Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Spoiler Policy

Okay, the book is coming out in just a few months, do we want to have a set policy regarding spoilers? Personally I think it is a good idea to go with the same policy that Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron are going for, namely that we simply don't post them, until after the book has been released, unless from official sources. But I want to make sure we have a unified idea on this subject before we start enforcing it. Please sign your name in one of the places if you are supporting or opposing this policy, and any comments in the comments field. Tuvas 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Polls are worthless, let's just discuss. I say there is no reason to include spoiler pre-publication. After all, where are you going to find a reliable source for a leak? -- John Reaves (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sick of a certain someone arguing about the includeablity under the rules of various bits of information. If we take that approach, then if something is reported in a national newspaper, it ought to be in wikipedia, so long as it is relevant. A newspaper claiming Harry turns evil and replaces Voldemort as king of the world would be reportable. This is a fiction topic, and the criteria for inclusion should be noteability in the context of the topic. However, and having said that, I consider that editorial judgement should be used in deciding what is appropriate to be included. I pitch all posts at the level of being moderate spoilers to the last book. Anything we write which explains the text in any way is a spoiler to the last book, because these are detective novels, and at least in principle it is possible to work out much of the ending. So I post accepted explanations of the text, but not the wilder ones (though these are likely in the round to be more informative). The difficulty is to get across to someone reading a page whether they really want to be educated on the likely course of the next book, or not. Anyway, I'm against including anything claiming definite knowledge of the final book (as a matter of editorial judgement, not wikipedia policy). Sandpiper 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there is no reason to refuse VERIFIABLE content. An author request against spoilers is not a valid reason to ban informations from Wikipedia. I saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bionicle_Legends. I think Drakhan is right. Barraki 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, verifiability is the issue here. If the spoiler is from a reliable source and we can verify it, then it should be added. However, if it's not (like if it comes from some random torrent or fansite) then it should stay out. And Rowling stated that when she said "the first distant rumblings of the weirdness that usually precedes a Harry Potter publication can be heard on the horizon".[1] Fake spoilers are going to be huge in the coming weeks, we have to be very careful about what we allow. dposse 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe we can and should certainly post a hypothetical report regarding an early leak of Book 7 materials, if one happens, and which might well constitute a major plot spoiler, and if it is already well-reported and documented in well-recognized reliable sources, such as the BBC, The Times (of London), or the New York Times. Spoiler or fraudulent material reported as appearing on someone's blog page, or reported anonymously on a HP fan forum, or from some crazy kid that works in the back room of a bookstore in Biloxi, without a clearly indisputable reliable source, should be immediately removed and banned. Any spoiler material that in fact gets released and published in, say, The Times, can be described and even quoted here, along with a properly strong spoiler warning. We could even consider placing such material in a special colored text box,such as we see on the Main Page and elsewhere, with clear identification and explanation that the material was "improperly released" and published in The Times or whatever, and that it constitutes a major plot spoiler, if it is felt the material is really that "good" and important. The keys are bulletproof sourcing, and providing a reasonable spoiler warning for visitors and passers-by. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If this is the decided policy, then I for one am going to stop posting here a week before, and remove this from my watchlist. I think about a week before I'll archive the page, as I have talked about doing before, and then let things happen, without paying any more attention to anything happening here. But I'm a bit afraid that most of the regular editors'll do that, and leave things to absolute craziness, but what can you do? Tuvas 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your sentiments are reflected by many previous discussions (mostly archived), where we explored putting a total protection or at least semi-protection on this article and some others in the HP Project, in the last week or so before July 21, since little more of true value could conceivably be added (especially here) until Book 7 is actually released. I think the consensus was there is little precedent for locking up an article in advance of anticipated overwhelming vandalism and "spoilerism" by trolls and wiki-hooligans. In any case, many HP Project wiki-editors will likely be taking a wiki-break for a few days in order to read and absorb the materials in the book (and probably re-reading portions of the previous books in order to get the facts straight). Others are committing to speed-reading the book in a few hours, starting at midnight GMT on Day 1 (the Brits giving the Yanks a rest until they can catch up several hours later) and at least keeping the spoilers "factual" in the first hours. A few sacrificial lambs are committed to maintaining the articles, and standing by to protect them if needed, in spite of the inevitable sprouting of spoilers and "announcements" all over the place like so many weeds. I think the article may also get "decorated" with a new template of some kind, indicating that it is "under re-construction" and "full of plot spoilers", at least for a few days until the first round of synopsis writers are satisfied with the updated plot summary. I think this whole event is unprecedented in the history of the world, much less our Wikipedia, in terms of the magnitude. Book 6 was certainly plagued (and still is from time to time) with random drive-by spoiler-vandalism and grafitti upon its release, but the Wiki project has doubled and redoubled (and more) since those days only 2 years ago, so what happens to "us" may become benchmarks for what to do and what not to do. History will be made, and we will be here to see it. Or is that Crystalballing? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I do remember you talking about that... I still think a full protection might not be necessary, but I'm starting to lean more towards that end... Hmmm... Tuvas 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I remain a teeny bit bothered by what seems to me a fact: that any pre-release of the actual book just about has to have been obtained by some illegal process. I agree, that if it is already published in a major newspaper, it will probably have already been passed by their lawyers, but it still seems the sort of thing which will get publishers interested in lawsuits. Aside from that, we are already imposing self-censorship on this article, by choosing not to go into greater depth on the likely events of the final book. Avoiding adding claimed actual events in the last book is really only the same thing. Sandpiper 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not "self-censorship" or anything, but merely the application of the rules. Please avoid talking about anything you claim to be likely, unless you have illegally obtained a copy of book 7 you cannot judge what is "likely". Folken de Fanel 21:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there is always the possibility that we could have another edit war over "ill-gotten" published material and whether it could expose the Wikipedia to litigation, so I think we would have to have some serious reliable sources from major news outlets before posting anything that proports to be "authentic", prior to 00:01 GMT on July 21. I would imagine that the reputable news outlets themselves are also debating how to deal with the possibility of leaks, and some may choose to boycott publication as a matter of principle. On the other hand, it would not surprise me at all to learn that some of the "rag sheets", paparazzi, and other unscrupulous media outlets are going to be offering huge rewards to back room stockboys and small bookstore owners, to get them to let slip with an early copy, or the last chapter, or just some fragments and excerpts. Undoubtedly, the first tainted paper that comes out with claims of having authentic materials will sell a lot of copies, and claim it is a free press issue. It will be interesting to see how tight the lid is on this particular Genie-in-the-bottle. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
the safest bet is to just semi-protect the page, and agree to wait until the release of the actual book. It's only a little over a month and a half to go. There is really no reason to expose wikipedia to possible litigation over a spoiler. I say let's just play it safe: not add spoilers until the book is released, and protect the page two weeks before the publication of the book. Lulurascal 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Some may consider Lulurascal's idea to be a bit extreme, but I think it's an excellent idea. It would also prevent the continual obnoxious and childish vandalism that plagues this page. --NetherlandishYankee 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a brief discussion about this over here a while back. Daggoth | Talk 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My two cents: no pre-release spoilers (as they're all rumors), but after July 21 @ midnight BST, anything can be posted with a cited reference and spoiler warning. None of this "wait to add legitimate info because not everyone has finished the book/movie" crap.

Recently, some users have removed a gallery of fair use images (namely, other-edition book covers) from the article. The last edit on this matter was the restoration of the gallery by Reywas92. This is to provide a new opinion on whether the WP:NONFREE policy excludes such images, or whether they are acceptable. 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear cut in my opinion. Non-free content is to be kept to a minimum, showing covers of all editions (two copies of each no less) of a book is clearly not minimal. The extra covers do not supply any additional information of importance (we are not a "buyers guide" if that's the intention) and they are not subject of any commentary in the article. Despite Reywas92's asertion that they are "important" no rationale for the use of the images have been provided, and the onus is on those who whish to include non-free material in an article to provide detailed explanations for how each image satisfy each of the criteria for non-free image use. --Sherool (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the gallery again. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Each image is equally supported: this article is about the book, and the covers serve to identify it. In this particular case, they do rather more than that. The cover illustrations are drawings of scenes from the books. We do not have the text yet as it has not been published, but we do have the covers. Each cover is a different image, but all concern the book somehow. Sandpiper 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sandpiper, this time, the case isn't about relevancy. Everyone I'm sure agrees they are relevant. However, technically the pictures aren't free, and WP has a policy that such things as covers can be used, but preferably only once per page. The gallery would not qualify unfortunately here, but the good news is, WP doesn't get sued. Specifically, from WP:NONFREE, Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational or user interface elements is normally regarded as decorative. Tuvas 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for two copies of each. But i am observing that the argument above, 'the extra covers do not supply any additional information' is plainly incorrect. Each cover is an informed choice by the publishers of a relevant image from the story. There are ten points listed in the guideline which must be met to include an item. Which does this fail? 1:there is no free equivalent. 2: these items have been released to advertise the books, and we are effectively boosting this campaign, so I don't see we are damaging commercial interest. 3: Low res isn't really an issue, the originals are about 4000x4000 4: again, broadcast by the publishers and elsewhere. 5: relevant content. 6: meets other policy, which is mainly the use of non free images policy, anyway, as far as I can see. 7: images are used in this article. 8: the images are distinct scenes, so each has a distinct reason to be there, as I just said. could perhaps do with better explaining in the text. 9: is in the right place. 10: Is presumably just a matter of housekeeping. {i was somewhere else user:Sandpiper}

Response to Request for Comments

My personal feeling is that the case for inclusion of all these images is somewhat slim. If, for each image, there is something specific in the article which is illustrated by *this* cover (but not the others), then it can be argued that they should be included. Otherwise, having external links to the images from an official site is probably the best choice. Even if there will be information on the separate covers in the article, it could be argued that such links would be the better choice. I will also note that the section on the book covers currently seems to contain plenty of OR (i.e. "clearly shows Harry and his friends battling in the Room of Requirement" etc.) This needs to be improved. LR 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as the 10 pt. guideline is met (and from unsigned comment above it appears that this is so), it should be included (people might also want to check out Avoid Copyright Paranoia). The most important points in this case I think are: (1) It's relevent (2) no free image will ever be given under GFDL and (3) no conceivable harm to author, publisher, or artist. R. Baley 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven Questions Most Debated by Fans

In the introduction, it mentions the release of the seven questions most debated by fans. Do they have the answers to them, too? What are they, and where can I find them? Mollymoon 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See the reference article for that section. As the article states, they are poll questions, allowing fans to guess the answers. And there won't be an answer to a single one of them, until Book 7, or at least, I hope not! Tuvas 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
1) who will live and who will die, 2)is Snape good or evil, 3)will Hogwarts re-open, ansd the others are supposed to be release fortnightly. [2] Personally, I would be a bit skeptical whether Hogwarts reopening is uppermost in everyone's mind, but we must wait and see what their other questions are. Bear in mind this is an advertising campaign. Sandpiper 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Relics of Death - alternate title

An IP just added this, and it looks relevant: there is a report circulating that Harry Potter and the Relics of Death is an alternate working title that has been given to translators, since Deathly Hallows doesn't mean much to them. Apparently.

Can anyone read the articles? I can't even tell what language that is ... Swiss? Daggoth | Talk 08:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't get the link to work properly in its raw format. Click here, and then put quotes around the search box to narrow it down to the relevant articles. I really need an external link for dummies guide :( - Daggoth | Talk 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well seeing as HP has origins in English, if there was any legitimacy to the proposed alternate title, then it would have had orders of magnitude more hits in English than in Swedish or whatever. Chances are this is just more of the same rumours and daily gossip that we have been getting used to seeing, just in foreign sources this time rather than British or American or whatever. We already know that Hallows can be relics of saints, so another possibility is that we have a simple case of translation entropy (Deathly Hallows - - - Blah Blah - - - Hallows of Death - - - Relics of Death). The alternate titles are moot, per discussion above; and without bulletproof reliable sources, in English, from Rowling or her publishers, we will not be randomly posting what some fans might think were the other alternate working titles which Rowling may have kicked around, or what her Publishers may have registered as "dummies" at the trademarks office. Furthermore, one could theoretically do a Google search on Harry Potter and the Wheel of Fortune. If some hits in, say, Japanese or Mandarin came up, should we post those too? I think I'll go with "not". For reference, the Swedish (Harry Potter och dödsrelikerna) and many other foreign language titles are linked in the left column marked "In other languages", so we do not need "re-Englished translations" of the foreign titles to try to find "relevance" or to help us form more theories on what the title might mean. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my primary concern - that since it's in a foreign language, unless someone here can read it and is somewhat familiar with the sites in question, we can't verify if it's a valid source or not. But as for more turning up in English - check out the dates on those google hits. They're dated 24 May - it's only just happened. I've got a feeling we may be seeing more of this very shortly, especially if the news sites pick it up and verify / debunk it through their sources. Daggoth | Talk 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - Per the previous discussions above, if the major English news outlets, for example the BBC, Times of London, CNN, New York Times, Associated Press, etc. begin to report on verifiable information related to Book 7, plotlines, spoilers, alternate Titles, statements from Rowling, answers to the "Seven Questions", etc., then we are free to consider adding relevant information from that here. Anything from unreliable or questionable sources, especially the rag sheets that are more bent on selling a story and spreading gossip, conspiracy theories, and rumours than on reporting the verifiable facts, are to be excluded, per policy on verifiability and attribution from reliable sources. We are bound to see mountains of theories and rumours posing as "facts" during the next 8 weeks, and it is our duty to resist the urge to post anything, without bulletproof sourcing. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We do not know if it indeed was the English title or not, but "Relics of Death" is the translation of the French title "Harry Potter et les Reliques de la Mort". --soum talk 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place for MuggleNet spam

I know that Emerson Spartz is eager to try to milk millions of dollars of his unauthorized "MuggleNet's What Will Happen in HP7" book before the real deal comes out, but it's highly inappropriate to use Wikipedia and this article as grounds for marketing his products. It is not worth any mention, it is non-canon and has nothing to do with the official product, and there is no need to advertise here so as to help him generate even more sales revenue for a third-party product. For these reasons, I have removed the mention of his book. Please do not add it back until we've settled this discussion. 69.181.82.17 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

do you hate Mugglenet or something? Wikipedia is for NEUTRAL, verifiable articles Munkee madness 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts would leave towards keeping it in there as well, it does provide some context as to the level of interest in the book. But I think the reference should be kept minimal, possibly trim down the entry. Tuvas 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think prominently advertising a commercial product and praising it would be really relevant to WP, I agree with 69.181.82.17 on this. Besides, the paragraph is obviously subjective when it says that the book deals with the likely events of book 7 blablabla, the fact is that the user who wrote this is always trying to say that fans have already guessed the real content of book 7, he wants to develop fan theories everywhere and present them as true ("likely to happen").
As it was agreed that mentions of fan theories were to be avoided, and as this paragraph had no other aim than to openly praise fan-theories and to show the opinion of a certain user on the content of the book ("likely"), I see no problem with the deletion of such a paragraph. However, if someone could rework it completely and get rid of all unnecessary praise and pov comment on the "likeliness" of the content, why not, but...Folken de Fanel 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the whole paragraph, leads one to consider, is that really background information into the book, the whole fandom that Harry Potter has? I know, a bit off topic, but I was going to try to edit the part back in, but more verifiable, but I realized the paragraph that it was in, it just doesn't quite make sense... Tuvas 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Now come on guys, this is ridiculous. Not mentioning the existence of best-selling books about this book is absurd. I really don't mind if you add morte to the list if you think that just one example is biased. Sandpiper 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is using every occasions to push your POV about theories from fans that are "likely" to be true. We don't want that here, enough users have expressed their view on this now, it is time that you stop doing only what pleases yourself, you're becoming disruptive when you're constantly being subjective - and worse, when you're constantly ignoring what others have to say on the subject.
Don't you find it ridiculous when you rush to reinsert your edits in articles when everyone says that nothing should be done before coming to a consensus ? Do you think you and only you can say when there's a consensus ? Do you think that a single contribution to a debate from you is a "consensus" ? Have you already forgotten that you were told not to try the patience of the other editors again ? Folken de Fanel 23:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be in there as well - as Tuvas said, if we can keep it brief, it helps provide context for the level of anticipation of the book. Looking at the lead again, could we possibly segment the anticipation sentences into an entirely separate paragraph (top spot on bestseller lists, pre-orders etc) away from the release details? If so, I then see no problem with including the link to further describe the level of hype that this book has reached. A best-seller about a soon-to-be best-seller is a) ridiculous and asburd at the best of times, and b) notable, if you ask me.

Also, just in the interests of disclosure, I originally reverted the IP's first attempt to remove the links, as "fuck that site" appears to suggest something more than a good faith edit in an attempt to improve the article. I'm no Mugglenet fan either - I hate the place, personally - but putting something like that in an edit summary isn't on. Daggoth | Talk 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this sort of information is exactly what would be expected to remain in the article after publication of the book. Folken persists in missing the point: It doesn't matter what mugglenet have written, the existence and popularity of their book, and indeed others all written about this one, is the relevant fact. It is a piece of real-world info about this book. Sandpiper 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't find excuses and don't say that I "miss the point": you wrote this only so that you could say how great Mugglenet's book is and how "likely to be true" its content is.Folken de Fanel 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say the book is competent, and that I dont necessarily agree with everything it says. This is probably because it errs on the side of following the 'official' storyline and consensus view more than I would in my own views of HP7. But it is also because they attempt to put the case both for and against the main points of debate. The book is what you might expect as a summary of information which has come across their website in the course of debates. The point which I still seem to have difficulty getting across is that it really doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, and where it seeks to present a spread of views, there is no right or wrong. The point is that it is successful and has become a best seller in its own right. This is hardly surprising... they called it mugglenet's guide to HP7 because they know their own name is successful and respected and likely to attract people to the book. People 'out there' already know that mugglenet is a reliable source of information. This is just the printed version. Sandpiper 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
So all this is just gratuicious spam...Folken de Fanel 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The only reason that I disagree is that it's hit the NY Times bestseller list. If it hadn't, then yes, I would agree that it's NN spam, and that the author may be trying to drum up support through wikipedia. The fact that it's hit the list, however, seems to illustrate the absurd amount of external hype that this book has reached, and I honestly don't see how that's not notable to the article at hand. Daggoth | Talk 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. The bottom line is, MN's book contains nothing but fancruft and speculation and therefore has no place on the Wikipedia. Also, don't you think one reason it may have become a "bestseller" was due to the aggressive promotion, even going so far as to use nonprofit sites like Wikipedia to advertise it? Do you think it'll have any chance in maintaining bestseller status after the real book comes out? Do you think there's room in the article for mention of it after July 21? Any sensible person would answer "NO" to both, so that's that. 69.181.82.17 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, that's three questions. I had no idea that the book was being "advertised" anywhere prior to seeing you remove it from the article. How can you state that a citation on Wikipedia of "this book has made the NYT bestseller list" is "due to ... aggressive promotion" (by MN or whoever) AFTER it's appeared on the list? That doesn't even remotely make sense. If it was there before it, then your argument holds, and it should have been rightly removed. But if it's there after the fact (which it is), well I said above that I don't consider it spam. So I'll say no to that, even though it fails to advance your argument. If it appeared on other non-profit sites, then forgive me in advance. But I haven't seen it anywhere.
As for the other two questions, obviously it won't hold bestseller status. But I still see no reason to remove the citation from the article. If the information has no place in the article after release, then fine, let's remove it at that time. I will not object. But not yet. For comparison, the section on "meaning of Hallows" will no doubt disappear after the book is released and we receive canonical information from JKR. Will it be there after July 21? No? Should we delete it now, then? Of course not. That's been debated and resolved. Articles and their contents change over time as we receive information.
I have restored it for now, because looking through this section, I don't see a clear consensus to remove the text, but nor do I see a clear consensus to keep it. But I'm one of these folk who errs on the side of caution, so you'll just have to live with that. Daggoth | Talk 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If a book existed in its own right about a totally different subject, which had become a best seller, then people would be entitled to write an article about that book. Indeed, perhaps we should do that now. However, the correct place to mention it, and other similar books, is here, because they are directly relevant to this article. Are you seriously suggesting it is inappropriate to mention that people have written books about this not yet published book by Rowling? If you can suggest a book which has sold more copies and is more famous, then we can mention that instead/ as well as. I understand there are 190 books written about HP (according to the Telegraph). Yes, I think that somewhere in the set of articles about HP, there should be a section discussing a spread of books written about the series. It ought to comment on how well, or not, they predicted the ending. So yes, I do envisage this and other books being mentioned in the final article in a year or so. Sandpiper 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if mugglenet's book is mentionned, which still doesn't make consensus, there won't be any mention of their prediction of the ending, as crystal balling and unreliable sources are banned from WP. Folken de Fanel 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well ... I've said that based on the relative bareness of the other HP book pages. I remember there was loads more information in there previously, especially on OOTP and HBP (controversy leading up to release, pre-sales hype numbers etc), but since then they've been stripped down to the very basics. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but having said that, if you can find a way of keeping the reference intact in the article in a proper context after release, by all means do so. I'm personally thinking there should be a section in a separate article (possibly on the main HP article) talking about this, with the latter book pages referencing it from there. 190 books *about* a book seems notable enough. I guess all I'm saying above is that our friendly IP's logic of "Do you think there's room in the article for mention of it after July 21" as being a reason for removing it right now doesn't even remotely hold. If we accept that, we might as well remove Info From Rowling, Unresolved Plot Elements, Jackets, Meaning of Hallows etc etc, because that'll probably (and it should) be removed after the book is released. And although it might help with OR / random IP problem edits right now, it's not going to improve the article. Daggoth | Talk 11:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Those fan theories ARE speculation and thus I think they do not belong here per Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedian06 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If the article mentioned what the fan theories in the book were, I'd agree with you. But it doesn't. Daggoth | Talk 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have much use for the speculation, but NYT best selling books should be briefly mentioned. I reverted to include it (and undo a couple of other edits). R. Baley 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about bestselling if it's speculation? Read: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedian06 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is rife with speculation. My edit dealt with at least 3 issues (perhaps I should have broken them up) and your comment above was less than clear on just one of them. I don't think the book is notable enough to go into detail (or have its own article), but I do think making the NYT best seller list means that it deserves a brief mention, no matter who wrote it (The issue, imo, is the book and the sales, not its subject matter. edited to add: I haven't read it, so I have no opinion on the book's subject matter). R. Baley 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The mention of this book, whether accepted or not, doesn't belong in the "background of the series" section, because it has nothing to do with the series by JKR and its background. It wasn't written by JKR and has no link with the canon of the HP series, or even with the way HP came to be.
  • If there are 190 books about a book, why only one would be notable and mentionned ? Isn't that a POV violation to mention only the books which can serve to advance a position ? Which leads us to...
  • This Mugglenet book is yet another way Sandpiper has found to mention fan theories and to drop insidious personal comments about the likeliness of the fan predictions written in this book. Sandpiper is only here to push his pov and to post his theories, and it's not coincidence if this mugglenet book is one of the "sources" he tried to use in other articles in order to fill them with fan speculations about book 7.
  • And finally, I think the "background" section is filled with unnecessary trivia about fans being able to guess the plot before the publication of book 7 blablabla, which lead to this issue with Mugglenet's book, it is all serving to advance a position and it has really nothing to do with the proper "background" of the series as seen in the beginning of the section. The section should be cleaned of all this, and if some still want to talk about books wich made the NTY best seller list, all they have to do is to create the appropriate section for these kind of side info. Please realize however that pov oriented mentions of this book in order to impose views about fan speculations in articles will never be accepted.Folken de Fanel 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think, as I said above, it needs to be coupled with the other statements refering to the massive amount of hype this book has reached, somehow: pre-order information, "expectation of fastest selling", advertising blitz, etc. That way, it's written in a relevant context that affirms that this book (HP7) is huge. The sentence in it's current state could very well be POV - it states "a number of books" when it then only mentions one. (Similar to the Heart of Ravenclaw and Deathly Veil mentions a while back.) But I would suggest that it be cleaned up and re-worded instead of just deleted.
I don't know who is correct with your edit war and the Lexicon refs - I have nothing useful to say there, so I'm keeping my mouth shut and staying out of that one - but in the context of hype for this book, I think this is a relevant statement, which is why I'm requesting that it be kept in somehow. Daggoth | Talk 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sentences that suggest how much hype there is for HP7:
  • "It reached the top spot on both the Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble bestseller lists just a few hours after the date was announced on 1 February 2007."
  • "It is expected to exceed its predecessor as the fastest selling book of all time." // this statement needs a source
  • "American publisher Scholastic announced an initial print run of 12 million copies"

Wikipedian06 05:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I havn't analysed it, but I would suspect that much of the stuff which may have disappeared from articles about the books once they were published would have naturally transferred itself to the 'new' article about the next book. Updated, of course, because what was considered topical debate would be entirely different in light of a new book. The situation will be differnet after this book release, because there is no next book. The time will have come to write something definitive about the hype and speculation which had been going on throughout the books publication process. It may be that this might be transfereed to the general HP article. Exactly what stays here might in part depend upon how the book really does turn out. If it goes exactly as predicted then there might not be much to explain, but if it turns out rather differently to the predictions, then this probably ought to be written up for the record. One of the big difficulties about wiki is that it has little sense of history, nor much of a memory. New editors will come along who didn't work through the actual publication, won't know about it, and will naturally downgrade its importance and relevance. I hope some people may become less paranoid about including what third parties think about this book after publication. I remind everyone again that we are supposed to report what others think about a book. This is to be preferred to simply parroting the book, which seems to be what some people want. I must admit I agree that an article which does no more than repeat the story at length hardly deserves to exist. At the very least an article should be re-telling the story in a different way to that in which the author presented it, so as to give readers a different view on it. I also remind everyone once again, that reporting the debate about the final book is not looking into a crystal ball. The debate is a past event, It is reporting something which has already happened. Exactly the same distinction applies as to any other topic. If someone else has already done it and published it elsewhere, then it is not original research and is legitimate content for wikipedia. Sandpiper 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I remind you that taking side in a debate and fill the articles with non-notable and unreliable speculations in order to make them appear as true, is looking into a crystal ball and a very serious violation of the NPOV rule.
I remind you also that on WP, "someone else" isn't a good enough justification. The main criteria for sources are reliability and notability. Fan speculations are not notable and unreliable, thus they can't be on WP. Speculations without reliable sources, or without sources at all, are original research.Folken de Fanel 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If MuggleNet actually predicts the ending correctly, then I'm all for including a mention of it after the book's release, but only when/if that's actually confirmed. Wikipedian06 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous speculation in article

Under the "Meaning of Deathly Hallows" portion of the article, there are massive ammounts of speculation and/or, at least, unsourced statements. As I don't know for certainly whether or not they are actually true, I am putting {{fact}} tags in the places in question.--Dark Green 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already done 2 reverts of the Deathly Hallows / Relics of Death speculation, and the related Swedish title translation nonsense, which was added today by a few anonymous editors; and requested they discuss the ideas here before re-adding. That request has been ignored, twice, and the speculation and Swedish title nonsense re-added and expanded upon. I confess that I am struggling to continue to assume good faith here. But rather than engage the anonymous IP editors in an edit war, I prefer to step away and let things cool down, let the edits play out, and see what the results are in terms of reactions and sanctions. It is fairly easy to sit back, wait for the editors to finish their grand efforts, review the results, and if needed simply revert to an earlier sensible version that is free of the disallowed material; it is much harder to engage in an active all-out edit war with trolls and vandals.
Frankly I think this is a mere taste of what is coming, and what we will have to contend with, as we approach July 21. I'm watching carefully to see the reaction of some of the key HP-project editors and other veterans of this article, as they respond to these edits. As a non-admin observer, I have not requested protection or semi-protection, again because I would like to see how bad this thing gets in the coming days. If you feel protection is needed, feel free to request it though, as you wish. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I operated independently from the anon users, and added verifiable sources. Is what I added okay? Brisvegas 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As I attempted to explain in the "Relics of Death" discussion above, it is my view that it is improper to draw conclusions from double translations (in this case, English - Swedish - English). We are making an assumption (original research) that that Swedish word dödsrelikerna translates exactly and exclusively to Relics of Death in English, to the exclusion of any other possibilities. Anyone who has studied a second language past a year or two knows this is impossible to assert. Just as there are many different nouns and adjectives in the possible definitions of the word Hallows, one can just as easily assume there are many possibilities for the Swedish word (or fragment) relik. We could conceivably find 100 different Swedish linguists who could come up with 100 different twists and subtle meanings on the word relik; and just as we have no verifiable "proof" of what Hallows means, we have no such proof of what relik means in a different language. That is my objection to drawing conclusions from the dödsrelikerna translation back to English. It is something I like to call call "linguistic entropy": each time you attempt to translate a word or phrase from one language to another, you lose some of the subtle local and cultural details that constitute the meaning of the words; and if you translate around through several languages in a circle, you do not end up with exactly what you started with. It is much like the children's game, where a complex phrase is quietly passed orally around a large circle of participants - by the time it gets back to the origin, the phrase has changed, often with highly amusing results. That said, the English word "Relics" may full well prove to be the correct choice for our enigmatic Hallows title - we just cannot use potentially tainted translations to try to make that point, without some sort of acknlowledgement from Rowling or someone who has read the book, in my opinion. If we want to document a "belief system" which is sourced from studious fans and language interpreters, then then we must make sure it is clearly designated as such, and not held to be canonical in some way. Just my view. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but what you are essentially saying is that no competent translators exist who can make a good translation, taking account of possible alternate meanings. That is nonsense, and you must know it. It has to be assumed that any foreign title is a good title for the book, carefully thought out. It does have to be said that a foreign title need not be a translation of the english one - it might be entirely different, as the somewhat enigmatic english one might not work well in translation. But that does not mean it is impossible to make a good translation from whatever language into english, explaining any possible multiple meanings. Only one translation process is involved. That is a factual process. Sandpiper 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I think what we can assume is that the foreign (Swedish) title is most likely a "good title for the book" as you say, relative to the Swedish language and within the culture thereof. But that is not necessarily the case when it is (potentially) imperfectly translated, interpreted, or transliterated back into the English language. The Swedish word dödsrelikerna, with the imbedded fragment relik, may or may not be the same in strict meaning and essence as the English phrase relics of death as claimed by the apparent majority view. Just as the words hallow and hallows have many meanings as nouns, adjectives, and even verbs, I would hesitate to automatically jump to the conclusion that the ONLY possible meaning of dödsrelikerna is Relics of Death. That said, it is a fairly compelling argument that says Hallows can be, among other things, Relics, and that the Swedish title includes the fragment relik; so I understand why it is easy for some to make that leap in logic. Anyway I am deeply sorry that you find my cautious views to be nonsense, but so be it. It would not be the first time for us to disagree. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that it is necessary to jump to any conclusions: if the general view is that something translates a certain way, then that is what we say. The issue is not what the english title may be, but how the foreign one translates. Personally I would be quite surprised if it has the exact same meaning, but having looked at a few other reports about this, it seems the foreign version is intended to be at least a little different in meaning. I agree that the received english translation may not convey the nuance of meaning, and might totally miss the point which may finally emerge when someone reads the book, but we just report the titles existence and give a best available view on how that would be translated into english.
I am, however, a bit bugged by the assertion that Rowling provided the english text of a new title which has then been translated into Swedish. Has this been verified by anyone? The link to the swedish publishers via mugglenet is a little incomprehensible being presumably in swedish. Sandpiper 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the blatant anonymous OR, and also a bit of OR by synthesis about the Swedish title ("thus we can conclude that "hallows" means "relic" "). However I have left in the article the mention to the swedish title, because it's genuine info coming from the swedish HP publisher's official website (Tiden).

If someone think it shouldn't be here, however, I won't oppose to it's deletion. But if it stays, we'll have to think about a new section title, because we obvioulsy cannot mention alternative titles in "the meaning of the title", it would imply that all these title are necessarily linked with the original title and could explain it in some way, which is OR by synthesis...Folken de Fanel 10:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section under consideration now reads much better with the unsourced stuff removed. I guess original research by synthesis is a delicate issue (all non-plagiarised material on Wikipedia is synthesised out of necessity), but the current solution is fine. The "thus we can conclude that "hallows" means "relic" sentence was probably redundant anyway, as it is implied by the alternate title. Brisvegas 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


All right. Thanks for your help. I'm a bit new to this article (And I'm rather a noob at Wikipedia its self), so I didn't realize that that sort of thing went on here regularly. Silly me. But thanks.--Dark Green 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Leaky link to the list of sources for this title. They state that they have confirmed that JKR and the publishers supplied the title directly; it was then translated to Swedish. For the existing refs, Mugglenet's writeup is a bit more ambiguous, and I can't read Swedish to determine the quality of the other text. This link might rule out the entropy scenario that T-dot describes (although having never studied a foreign language, I'm not sure), however it's still OR for another month and a half to mention hallows/relics -> horcruxes. Daggoth | Talk 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is confirmed as a bulletproof verifiable fact that Rowling indeed provided the "alternate titles" for the foreign translators, then my concerns about possible mistranslations in the Deathly Hallows -> Blah-blah of Yada-yada -> Relics of Death misinterpretations loops become moot. Also agree that we have no reliable and canonical basis (at this time) for the claim that Hallows are Horcruxes, outside of forbidden original research and crystalballing (internally) and fan "cruft" speculation (externally). If we could get a reliable source that is untainted by the self-publication curse, then we might have something to work with. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Printing-house

Daily Mirror and other media report that a quarter million copies of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", the seventh and final installment in J. K. Rowling's fantasy series are being printed in the small german town of Poessneck near the czech border. According to locals the security measures introduced in and around the GGP print factory resemble those at the height of Cold War. Employees under threats of fines had to sign secret contracts and are body and vehicle searched after every workday. What's more, to prevent them reading or copying the book they have to work in PITCH DARK!

I simply cannot imagine the work safety implications of this. In a high-capacity printing house machines 15 feet across unfold one-ton rolls of paper at several dozen miles an hour. Have a hand or piece of apprel entangled and it will rip out your whole arm and you are dead! How could anyone work in the dark with such equipment?

Supposedly the European Union is notable for its focus on workplace safety - but now it looks like for profits we have almost degraded to the level of black Africa, where underpaid diamond miners are x-rayed every day for body cavity contraband, without regards for their radiation exposure. I'd say it is no longer Voldemort who should be public enemy no.1, but rather that Lord Franchise.

Read the original article here: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/harry%20potter%20book%20made%20in%20total%20darkness_1032245 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)

That's nice, but the Wikipedia talk pages and articles are not intended for editorial commentaries and spreading gossip and rumours. We don't post made-up materials gathered from dubious or unreliable sources, make judgements on the claims, and air our concerns and viewpoints on the matter here. Please feel free however to post your views at an appropriate HP fan site or blog site, where I am sure they are already discussing it if it is "true", or they will soon be after you post the "breaking news". Have fun with that! Now if CNN or the BBC or The Times or some other highly reliable news agency does a story on the horrible work conditions at a factory printing Rowling books, we can discuss the possibility of adding it to the article in a proper section. Otherwise we have nothing to post. Thanks! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fake. Today's lesson, kids: British tabloids suck! Daggoth | Talk 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive again?

170 kb :( Daggoth | Talk 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Archived #12 with 68 kb - probably needs another one soon, as recent discussions die down. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art Image

I don't know who or where the cover art image came from on the main page, but I don't believe it is an actual cover for the book. Mary GrandPré has created all the artwork and images for the past books, and anyone who has seen her past work will know this image is not hers. I read somewhere that Mary GrandPré has also created the image for the cover of this book, but I don't believe this is it, plus Amazon.com has an image of the book on file that I believe is the actual cover for the seventh novel. Perhaps someone should help me research this and change the image out if need be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs)

GrandPré only makes the artwork for the US versions, not the British. Voretus 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That image represents the jacket art of the Bloomsbury (UK) edition, not the Scholastic (US) edition which was done by GrandPré (she only does the US edition artwork). We previously had a gallery of images of the various covers, but it was deleted as an abuse of copyrighted fair use images. These alternate cover images, like all copyright fair use materials, are to be used only when absolutely essential and as little as possible (see discussion above in Non-free image gallery). If we want to post the other covers, then theoretically they would have to be covered by editorial commentary (but not constituting original research) about what makes the cover art notable and encyclopedic. Nobody has come up with a way to do that yet. Therefore we are restricted to a single cover image, and the UK edition was selected as "more canonical", since Rowling and the book subject matter are arguably UK-based. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved plot elements from previous books

I really wonder about the relevance of this section. It doesn't have any external sources, and thus much of its content is what the contributors themselves are expecting in book 7. Aside from the stated facts from book 6 that Harry intends to visit Godric's Hollow, that he has to locate the remaining Horcruxes, and the RAB issue, I can't see how this section could exist without being original research. Any thoughts on this ? Folken de Fanel 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, relevance is not really the issue is it? The "dangling plot elements" of any incomplete serial work are most definitely relevant to the continuation of the series. Perhaps you meant notability? Or verifiability? But what did you mean by doesn't have any external sources - did you mean to say doesn't have any secondary sources (published outside of Rowling's canonical books)? Just about all of the line items on the current list have very thorough "chapter and verse" external quotes to the previous books (eg: HBP Ch.30), and many internal cross references on the subject matters being discussed. I would characterize it as well documented. A cleanup of excessive and inappropriate in-universe style and otherwise poor phrasing is always welcome - but blanking of plot elements may not be well received at all. The intent is to document the "known" and "important" dangling plot elements, which may (or may not) be answered in Book 7. You can certainly debate the notability of some items on the list as it stands, but I think some of the "shipping" and other nonsense has been long removed. Now, I do cringe a bit when the list starts off blatently with the rather crystalballish "Harry will return (home)...", since for all we know Harry could get killed by Death Eaters as soon as he steps off the Hogwarts Express on the way home from school, and thus it will be up to the others to deal with Voldemort et al. In any case, as long as the items are carefully worded and well sourced, there is little reason to delete it. That said, in about a month and a half this will all be moot and gone, replaced with a mangled plot summary and perhaps some "unanswered questions" for everyone to kick around like a worn-out football. Rowling all but said that she expects (and delights in the fact that) the speculation to continue even after Book 7, indicating that there will be unanswered questions and unresolved debates. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. Some of the recent edits were getting a bit ridiculous (one item from each maurader? mirror might be used? etc etc), but the section looks fine now. I fail to see how the article will be improved if we take out the rest. Daggoth | Talk 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. What about what Dudley saw when he was attacked by Dememtors in HP5? Should we add that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.174.5 (talk • contribs)
Not really, no. This point is not really likely to be developped. Hey, I could add Crouch Senior's house as an unsolved plot element! Barraki 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure JKR said somewhere (interview before HB publication?) that what Dudley saw would be explained in a future book. But it's probably not significant enough to be mentioned. Daggoth | Talk 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki fails to add to this that Tonks wanted to marry Lupin or something similar to that near the end of book 6. This is also unresolved.

Isn't the Deathly Hallows Section just all Speculation?

Which in turn isn't allowed by Wikipedia. I mean, we are just stating what the title might reference, since we don't know. Your thoughts. ArchKnight47 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's an awful lot of trivia and speculation in the article which will be totally irrelevant once the book is released... I'm not sure if it should be removed, however. Wikis change and adapt to the present, so perhaps these tidbits are somehow relevant at the present. ~MDD4696 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is a place for fact not speculation, or gossip.Angielaj 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's facts about speculation. A very fine distinction, but an important one. Speculating about the future isn't kosher, but reporting leading theories from reputable sources (aka professional speculation) is. Example article: Global warming. --Reverend Loki 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a distinction, to be sure. I think people are just concerned that there may be a risk of slipping in weasel words, which happens all too frequently on this article.Phoenix1304 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps people should appreciate that 'weasel words' are not 'weasel words' when they happen to be correct. some people are quite prone to accusing statements of being 'weasel' when they are precisely accurate. Sandpiper 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that due to the lack of facts about the book (because it has yet to be published), the speculation is important. It gives the reader something to ponder before the facts come out. Once they do come out, though, this section should certainly be removed, because it will then be irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.3.181 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 June 2007

Celebrities getting advanced copies

Shouldn't it be noted that Stephen Colbert happens to have an advance copy of the novel (Probably along with other celbrities)? Colbert flashed his copy on a recent edition of the Colbert Report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.197.100 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reference for this? --Pyreforge 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt this is anything more than Colbert being his facetious self. (especially given that he then went on to state that Hermione isn't a female!) Besides, for the previous books, Radcliffe and co commented that they would be getting their copies like everyone else on release day. If the principal actors aren't getting them, random celebs probably aren't either. Colbert's copy of the book is probably nothing more than a previous book (same number of pages? UK edition is anyway) with a printout of the DH dust jacket around the outside. Daggoth | Talk 09:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that was just a joke, the Publishers are keeping this book sooooooooo secret, it wouldn't make sense if they gave copies away to anyone, famous or not. 76.106.90.128 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And there I was confusing the man with David Colbert, who has written a book about HP. Guess he won't be getting one either, then. Sandpiper 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get you hands on a copy of the book in advance, make friends with the director of your local library. Public libraries get advance copies so they can be checked out on release day. Djdowns 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not true, at least not for my local library. They get it at the same time everyone else does - which explains the midnight parties. Then again, I live in Ohio, and if it isn't corn or Amish, we probably got it wrong. Phoenix1304 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note that just the other night, he brought out the DH book again. It's fake. The reason I can tell is because the book was about as thick as the third book, which was only over 400 pages. This book is 784 pages. --Crushti 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Foreshadowing or Chekhov's Gun?

This might be an inconsequential detail, but the literary technique referred to in the article as foreshadowing is actually called a Chekhov's gun. I just want people to know why it's changed.Phoenix1304 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, it seems it is also known as Foreshadowing, which suggests to it is not quite so clear cut as you suggest? Sandpiper 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Foreshadowing - a literary device in which an author drops subtle hints about plot developments to come later in the story"
v.
"Chekhov's Gun is the literary technique whereby an element is introduced early in the story, but whose significance does not become clear until later on."
So foreshadowing introduces clues that are significant to the outcome, and give the reader a general idea of where the story is going, while a Chekhov's gun only gains significance later on, at a deliberate point in the story. There is a subtle difference, but there IS a difference.Phoenix1304 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But subtle hints also gain significance later on in the work. Surely 'a gun on the wall' is a subtle hint that it will be useful later? Not a word gets into a book unless the author chooses, there is no such thing as random irrelevant conversation in a novel. But if there really is a distinction, then Rowling uses both? Sandpiper 08:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that she uses both, but the article refers to Chekhov's guns specifically, so maybe it should be expanded for clarity. I look at it like this: Foreshadowing is dropping hints. Chekhov's guns are for having the object in the story so it's there when the author needs it - not really hinting at anything at all.Phoenix1304 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The article on foreshadowing starts by giving the example of where a character might use a knife to whittle wood, early on in the story. Sound like Chekov's gun is one technique of foreshadowing? Sandpiper 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Chekhov's guns are techniques of foreshadowing, but not the other way around. See, Chekhov's guns can be absolutely anything - they don't even have to be a tangible object. They can be actions, or even just names dropped early on in the story. For example, Sirius Black in Harry Potter. He was mentioned early on in the first book, but there was no indication at all that he was an important character, until the third book.Phoenix1304 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you said that wrong, but it sounds as though the article was correct before it was ever changed, simply saying Rowling used foreshadowing? Sandpiper 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it wrong, and forgive me, but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I believe I made it quite plain that the phrase "pieces of information that only become important in later volumes", or however it was put, refers specifically to Chekhov's guns, and not the technique of foreshadowing in general. Now I think it's time to stop tabbing this thing, pretty soon it's going to be a one letter wide column.Phoenix1304 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a rephrase. I fancy Rowling uses foreshadowing generally, not merely chekov's gun. Sandpiper 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the article to say that the term in question is a type of foreshadowing called a Chekhov's gun. Maybe we could further edit it to say "one of many types of foreshadowing used by Rowling, known as a Chekhov's gun"Phoenix1304 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There, I've changed it again. Hopefully this will suffice.Phoenix1304 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just found there's an article on the term - hadn't encountered it before: Chekhov's gun. Helen-Eva 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism not properly reverted

Could people have a close look at the recent vandalism and repair it please? See here. The vandalism I found includes the following.

Initial vandalism
Incomplete response
More vandalism and a correct response but still not enough reversion
Someone notices that a section is missing
Strange edit and later fix
Protection
Someone noticed another section was missing
I noticed that one of the sections is still missing

Overall, I think everything got spotted, but it was worrying that it took so long for all the vandalism to be spotted - the ball seems to have been dropped here. I will notify a few of the people above who maybe could have checked before reverting. Possibly some bits are still lost. Could someone who follows this article more closely than I do check? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, problem identified. User:RMDRDR (a new user) only partially reverted the IP. Will deal with that separately on his talk page. Still, this kind of partial reversion is something to watch out for. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Carcharoth. You'd asked me to comment on this. Life's been a little crazy, hence the delay in responding, so I really don't remember exactly what happened here, though I think I saw that the IP had defaced the page several times and left a warning for that reason, even though I hadn't been reverting said vandal. I don't think I looked at the page history at all, only the IP's contribs, hence my not realizing that some of the vandalism was missed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows/Archive_14&oldid=1136787470"