, that the relevant titles were 'spares', or whatever, the quote cannot be used there, since it implies a POV. Michael Sanders 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're wrong, because this matter is particularly controversial. Remember that JKR "declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication", and that representatives of JKR specifically intervened on websites to say that certain titles "were never contenders for book 7".

In this context were dozens of titles, each stranger than the other, have been registered since 2002, and where the author specifically refuses to give the other 2 possible titles, any assertion that some titles "are likely to be the ones", just by looking at a list on the net and without further argumentation, is of course a controversial statement, and needs to be properly attributed to its author.Folken de Fanel 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't controversial to say, 'The Meaning of Hallows: meaning is unknown; Rowling registered two similar titles in 2003-2004'. I mean, really. Michael Sanders 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial to say "these are the titles JKR was going to use", when earlier, there is a quote from her saying she won't reveal the titles before publication.

Besides, dozens of titles were registered (and not by Rowling), not only "hallows of hogwarts". Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to remember this particular policy only when it's convenient for you, I don't rememeber you respecting it on the R.A.B. article. Thus, just in order to avoid pointing out to your heratic behavior too severly and humiliating you in front of many people, I'm going to close my eyes on what you just said, and we're going to forget you ever dared to mention WP:SYNTH here.

In the RAB article, the assertions were attributed to the published author (the man responsible for the synthesis, and thus out of wikipedia's interest). Here, you are making your own case that the titles were not intended to be used - POV, Synth, and unnecessary. Michael Sanders 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the RAB article, the assertions were not attributed to anyone and were mainly the speculations of one editor.

I am not saying anything, the representative of JKR said it. Where in his quote did he say that "hallows of hogwarts" etc was not included in the registered titles ? Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the quote is specifically "often registered a few spares to keep people guessing", which is exactly the case for "Hogwarts hallows" etc, because even if you personally think these are the right titles, they were just registered by a company, nothing more, and they are no more different than any other titles registered. Folken de Fanel 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Folken, it isn't controversial to say "two titles similar to this title were registered by Rowling a few years ago." It is controversial for you to venture your personal opinion that they are 'spares' to 'keep readers guessing'. All we are saying in the article about this is that 'two similar titles were registered in 2003-2004'. No-one is venturing any further than that without visibly sourcing it. What is it that you are failing to understand here? Michael Sanders 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes michael it is controversial to say that these titles are the ones.

It is not my personal opinion, it's what the representatives for JKR said.

You are venturing further than that without visibly sourcing it.

Why are you trying to add comments made by representatives for JKR on these titles ? Folken de Fanel 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think there's been enough of this debate going on. Why don't we try taking a compromise, of simply removing all references to other things that have been trademarked, except for the reference that JKR had chosen two other possible titles? Then there's no debate, and no controversy. Studying the issue further just simply let me know that there isn't enough publicly available information to really say anything on the matter. I'm going to go ahead and remove the statements myself. If a compromise can be met, in the mean while, then we can change it, but please be polite. Tuvas 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, there's simply not enough info yet to allow such suppositions.

The the best way is not to mention this at all. The subject is very controversial anyway (dozens of titles have been registered since 2002, including "Peverell Quest", "Wand of Gryffindor", "Ring of Destiny", "Elder Wand" ...Hallows, even if it's a rare word, wasn't created just for HP7 and the people at Warner could have thought about it by themselves in 2003. After all, some scholars have noted arthurian influences in HP, and hallows had as much chance to appear in HP than a "Wand" or a "Ring") and we know that for the majority of these titles, they're just spares...So you see, there's just too many flaws in the argumentation.

It's simply too POV to present such controversial info if we have no more details on it.

And thus, such controversial material will inevitably bring POV issues, as we've seen here. In my opinion, if an issue is too controversial and has not enough different (and reliable) external sources, it really shouldn't be mentionned. We have simply not enough insight concerning the various registered titles.

As I have said to Tuvas, the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details.Folken de Fanel 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with the possibility that Warner invented the 2003 titles purely as spares, and I do not think that interpretation is inconsistent with the article as I left it. Sandpiper 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is simply WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to specifically say that they were spares without sourced claims that such is the case. Michael Sanders 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Read what I write. I'm saying representatives for JKR said they registered spare titles. It doesn't mean hallows of hogwarts is necessarily a spare title, but it doesn't say it is necessarily an authentic title. However, hiding the fact that hallows of hogwarts is found among a long list of obviously spare titles, and hiding the fact that WB have admitted they often registered spare titles, is POV because it hides the possibility that hallows of hogwarts could be spare. Folken de Fanel 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is relevant, is sourced, is interesting, is an aspect of behind-the scenes real world information about the books, and deserves to be in the article. It is regrettable that Folken has recently sought to remove a number of points in a number of articles which have for a long time not been considered controversial. Sandpiper 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea what representatives said about the titles. All I know is that there exists a mugglenet news item which states that three titles were registered at the same time, one of them Deathly Hallows, and goes on to say that 'a representative of Jo' has denied the two other titles were ever real possiblities. The item then mentions a number of other titles which have been registered. The point though, is that the article does not say that the representative also denied all the other titles registered recently. More yet, nor that the rep denied others registered in the past. I have no doubt that many of them are dummies simply intended to confuse, but I have no way of knowing whether they all are. Nor does anyone else here, unless they have found a better source. There are other online sources which also discuss alternate titles which have been registered. All Langford does is also include in his book another list of titles, this time from 2003-2004. His book was published before the real title was announced, so it makes no comment on the similarity of the final title to two old ones. Amongst the list are the two I included in the article. They are included because they contain the same unusual word, Hallows. Whether they were real possibilities or not, I have no idea, but they certainly existed. Langford reports that they were registered by Seabottom productions, a company having the same address as a british agency normally used by Warner Brothers for registering trademarks. I take it that an enquiry at the trademark registration office would confirm that they had been registered. I see absolutely no reason why the article should feature Langford's name in the text more prominently than any other reference is mentioned. While I would regard his book as a competent coverage of the more widely held views about the last book, I see no reason to advertise it for him smack in the centre of an article getting 10000 hits a day. (though maybe that's just us all reading it). I have already explained most of this to Folken on his page.Sandpiper 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the text back. It is ridiculous to remove a sourced reference to Rowling having registered similar titles in the past. If you think it doesn't 'flow well', rewrite so that it does, but don't remove the text because one editor is indulging in absurd little crusades. Michael Sanders 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuvas, it is not OR to note that similar titles have been registered before, particularly when the titles are as distinctively similar as are these. It is not OR that they are similar. I am not attempting to imply that these are the alternative titles, but their existence is a fact. But in response to Folken's contention, it is indeed OR to definitely state that they were not possible titles. Sandpiper 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed OR.

Sooner or later, you'll have to actually read what I write. I've never said these titles were not the ones, just that we have no mean to now and that's very weak for inclusion on WP. Folken de Fanel 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not Point of View to say, "This is the title. Rowling registered a few more just like it a few years back." I suggest you read the text, Folken. No one is supposing anything, or making any controversial statements. The article simply says, under the section labelled "Meaning of Hallows", that the unusual word was used before. The only person who thinks it at all contentious to say, "'Deathly Hallows' wasn't the first time Rowling used the word" is you, Folken. Stop being so ridiculous.

"...the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details." What marvellous logic. Shall we put the articles on evolution up for deletion, on the basis that "it really isn't worth it to fight...on such uncertain details"? After all, the answers to that will be revealed eventually, right? Michael Sanders 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, there's absolutely nothing interesting and "behind-the scenes real world " about all this. It's merely fan speculations. We don't know what the 2 titles are. No. We really don't.
Warner have registered a number of titles since 2002 and they have admitted most of them are spares. I see nothing "behind-the scenes real world" in this.
This is merely a pretext for some editors to include their opinion and speculations.

Michaelsanders, you have to understand that just saying "it's not me" is not good sourcing. This is an over-controversial matter with not enough sources, and moreover you're removing info which would provide a more neutral view to the matter. This really speculation for the sake of speculation. It brings too much fights and POV and OR concerns for too little benefits.Folken de Fanel 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, how many times do you have to be told, you are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Quite frankly, you're talking unadulterated codswallop. It is not controversial to say that two titles similar to the chosen title exist, and it is not OR if there is a source. It is simply a point of interest which adds to the article. Are you following so far?

The number of titles that Warner or Rowling or whoever has registered is irrelevant. Most of those don't contain the word 'Hallows', and so unless there is specific reason to mention them (e.g. the two fakes registered at the same time as DH), it is irrelevant (and possibly POV) to mention them in an article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. Following?

It is not 'fan-speculation' to say that two titles containing the word Hallow were registered. That is a matter of public record, which will probably be available to the public by means of the Freedom of Information Act. Understand?

It does not matter if the 'Hallow' titles are spares or not. First of all, there is no specific source claiming that they are or are not. Second of all, the article is not claiming anything of the sort. It is simply pointing out that, in fact, two similar titles to HPDH had been registered previously. A simple point of interest, more worthwhile to this article than guessing games about the Order of the Phoenix picking up Harry from Privet Drive. So stop being so ridiculous, actually read the text you are whining about, and go and do something constructive - since, for the past week or so, all you have been doing is reverting these few articles and whinging about everything. Stop it, go and do something useful, stop complaining that everyone hates you and demonstrate that you are at all useful to wikipedia. Michael Sanders 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Otherwise you wouldn't mention it.

there is specific source claiming that they are or are not spares.

The article is claiming they are the 2 titles. By "forgetting" to say WB do register spare titles sometimes, you are forcing the POV that the titles are necessarily the one and that there's no way they could be mere spares.

for the rest, it's you who are doing nothing but reverting these few articles and whinging about everything.Folken de Fanel 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all CALM DOWN!!!. That's referring to just about everyone whose posting on this subject! Please refrain from Personal Attacks and Avoid Personal Remarks. Secondly, here's a quick view of the views I'm seeing forming from here.

1. Including phrases that were trademarked at the same time
2. Include titles that have some similarities with the real title.
3. Simply ignore anything that there is to do with this subject.
4. Include every possible topic there could be.

Okay, and I'll admit this is my opinion, but I'm trying to stand in here as a third party. Here's what is known:

1. The two "titles" that were registered at the same time were actually only trademarks, none of them had any reference to "Harry Potter and...". That includes Deathly Hallows, BTW, it's only the phrase Deathly Hallows that is trademarked, and not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[2] (About half-way down). In fact, re-reading this bit, it seems like there's quite a few more things that were trademarked at the same time, more than just the two "fake" titles that we've assumed.
2. There really were two titles of Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows that were trademarked. However, while it can be reasonably assumed that these have connections to the title Deathly Hallows, it would be OR to assume such a thing. Even if there was a source for this claim, making it is nothing more than speculation, which really doesn't belong here.

Also, please read WP:DR for information on handling a dispute. Given the large number of disputes coming from this page, I think it could do everyone a lot of good who edits this article frequently (I'm including myself in on this one) Tuvas 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Okay, just to make sure we are all clear who has what position, let's all just put in a quick survey. This is not the final decider, but is meant as a tool. Please keep your comments very short, save anything else for the comments section above

Include Hallows Titles

Opinions on including references to titles registered containing the word Hallow

1. Daggoth | Talk 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Don't see a problem with existing text stating two similar titles. Other titles should not be included.
2. Berserkerz Crit 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Relevant, related and sourced.
3. Michael Sanders 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) It might be a point of thoroughness to include the titles registered at the same time, but I don't consider it massively relevant. On the other hand, it is sheer madness to not reference an author's previous use of an uncommon term, particularly if it is a matter of public record. Michael Sanders 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: how do you know it's really the author who previously used the term ? Folken de Fanel 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Include other titles registered at the same time

Specifically, Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil.

Include other titles and Hallows titles

Voting for both of the above.

1. I know I'm in the minority, but if the titles can be properly sourced, and relevance proven then go ahead and add them. But only then. Quatreryukami 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Arwen undomiel 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) If the titles can be properly sourced, I don't see a real problem including them in the article; it is interesting and somewhat informative. However, if it were a choice between the two, it would be better to have just the Hallows titles.

Include none of the above

Don't mention any other titles by name

1. Tuvas 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be evidence enough to support anything else.
2. Folken de Fanel 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)No evidence enough (we don't even know which titles are spares and which are not), besides saying two similar titles were registered, when talking about the 2 other mysterious titles JKR thought about, is OR (more particularly a synthesis to advance a position). All this is too speculative.
3. Reverend Loki 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless a definitive source comes up and reveals what the alternate titles that were actually considered are. Otherwise, this is really just telling us a few of the book titles we won't be buying in July.
4. dposse 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless there are more reliable sources that state this to be true, per WP:SPS, the infomation should be left out of this article. I understand the desire for speculation for something like this, but an encyclopedia is not the place for it.
5. Simondrake 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - It's just silly, the page is full of fully referencable but utterly irrelavent junk anyway, like long rambling analyses of the different dust cover colour schemes. This is going too far, there's been discussions about the title for years and frankly, no one cares anymore.

Can I please point out that the only person claiming that these are 'possible titles' is Folken de Fanel. As it stands in the article, all that is being said is that there were two titles registered a few years ago containing the little-used word 'Hallows' - which is relevant to this article. That is not remotely speculative. Michael Sanders 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If the registered titles are mentioned right after the mention of JKR's 2 other titles, it's obvious the aim is to imply the registered titles are the ones. So please stop with your bad-faith and your false accusations. Folken de Fanel 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

Please explain other possible courses of action.

1. Comment: After trying to stay out of yet another FolkenSanders war, I have some thoughts for the subject of alternate titles. I think it would be encyclopedic, interesting, and useful to have a short section entitled Evolution of title, with two paragraphs. If we can find proper sources, the first paragraph would state that because Book 7 was one of the most anticipated serial books in modern times (cannot think of anything similar off hand), for youth and adults alike, there was widespread speculation on the title. I think the Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, etc. might be a reliable source for fan-speculated titles, and we can mention perhaps 3 or 4 of them. We do not need a comprehensive list, just a very few notable and interesting ones. We might even be able to find some in the massive archives for this talk page, with sources even. If we have any quotes from Rowling denying this or that title, that would be a great finish to that paragraph, otherwise state that there was "no comment from Rowling". The second paragraph can document the alternate titles that were registered at the copyrights and trademarks offices in the UK and/or US at roughly the same time as Deathly Hallows, most especially if the Deathly Hallows title was co-registered with the "alternates". We would need a bulletproof source for these alternate registrations. If there were other alternate titles registered before the "final group of three" or whatever, then it might also be interesting to include those less notable alternatives. Finally, if Rowling ever owns-up to the last 2 or 3 titles she "kicked around in the shower" before settling on Deathly Hallows, then those can be listed with a link back to her website or interview or wherever it showed up. She might not be willing to reveal those alternates until she goes on the "Deathly Hallows Book Release Publicity Tour" or whatever in mid-July. That information might warrant a third paragraph if she comments at length on those titles she actually had planned to use at some point. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be highly interesting, however, there isn't any evidence to support an evolution of the title section... We simply don't have any information, except for the fact that two other titles were considered, and the possible phrases that have been trademarked. Tuvas 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how these things happen, isn't it. I first inserted the two titles heart of ravenclaw and whatever it is because Folken was grousing about incomplete information and wanting to cite mugglenet. I don't mind not mentioning the specific titles, but I think we should mention that three titles were registered at the time 'deathly hallows' was, and also that someone said the other two were dummies. It is an interesting point about how these things are done and a teeny bit of real world history. Sandpiper 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't see your point, titles were just created to "keep people guessing"...I see no interest in this, nor "real world history".Folken de Fanel 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you failed to notice the numerous rules against 'in-universe' writing, or the demands that articles include more than plot-summaries? A history pertinent to the publication of a notable book is relevant in a non in-universe encyclopaedia. Michael Sanders 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is nothing pertinent to the publication of book 7 with fake titles, besides, others have already noted it would be of no use to mention them...Folken de Fanel 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No others have noted it would be no use to mention them. What Reverend Loki and dposse say is a problem about finding a source that says that the two other titles were alternatives to Deathly Hallows, which is not what the point of including the two titles would push. Including the other two registered titles with the word Hallows by Warner Bros. is only to show that in the real world, Warner Bros. registered other book titles with the word Hallows at the same time as Deathly Hallows. That's it. Geez. Berserkerz Crit 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is just the sort of real world incidental information that 'officially' we are supposed to include. User:Sandpiper 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One possible alternative is to simply state that several other titles were registered, and simply leave it to the user to decide if they were possible titles. We could reference several of the fan sites and such that have done this kind of research. That way we aren't posting speculation on WP, but at the same time, we are posting stuff that's true. It's simply crazy to consider posting every title that's been possible on this page, but there's nothing that's wrong with linking it to an outside source. Also, I very much thing we should change the name of the section, to relate it to the title, and just cover everything there is to know about the title. Right now the section is a horrible mess... How about something like this? (Note that when writing this, I didn't have time to fill in every detail, but just wanted to get something out there)

Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [3] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. (Might consider including information about the Equinox, that's something that's interesting that's not included) The name of the The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[12]. In addition to this title, there have been several others which have been trademarked.

Tuvas 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But again, I repeat, the point is not that the other Hallows titles may or may not have been considered possible titles (unless we have a source saying such, it is speculation) - it is that it is relevant to 'the meaning of Hallows' that Rowling, or those who work with her, are on record as having previously used the otherwise little used word 'Hallows'. I suggest this:

Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [4] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. The title itself was registered on [whenever it was registered]. {? - possibly include? - At the same time, two other titles, [whatever they were] were registered; however, [whoever] stated that they had never been potential titles of the book [source].}

The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[12]. However, the word 'Hallows' formed part of two titles - [whatever they were] - registered by Warner Bros. in 2003 [source].

Where's the problem there? Michael Sanders 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We won't reference fan speculations on fansites either, they're not reliable sources. We won't imply either that other titles with hallows might be the other 2 titles JKR has concidered. Any mention of other hallows titles (if we are to include them) won't be near the mention of the 2 mysterious titles, so as not to do OR by synthesis. Folken de Fanel 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But on my page folken, you kept demanding that the ref from mugglenet re other titles ought to be included. Sandpiper 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I kept demanding the statements for the representatives for JKR to be included.Folken de Fanel 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Section

Just in case nobody is actually reading the passage in question:

The meaning of "Deathly Hallows"

When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering.". She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows. The actual title was registered in December 2006 together with two more, Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil, but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives.. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings

Hallow is a word usually used as a verb, meaning "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate". However, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the word hallows appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "All Hallows' Day" or "All Saints' Day," which is the day after Halloween or "All Hallows' Eve". Hallows can refer to saints, the relics of saints, the relics of gods, or shrines in which the relics are kept. Since the essence of these saints or gods were often considered present at their shrines and in their relics, hallows came to refer to the saints or gods themselves, rather than just their relics or shrines. Hallow is not to be confused with hollow, such as in Godric's Hollow. Hallows can also be interperted as a "sanctuary.".

The passage doesn't speculate anything - it simply states, in response to, "When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering.", that "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows." I.e. that, in relation to the meaning of the term, and its use in relation to the subject at hand, the term had prior usage. That is not controversial; since it has a decent source, it is certainly relevant of inclusion in the article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs)

Comment: regarding my vote above, I'd like to see the paragraph truncated to these two sentences only. That way there cannot be speculation that they were the so-called alternate titles that JKR had in mind prior to revealing the actual title. I just think - given that we have a section trying to describe what Hallows means, and that it's an unusual word - that it's noteworthy that someone (the author, publisher, Warner Bros, whoever) used the same word elsewhere in the process. Daggoth | Talk 06:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently my opinion is still that this issue should be completely left out of the article. Now should the "inclusion" opinion be stronger, a better way to include this note would be in a separated paragraph at the end of the section (something like "on a side note, the same word can be found in registered titles in 2003"), thus it would not imply that the registered titles are the 2 mysterious titles (because with the actual formulation, with the mention of JKR's 2 other titles just before the mention of the registered title, it's obvious the aim of the article is to imply the registered titles are the ones). Because the thing here is not to speculate about what were the other titles, but just to note the word had been used elsewhere. Also we would have to include the "spares" quote, to be trictly NPOV.

But anyway I'm still against the inclusion. Folken de Fanel 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the section above has 'lost' the references from lexicon etc where it is seen that people are debating the meaning of the title and simple been replaced with one from the post saying that people are debating it, and nothing more. This is not adequate explanation. The section really ought to include more illustration of how the word 'hallows' has previously been used in literature right here. We should be repeating some of the stuff from Lexicon etc, but it wholly unacceptable not to show people what the debate is about at least in a link they can follow. Dagoth, including the two dummies (or at least mention of them), clearly shows people that Warner are in the habit of registering dummies. I am not sure which two sentences you mean, but I remain a firm believer in explaining everything to the greatest extent possible. Usuallly ambiguity goes away if you so that. Sandpiper 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We have voted that self-published fan theories were to be kept out of the article, so as not to influence readers. One particular and self-published fan theory on a personal website is not an account that there are "considerable" fan speculations, besides, it's merely the POV of a minority of contributors sourcing only their own little favorite theory. A national newspaper (third party, external and reliable source) reporting several speculations in an NPOV way is a reliable source accounting for "considerable" speculations.Folken de Fanel 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have said it before: if you have any reference suggesting any different theory, please show us and we can add it. If this is the only suggestion out there, then the article fairly represents opinion by referencing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I have already referenced a Washington Post article mentioning the theories about the titles, and in my opinion, a mention in a national newspaper undoubtedly accounts for the considerability of these theories. However, as per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, you are not allowed to decide by yourself the considerability of only one theory among dozen of others, just because this one is your favorite (moreover when the majority of the contributors voted against the inclusion of personally selected fan theories which could influence the readers): in short, your personal opinion concerns only you, and certainly does not deserve to be priviledgely sourced.

However if you find a national newspaper (external, third party reliable source) mentioning your theory among other theories, all mentionned in an NPOV manner, then of course you can include it.

But remember that you won't be able to add POV oriented refs to self-published theories (major violations to the main policies of WP), and that you will have to search for a valid source all by yourself. Others will not deal with the rules of Wikipedia in your place. You want content added, you make it acceptable, it's not the other way around...If you really can't find a way that is rule-compliant to include your content, then it shows the content really shouldn't be included. Folken de Fanel 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Show me a reference where meanings other than the ones mentioned are being discussed. The references quoted show a balance of possible interpretations. The washington Post article doesnt mention anything about what theories are being discussed, and is rather unhelpfull to anyone wanting more information. If you care to read the lexicon etc articles you will also see at once that these are not 'my' theories, though I thank you for your flattery.Sandpiper 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes (see, that's easy, I can do it too). Show me a reliable source were interpretations are discussed. The reference quoted certainly don't show a "balance", but only your own favorite theories.

But Sandpiper, you are free to find other national newspaper mentioning your little theory. Folken de Fanel 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I already have found ann entirely satisfactory source discussing the tiitles. Rowling recommends them, remember....? If you believe their content is biased, then the onus is upon you to show that someone disagrees with them.Sandpiper 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No you have not find any satisfactory source.

No, Rowling doesn't recommend them, and remember, she's not in "Wikipedia attribution commity", so she can say whatever she wants, and you can twist the meanings of her words in the way you want, the policies won't change.

Their content is biased, period. It's you who have to provide rules-compliant content. Folken de Fanel 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

sneak peak of the first chapter of the deathly hallows

In order to read the first chapter click here[5] it is a great refernce and a big surprise I think it is seriously the real chapter --Mamamia2 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the first chapter. Not only is the entire "chapter" filled with typos, it is not JKR's style. She is capable of better writing than that. Even if you ignored the style, the characters' attitudes in that chapter are contradictory to their attitudes in the book. Draco seems too defiant and over-confident, and I can't imagine Bellatrix caring about her family. On pg 35 of US version of HBP, she says, "If I had sons, I would be glad to give them up to the service of the Dark Lord!" Oh well, this is not the first "sneak peak" to have surfaced, and it won't be the last. Everything else is probably fake too. Arwen undomiel 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was kind of fun to read, but anyone who has read even a little HP can tell instantly that this is not the real thing. BeastKing89 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can find out, this is a piece of fan fiction that is readily available at other sites. It is simply a ploy to drive people to this persons site. He/she has links there to purchase the real book. He/she gets a cut of each purchase that is referred from the site. Also ad revenue from banner ads. I skimmed a part of the manuscript. If you want a love story about Harry and Ginny that is very suggestive in places, download and read. However, keep any reference to this out of the article. Tuyvan 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Its the title chapter from a fanfic titled "Harry Potter and the Secret Horcrux" (or sth). Its been around for almost a year now! --soum (0_o) 07:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrys eyes important?

- Known plot details

- Information from Rowling

Rowling has long said that the fact that Harry's eyes resemble his mother's is important:

Harry Potter author J.K.Rowling revealed this, before "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" came out. She said, Harry's eyes resembling his mother's would prove an important issue in the struggle against Voldemort. But this seems to be already fulfilled in HBP, when Prof. Slughorn reveals his Horcrux-memory to Harry because he thinks, Harry's eyes resemble his mother's. This memory clearly is the key in the fight against Voldi. Therefore, it seems, this point will be of no further importance in Deathly Hallows. I suggest you take it out =) - 90.152.137.55 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)xymx

Thanks, but you seem to be engaging in a little original research here, and doing some synthesizing of facts to try to advance a position or prove a point of view, all of which are unencyclopedic and forbidden (or at least discouraged) in the Wikipedia article. Comment: Slughorn's Horcrux revelations only suggested that he agreed with Riddle-Voldemort that "seven soul fragments" might somehow be a theoretical optimum or whatever when it comes to creating Horcruxes. To suggest that Slughorn revealed that memory to Harry only because Harry's eyes resembled his Mother's, is really stretching the bounds of credibility. Slughorn was interested in Harry for being "the boy who lived", and for defeating Voldemort several times already, not because of the shape and color of his eyes. Now - if you can come up with a reliable source, perhaps a quote from Rowling's website, or one of the books, or an interview somewhere, which establishes and verifies that the importance of the Harry's "eyes resembling his mother's" remark expired with HBP during Slughorn's recruiting of Harry (or Harry's recruiting of Slughorn) and/or Slughorn's drunken confessions, then and only then might it be allowable. That said, the fact that his "eyes resemble his mother's" has been mentioned at least in passing in most if not all of the books to date, so it would seem to be relatively trivial at this point. Nevertheless it would be impossible to say whether it is no longer of special importance, based on the published canonical evidence to date from Rowling. We will not know for sure until Book 7 comes out. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And the other way around? Rowlin's eyes statement is listed in the section "known plot details". Is there any reliable source that the resemblance of Harry's eyes with his morher's is still/again/at all an issue in book 7? Based on the cited source it sound more a wild guess that it is an issue in book 7, at least far from a _known_ plot detail. Your arguments rather support a deletion. --213.183.10.41 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know we will learn something extremely important Harry's mother in DH, so there is a decent chance Harry's eyes resembling his mother's is important. As far as I know, there is no evidence definitively proving that plot line has been resolved, so it should stay in the article. There is no reliable source saying it is not an issue in DH. Arwen undomiel 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"a decent chance" still means guesswork, even in all likelihood. Is it a "known" plot detail then? Further, concluding the eyes issue from his mother's importance sounds like synthesizing of facts, and, by the way, might even be considered not cogent. Next, if it is stated in the article that the eyes issue is a known plot detail, a source for that fact is needed, not the other way around. Sources supporting a deletion would be effectual but not required. --213.183.10.41 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I tend to agree that the so-called "known plot details" as a whole are rather dubious, not just the eyes issue. Nobody really knows for sure what Rowling has written in Book 7, other than the brief editorial comments quoted from the dust cover. For all we know she could have simply written down her 100 favorite cookie recipes, followed by 10 chapters of "HAHAHAHAHA GOTCHA YA LITTLE BUGGERS!!!". What we can do, is quote verbatim what Rowling HAS said in interviews, on her web site, and elsewhere - stating that the similarity between Harry's and his Mother's eyes is important somehow, but it is uncertain what that importance might be, or whether it will be revealed in Book 7 or was already revealed in the previous books. There does not seem to be anything already revealed, at least in an obvious sense (regardless of the Slughorn connection). It is perfectly acceptable and encyclopedic to state what we know about a fictional work (or incomplete series of works), and then state that the implications are uncertain. We cannot categorically state what we think the implications are without a reliable source. The reason to "keep" in this case outweighs the "delete", at least until the book is released to the "little buggers", who will quickly tell us if and where we "got it all wrong" or if Rowling's comments have been misinterpreted. The scary thing is, Rowling also said something to the effect that she loves all the speculation going on, and that there will still be plenty to speculate about even after Book 7. So we can speculate (or not) that the Wikipedia will be forever trapped in a maze of Potter Speculation. AHHHHHH!!! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the point: speculation. From a today's encyclopedic point of view it does not matter what might or might not be in future Book 7. The discussed section deals with statements of Rowling concerning book 7. If Rowling stated somewhere, this or that will happen in book 7, then this fact (that she stated it, not that it will happen) is true and might be mentioned, even if "this or that" finaly does not occur in book 7. Sticking strictly to that fact keeps us out of the "maze of Potter Speculation" ;-) Rowling never explicitly stated, that the eyes issue is in book 7. And it is at least debatable, if she stated it implicitly. However, I suggest keeping this citation but adding a remark that it is not clear if it relates to book 7. Like in the pet issue. --213.183.10.41 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well - the arguments that Harry's eyes have played their part already are from my side:

• JKR 1999 in the Boston interview [reference 18 main article]: Harry's eyes will prove "important in a future book" (that means, ONE book of IV-VII)

• in Book VI: Slughorn initially refuses to reveal the important memory, and can hardly be persuaded, though in very good mood because of the great profit he made at Hagrid's (spider poison, unicorn hair), being very drunk, feeling deeply ashamed and sorry for Lily's death, with her eyes looking at him through Harry. Finally, as he extracts the Horcrux memory, he is "still looking into Harry's eyes" and says afterwards: "You've got her eyes ... don't think too badly of me". (HBP p 70, p 458, 459) This yields the key to Horcurxes and to the destruction of Voldemort.

The point is: IF this is an "important part" played for eyes, JKR is refering to Book VI in [18], thus the eye-thing is no "Known Plot Detail" of Book VII.

84.20.164.37 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) xymx

It is still important. Rowling was interviewed 17 July 2005 by Owen Jones[6].

OJ: And - Harry's eyes play an important role in the books, because they're mentioned again and again.

JKR: They are mentioned again and again - and they're mentioned again in this book. And that's all I'm going to say.

which is just after publication of HBP. I take that to be confirmation that they remain important even after HBP. Sandpiper 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so =) In that interview you are talking about, right before asking about Harry's eyes, young OJ asked Rowling:

OJ: Is the half-blood prince actually dead, already?

JKR: I can't tell you. You'll know, Owen, in a few brief chapters, you'll know.

OJ: And - Harry's eyes play an important role in the books, because they're mentioned again and again.

JKR: They are mentioned again and again - and they're mentioned again in this book. And that's all I'm going to say.

That means, OJ was reading HBP at that time and "this book" is Book VI and not VII.

84.20.191.139 13:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) xymx

Epigraph

Should we have the enitre epigraph that was in the book quotes directly in the article? I'd be willing to type it up, but I just didn't know if we wanted the whole thing quoted or not. ~ Bella Swan^? 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens no. A short summary of important takes will suffice in my view - perhaps re-organized as bullet points. Quoting the whole thing without really really good cause would be hard to defend, since it is copyrighted material. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I was just wondering since the reviewer for the GA listed that we should have it there. Thanks. ~ Bella Swan^? 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait - I thought you meant the epilogue Nineteen Years Later - which is several pages long. I now see the "epigraph" being referred to is a 13-stanza verse and a 78-word narrative paragraph. Still it seems a bit much to quote, and I am not sure why it is needed to achieve good article status. Perhaps the "most poignant parts" of each, those which are especially relevant to the Story Line (or perhaps the subtext message that Rowling is presenting), can be quoted without appearing too "gauche". I still think quoting the entire thing is a bit much, but PLEASE feel free to be BOLD and come up with a nice way to include at least the soul of the material. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be carrying out the GA review for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow and would welcome any comments/views from editors of this article. Please leave any feedback on this review page.--seahamlass 22:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First impressions

This is obviously a well loved article, but although packed with information and plenty of interesting details, it is not up to GA standards just yet. With sufficient time, care and hard work, however, I'm sure it will make the grade.

I have set out a few general areas for action below, to help you start working towards your GA goal, and will place this review on hold for a week to give you time to start making the changes. After that, I'll take another look and, if progress has been made, will provide a further, and more detailed, list of what is needed next.

• There are far too many un-cited statements, dates and figures at the moment, especially in the "Rowling's commentary and supplement" section. Please see WP:CITE/ES for help. I see that in a previous FAC discussion, the comment was made that: "Rowling's commentary and supplement" section could reasonably have the cleanup tag applied to it (i.e. converting list to prose)." However, it still remains a list, which is not encouraged at GA and/or FAC.

• Most of the refs that are cited check out as OK, although "Publisher slams book on "Harry Potter" distributor [newsday.com]" and "Laminated Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 7 Snape Bookmark - [ebay.com]" are both showing up as dead. Some, however, seem to link to blogs and similar websites, which are not classed as WP reliable sources. For example, in the Translations section - which is talked about on the article talk page for plagiarism - one of the links appears to be some kind of blog/wiki/public review site: Harry Potter aur Maut Ke Tohfe - Hindi Verison of the Deathly Hallows Probably not acceptable, especially if you go to FA.

• When this article was delisted as a GA last September, the following comment was made: "The plot summary is several kilobytes long. It's divided into SEVEN SUBSECTIONS. This is a gross violation of WP fiction guidelines." The plot summary, although now trimmed, is still rather long and still has seven sub-sections. This, obviously, needs tackling.

• The lead needs to be expanded to conform with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. For an article of this length, at least three lengthy paragraphs would be needed, to "adequately summarize the article."

• The "Critical Reception" section seems rather limited. Although several book critics/newspapers are quoted, along with Stephen King, there is no general "overall view" of the reception the book received from fans and critics.

And a few technical issues...

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 metre, use 6 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6 metre.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not start with "The". For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, not a mixture of both.

--seahamlass 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question in regards to the problem about 'The' in headings: Would this still apply to this article considering the only time 'the' is used is in regards to sub sections under the plot summaries? To take a heading like 'The final summer' and change it to 'final summer' seems a bit strange. Or, would it be more appropriate to just change the title altogether? ~ Bella Swan^? 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could think of something different, that would be great. Although, "Final summer" doesn't sound too bad. To be honest, it is probably only at FA that you will get real black marks for this. There are more important things to change first anyway, like refs - and I can see you are doing that already. It would be great to get this HP article up to GA class, you have all the basics and it just needs a lot of lick and polish!--seahamlass 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question, I'm not sure I understand the issues that you brought up with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), I haven't seen any references to any units of measurement in this article at all, am I missing something? ~ Bella Swan^? 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't simple enough. it reveals too much information. people don't need to buy it when the whole story is here. i will delete most of the too much information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.202.45 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)