Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Archives

• /Archive 1: original research complaints; unfounded theories
• /Archive 2: speculated release date; plot speculation; questions to be answered by the book
• /Archive 3: references; fake titles; more speculation; failed requested move
• /Archive 4: real title; questions about "hallows"; trimming of speculation
• /Archive 5: cited fan speculation; real release date; the meaning of "hallows",
• /Archive 6: long debate on inclusion of speculation on the meaning of "hallows"'
• /Archive 7: article length, some {{editprotected}} requests; continuation of above debate on "hallows"
• /Archive 8: continuation of above debate; minor article questions
• /Archive 9: continuation of Hallows debate
• /Archive 10: end of Hallows debate, release of the covers
• /Archive 11: more talk of the covers, image questions

Article Post-release

Just a thought. What should we do with the information on this article post-release? I think it might be interesting to archive the article a day or two before the release, and in some part start over, but keep the archived article for history. Yes, I know, you can go through the history and pull up the same thing, but in this case, I think it might be better just to archive the whole page and leave it be. Thoughts? Tuvas 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you already asked this question? John Reaves (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I made mention to it, but in a only semi-related post, I thought though the idea deserves attention in it's own right. Tuvas 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's an interesting idea. Sometime around July 21, we can get the permanent link of a the current version (e.g. today's is http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows&oldid=120327738) and post it in the archive box of the talk page. John Reaves (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

amazon.com adds a "muggle counter"

amazon.com has added a "muggle counter", which contains the amount of books that have been pre-ordered so far. I think that should be added to the article. (The current number is 468,628) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.87.212 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Wow. Almost half a million books already? dposse 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very impressive considering those are the pre-orders on Amazon alone and there are still 107 more days until it's released.

completely bogus quote

Has anyone noticed that in the "After Deathly Hallows" section, JKR is quoted as making a reference to "Harry's upcoming death" as though it's an established fact? She never said any such thing, as anyone can see by clicking on the link to the text of the interview this is supposedly taken from - someone must have put this in as a joke. Someone with more Wikipedia experience than me needs to fix it. Rebecca 206.21.128.67 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Jeremy Paxman interview? Because that text seems to be in the interview. I did removed a bogus quote with no source this morning, but I don't think it's still there. Leebo ^T/C 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the Scholastic interview. The article as it stands now quotes JKR as saying that "Harry's upcoming death in 'Hallows' makes writing an eighth unlikely." The actual text of the interview just says she has no plans to write an eighth book. Rebecca 206.21.96.137 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, where do you see that? I do not see any such quote in this article. dposse 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's gone now - I think my computer must have been accessing an old version of the article for some reason, and this has already been taken out? Sorry for causing any confusion. Rebecca 206.21.128.67 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Table of Contents

It is possible that the table of contents was leaked online through a bit torrent server and posted online at http://deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com. It may not be real, but shouldn't we maybe make a reference to it in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.17.114 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I promise you, for one thing, that this is not valid, unless somebody is one good guesser. And in any case, thanks for alerting us to this, but it's really not that unusual for something like this to be "leaked." I got at least three chapter lists emailed to me before HBP. I could make one up right now and send it to you. It's not notable enough. Thanks for asking though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That, and if other "leaks" turn up ... we'd be obligated to report all of them. I remember before HBP came out, there were three or four lists doing the rounds. One of them was genuine, but there's simply no way of telling this far out. Unless it gets picked up by the media or something. Daggoth S 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And JK doesn't do titles like that. Most of the chapter titles are names of characters. It's obviously "made up". Berserkerz Crit 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand that a website like "deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com" is a totally made-up freely-hosted fan web site, and not in any way any sort of reputable source. If the Mugglenet and other well known semi-reputable sites, which Rowling has at least acknowledged as useful or interesting on her website, take up the cause and can provide some reliable sources for their information, then we can discuss posting it as an encyclopedic entry on the Wikipedia. Otherwise we damage the reputation of the Wikipedia by posting the latest unsourced nonsense made up by the crazy fanatics out there. That's not what we should be here for. The Wikipedia should strive to have a bulletproof reputation, given the policies and guidelines. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think mugglenet et al have adopted a policy of not posting, and removing on sight, any information like that unless it comes e.g. from the publishers. Some chapter titles may be officially released before publication, it happened before. On the whole, as a matter of not spoiling the books for people, I think we should only be hosting information based upon things which have been officially released. It is fair game to report what people are saying about it based on official information, but it is not our business to release anything before the publishers do, and certainly not if it is wrong. Sandpiper 08:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of North American Launch

I want to add a very brief "Criticism of North American Launch" section as North America is receiving the book several hours (depending on time zones) later than the rest of the world. I will write it, I just don't want to write it, then have people delete it and have it go to waste. So feedback now would be appreciated. Many wikipedia pages have various criticism sections so i think it would be fair. And it doesn't have to be big, just a little paragraph at the end of the article. --Mariokarter

You will have to source it with reliable sources that are not fan created websites or personal blogs or it will be deleted as original research. If this is your own personal opinion, then it has no place here on wikipedia. dposse 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the feedback. I'll just wait to see what some other people have to say first. If I do write it i'll make sure to post it here first to make sure that it has that formal tone and proper citations. --Mariokarter

Sounds good to me. dposse 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it down, and we'll critique it once you've written it. As long as it's sourced, it should be fine. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If the criticism is just this only, it should better be inlined (provided it comes with an acceptable ref). --soum (0_o) 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

http://deathlyhallowsleaked.googlepages.com isn't available anymore

Wraparound Cover

I think someone should include a description of what a wraparound cover is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Why? dposse 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well on the news it was stated that this cover was a "wraparound cover", and that there hadn't been a wraparound cover since book 3, but after examining all the covers myself (I own the American versions of books 1-6), they seem rather similar. I think the notion is that a fair bit of people won't get what a wraparound cover is, and that some clarification could be used. --Beep Beep Honk Honk 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

I think some discussion on the matter of the films article being redirected to this page is needed. There is info about the film from reputable sources (See [1] & [2]). --RockerballAustralia 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the extrapolated date for the release of a hypothetical film version of DH is Summer 2010, unless Warner Bros. chooses to accelerate the HP production schedule. Similarly HBP is anticipated to be late November 2008. Any speculation outside of what Warner Bros. has officially announced would be highly suspect, and probably disallowed - WB has not said much about HBP yet, much less DH. We are not required to report on the ramblings of folks at low-credibility news ragsheets who know less about the subject than most of the semi-respectable information gathering depots - like the Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron. I expect that when there is sufficient notable information available at the usual sites, and WB has at least acknowledged the intent to produce the film, then we can start an article on it. Until then - probably not. Thanks for asking though. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this will be made a film; in fact, it's been confirmed that the actors will return. But see WP:NOT#CBALL. With information only that those three actors will return, and David Heyman back as producer, it's such little information for something so far in the future that it just doesn't meet the guidelines for the existence of an article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in apropriate to redirect films article being redirected to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article. So, if they get to films article, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production, not information about the book. Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details. -12.218.155.57 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that if someone types …Deathly Hallows (film) they're looking for the film and not the book, but the film is too far in the future for it to be an article now. Consider that pre-production is only just beginning on Half-Blood Prince. By redirecting the film article to here, we're saying that they're such little information about this for it to be a real article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it should be a redirect. It should better be deleted, for now. --soum (0_o) 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, probably the best place to post the bits and pieces of info on the hypothetical DH film might be at Harry Potter Films, until it can grow well beyond a 2-sentence stub on when it might be targeted for release, and who might be returning as actors and crew. Perhaps the redirect should be sent there. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I think the DH film qualifies as a verifiable, widely interesting, noteable, almost certain to take place (money has already changed hands), preparation already in progress, not a member of a recurring sequence (eg 2012, 2016, 2020 election) and is entitled to an article under the terms outlined in not-a-crystal-ball. It may not be a very big article, but since everyone out there knows perfectly well there is going to be a film, inevitably people will keep trying to create it. Even if it is little more than a redirect referring people here for likely plot inclusions, it seems to me a lot simpler just to create it as an article. Sandpiper 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic interview - further HP books

I'm sure that most people would agree with me that the phrase "she doesn't plan on further Harry Potter books" refers to Rowling's current plans. This can only be justified using an interview from 7 years ago if you also provide evidence that her plans have not changed since then. Lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. The quote says it all:

At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book. (emphasis added)

I have already edited the article in the past over this issue and been reverted. Brian Jason Drake 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your point. Certainly she is free to change her mind, and may do so (if the money ever runs out) or not. But using definitives like never would not be a true statement. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? She has said it many times that this book is the last one. On her own personal website, she stated "I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be. Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years."[3] That's from the author herself. How you can argue with that or speculate about it on an encyclopedia is beyond me. Anyway, you cannot add speculation to this article, we can only report what we can verify. For now, what we can say is that JK Rowling has no plans to write anything after the series except for, perhaps, "an encyclopedia in which I could have fun with the minor characters and I could give the definitive biography of all the characters." [4] dposse 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that she plans for this book to be the last. I am disputing the use of interviews from so long ago to justify such statements. We should at least add a better (more current) reference alongside the Scholastic interview. Brian Jason Drake 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you two. The most recent one is the blog entry she posted on her website. We'll use that. dposse 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the blog entry as a reference. Brian Jason Drake 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that's nice, but her comment from her website is already quoted in its entirety as the last entry in that section. Has been throughout this discussion. Does no one read the articles? Sandpiper 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

There has recently been a good deal of edit warring on this article, including at least one violation of the three-revert-rule. Note that the rule prohibits any one editor from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, no matter how the reverts are spaced out within the 24 hours. Not also that any change that effectively restores a prior state of the article, or re-inserts or re-removes disputed text counts as a revert, even if done in conjunction with other edits. Note also that edit warring is a very bad idea even if the 3RR is not technically broken. Please try to come to agreement by some means other than edit warring. I have closed a report on the 3RR noticeboard with a strong warning, because the reverts involved stopped 2 days ago. But further violations of the 3RR are likely to result in a block for any and all editors violating the rule. Thank you and happy editing. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship?

There is zero mention of the british tabloid press leak (widely reprinted worldwide in newspapers) which says in HP7 namesake hero Harry Potter will have to give up his magical powers in order to stop Voldemort and save his friends from "eternal darkness", whatever that means. This is highly significant info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

A tabloid is probably not a reliable source. By the way, how exactly is it censorship if no one has even heard of this supposed article? Give a link and we'll consider it. dposse 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hem Hem Hem. We should not even consider this (key word: Tabloid!). If you can provide a reliable source, then we can consider it.Quatreryukami 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that newspapers aren't the most reliable of sources but I think you're underestimating the quality of the british tabloids. The Times, the most respected newspaper in England (Unless you're a Telegraph person) now comes in tabloid form and if you ignore the sensationalist overly-conservative anti-labour propogands in the Daily Mail that's not a bad paper either. Of course the Sun, Star, Sport and anything with topless chicks on page 3 is not to be trusted. On another note, the information may not be correct but if it's in a newspaper then it might gain widespread recognition, even though it's false, it's good to know about it in advance incase it does become worthy of note- noting that innacurate rumours were being spread in the newspapers as 'fact'.

Sign your post man. Anyway, I don't know much about the british papers, I'm an american, so sorry bout that. Quatreryukami 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids can be accurate sources - sometimes. Occasionally. Rarely, even. Show us a link! Our local paper usually picks up on absurd British stories, but I haven't heard of this one over here in AU. Daggoth S 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the hurry to put such info even if it is true? The book will be out in a few months. Let people enjoy reading the book and finding out for themselves what will happen. Berserkerz Crit 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume this is censorship. None of the top fan sites, usually quick to report any information, had any story about this. None of the three papers in New York (I just searched) had anything about "eternal darkness" recently. If you tell us where you found this, we may decide to put it into the article, but it sounds highly unlikely -- not for censorship, but because Wikipedia does not carry rumors. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I did notice, however, that at least one website was adopting a spoiler policy of not posting anything unless it was from a cast-iron source, and officially released. This might not include newspaper reports. I would suggest that Harry is likely to lose at least one magical power if he kills Voldemort....his link to Voldemorts mind. (well, I hope so anyway. Haunted by Voldemort?). That may sound like a daft quip, but it is not necessarily: I don't know where this report is supposed to come from, but a quip like mine might get blown up into a story, 'Harry loses powers'. Sandpiper 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagenumbers of UK version based on wrong rumours

Although the number of 608 pages for the UK version of DH can be found all over the Internet, it is based on wrong information. Bloomsbury have never confirmed the number of pages. The source of this rumour is probably an erroneous entry on amazon.co.uk which has been copied by numerous other sites. The number 608 should be removed from the article and it is perhaps worth mentioning that this unconfirmed information is based on a mistake. AberforthD 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Leaky and Mugglenet reported when the covers were released, that they confirmed the 608 page count with Bloomsbury somehow. That's good enough for me. Daggoth S 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaky reported that 608 first turned up on a bookseller's website[5], and the number was then confirmed with Bloomsbury on the day of the cover release.[6] There's no link to a Bloomsbury announcement or anything , but I don't see how we can remove the info from the article when there's nothing in the media (that I can see anyway) saying "Amazon probably got the number wrong". Daggoth S 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think the statement of 608 pages is too strong given the weak basis of our sources. I don't want to cast any doubt on Mugglenet's or Leaky's sources, but I can hardly see how a statement on their site that they checked with Bloomsbury can be taken for an authorative confirmation. In my opinion there is still no official confirmation of the UK pagecount and the article should reflect that. I propose to formulate it as follows: "The book will be 784 pages in the US edition and is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition". AberforthD 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Horcruxes

There were seven pieces but two got destroyed, weren't there? Simply south 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

His soul was split into seven pieces. Six were used to create horcruxes. The 7th piece was the one which never left Voldemort's body. We assume this one "was destroyed" (at least as far as we of this plane are concerned) in the incident in which Harry received his scar. At least, if I am interpreting this all correctly (haven't re-read HBP since it came out). I also assume that one horcrux was "used" at tis point to bring Voldemort back in diminished form. We are also led to believe that Tom Riddle's diary was a horcrux, and was destroyed in Chamber of Secrets. Then there is the ring that Dumbledore found and destroyed. So, 3 horcruxes down, 3 left (which, including the soul piece that is Voldemort's current incarnation, still makes 7). We know one of them is an amulet. That leaves two unknown, one of which may be that giant snake (but we don't know for sure). So, there you go. --Reverend Loki 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong... That's the same thing I thought at first, but after re-reading it, it states that Horcruxes act like anchors, they keep the soul here. So Voldies soul wasn't destroyed in the incident at the beginning of the series. That piece can't be destroyed until every other piece is destroyed. So the correct count is, two down, 4 to go (The soul in Voldies body isn't a Horcrux). Tuvas 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's right. Harry has to find the horcrux's and destroy them before he can attempt to take out the seventh and last piece of his soul, which is in his body. dposse 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up you two. --Reverend Loki 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Leak?

See also: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows § 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)

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 :(

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." [7] (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)

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)

Other registered titles

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)