Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 18, 2011.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Novels: Harry Potter Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Top-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"Snape passed his memorys to Harry"

With regard to these changes - can you explain why they are better than the existing text?

Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reversion without rationale here - please stop your editwarring as you're now at 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it neither of those wordings are clear enough. Either due to the need for brevity or because of knowing too much about the plot already, that wording has failed to explain in a way that would be more meaningful to someone who might not be so familiar with the story. Say what you can see.

Snape gave Harry his memories? How did he do that? Snape tells Harry to take his tears to the Pensieve, and from the tears Harry can see Snapes memories. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to rephrase this to be clearer, and although there is probably room for improvement I think I did make the wording better without making the plot section any longer.[1] Hopefully other editors will try to keep this change (or write a better version) if the plot section needs to be reverted again for some reason. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I think Harry potter and the Deathly hallows part 2 deserves a wikipedia page about box office records it broke back in 2011. It is one of the biggest release of this century and it broke almost every major box office record at the time of release. It deserves a wiki page. Star wars 7 and Endgame also have one. (ps: I know this isn't the best place to discuss this but I don't know where else I can do this discussion) 223.229.250.95 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is now in drafts 92.236.253.249 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

Hey! The avengers movie was released in 2012, months after the release of HP8 therefore, its record ( fastest to 1 billion) wasn't tied with The Average. I think it should be corrected in wiki page. Thank you! 223.229.250.95 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers budget

The Numbers have an individual budget for Part I and II "$125 million." If someone can source it for me, that'd be highly appreciated. Thanks!

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-I#tab=summary

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-II#tab=summary DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parts 1 & 2 were filmed together on a budget of $250 million, and it is obvious that The Numbers has just split the joint figure. However, I would say that is misleading because the $125 million does not reflect the effective cost of the film i.e. the cost of many things is common to both films and there won't be an exact split. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epic movie?

I don't know anything about Harry Potter beyond the awful views of the series' creator, but apparently Fernan1254 has attempted to classify this movie as an epic film. Is this accurate? Should it be put in? I don't know, but I'm attempting to start a discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This happens often in films of this nature. Most times it is added because it is considered a term of praise and, as the Wikipedia article on it says, The usage of the term has shifted over time, sometimes designating a film genre and at other times simply synonymous with big-budget filmmaking. However, this is to be considered a genre as any other genre, and per WP:FILMGENRE, only the main genre is to be included in the lead section. Exceptionally, when many genres may apply, reliable sources must be provided to justify the inclusion of more genres, showing that two (or three) genres are attributed to the film in equal measure. This is not the case here, and if it were, the editor who wants to add the genre must be the one to provide the sources that show that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is equally described as a fantasy film and as an epic film. —El Millo (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes related to genres happen so often that there's an essay dedicated to it and a specific set of warning templates (from {{Uw-genre1}} to {{Uw-genre4}}) to those who add unsourced and WP:UNDUE genres. —El Millo (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]