Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Normiad (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 3 July 2008 (→GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2005Articles for deletionKept
August 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 25, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 16, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Film adapation

I think one should write when the next casting for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows film is. I really want to know when it is or can maybe someone suggest a site where it's written??

Wikipedia is not somewhere where you can figure out how, when, and where to have casting. It is honestly not needed in the article's section at all. All that is needed it who the actors are after the casting is done. ~ Bella Swan 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can maybe someone say when the casting is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.116.35 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on when the writing strike ends. --Jammy (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive list

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Archives box at the upper right lists "Archive 18" in the spot where Archive 28 should be. It links to the proper archive; just the name of the archive on this discussion page is wrong. I've looked at this several times now but cannot seem to spot the problem. I need a second set of eyes - anyone available? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is bizarre. I tried taking out the link, but it was still there, so I put it back in. It's Christmas Eve, so if it's not fixed by Wednesday, I'll try again. I've made a few archives myself. Might have to completely change the type of archive box used. It's different from what I've used before. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency?

I recently removed the US dollar value for a price in the article, and it was reverted ([1]), citing WP:MOS. I can't see anything there that indicates that the US currency should be listed - it only says that it should be listed for "less familiar" currencies, and I think that the pound hardly constitutes a "less familiar" currency. Does anyone have any input on this? Thanks, Aseld talk 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for reverting it is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mos#Which_system_to_use . It's under units of measurement, so it's a bit of a stretch to apply it to money, but I think it's appropriate. As an American, I have no idea what a pound is worth, I've never had the need to use them. So, adding these few characters greatly improves the quality of the article and the usefulness thereof. I think there would be a problem if is only said the US value, or if it listed it first, but as a small addition it's quite helpful. Darkage7 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why US? Why not, say, the currency of China or India, two of the most populated countries in the world? Say I'm Indian, and have no idea what a dollar or a pound is worth - should my currency be listed? Just because it's convenient for one person (you) doesn't mean it's necessary or desirable. If one were to carry that reasoning a little bit further, why not list conversions to all currencies? The reader of the article can easily convert to any currency with a quick Web search, which would give the current exchange rate, not the exchange rate in some year that no one can even find out without going back through the page history. Aseld talk 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument to include the American dollar figure is two-fold: first, as the largest English speaking country in the world, more Americans will view this page than any other nationality and second (and perhaps more importantly), more copies of Harry Potter books have been sold in the United States than in any other country. faithless (speak) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're reasoning is somewhat flawed. We should have the US currency because it is the most common currency in the world when it comes to comparisons (which is I presume why the MOS recommends it). However there is no evidence that more Americans will read this page then any other. Many people choose to read English language articles even if English is not their first language and there are a lot of non-first language speakers in the world, way more then the number of Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm just going by WP: MOS. (And, in case you were wondering, the English Wikipedia is primary used by English speaking people, so the currencies of the largest English speaking nations are listed.) Darkage7 (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darkage7 is correct. You can read Wikipedia:MOS#Currencies. It says:

  • In country-specific articles, such as Economy of Australia, use the currency of the country.
  • In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars (US$123).
Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my apologies, and thanks for clarifying. Aseld talk 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paperback

I'm not sure if this is something that should be in the article somewhere (under "Editions", or in the infobox thingy on the right side, that sorta thing I guess)... anyway, the release date for the paperback will be Jul 5 2008, at least according to my Amazon search. - Ugliness Man (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but isn't that only the Canadian edition? Is that the only paperback being released? DaRkAgE7 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's 5th of July for all books I think. The Uk one is certainly coming out on July the 5th. --Jammy (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hello. I'm reviewing this article as a GA nomination, and there are several things I'd like fixed before I pass the article. Here's a bulleted list to make things easier.

  • I'm really concerned about the number of {{fact}} tags. As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any in a proper GA.
  • Be sure all facts that should be are cited - dates and other figures should be cited, imo.
  • Perhaps the epigraph mentioned should be quoted.
  • The plot summary is quite long, a bit of trimming may be in order. Most looks good, but try to keep things moving and only include the important details.
  • Citations should be at the end of sentences.
  • I would be more likely to put the pre-release stuff at the beginning of the article, but that's really a personal style thing, so it's up to the person responding.
  • The sales section is very well-referenced, good job on that.
  • The translation section isn't in good summary style, that really should be fixed.
  • I think the lead could be a bit longer, especially because of the length of the article, please see WP:LEAD.
    I agree with that NoRmIaD (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you've finished with all that, please give me a poke and I'll take another look. This should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this was on hold for awhile, and it seems that it hasn't been looked at, I'm afraid I have to fail this GAN. Please contact me if you've got any questions or concerns. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

film split confirmed

the following is from http://www.evannalynchfans.com

"Well guys you will get the news first. Today I went down to Millennium Bridge to check out the filming for HBP. They were set up at the base of the bridge, there was quite a lot of equipment. I got speaking to one of the crew who was really friendly. There were about 120 extras standing on the bridge. There was a helicopter that was filming it all and coming down right close to the bridge to get the shots. The crew member told me that they will have stunt men jumping/falling into the Thames from the bridge later on (shame I couldn't stay to watch it).

They closed off the area when the scenes were being filmed but you could still see everything. They are only allowed to film every half hour, so as to allow members of the public onto the bridge. I then started speaking to the crew member about filming, I asked him about Deathly Hallows and YES IT WILL BE SPLIT INTO TWO MOVIES!!! which will be shot continuously. There are also still location shoots to be done in London but he said he's not allowed to tell me where."


shall we mention this or wait for someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mugglenet is now reporting this as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error in summary?

Where the article has it that Dumbledore

says that just as Voldemort cannot die while his soul fragments remain, Voldemort cannot kill Harry because he used Harry's blood (which carries the ancient magical protection his mother gave to him through her sacrifice years before) in his resurrection

--can someone with the book before them confirm this? Because if that's the case, then the final confrontation between the two was a sham - there was no way that Voldemore could've killed Harry then, either. Don't want to get into a discussion of the book per se, just don't think this is accurate. --Andersonblog (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what that says is correct. Jammy (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (Neville Longbottom) Lewis confrims film split

it is currently (at the time of this post) at the top of mugglenet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article mention the reason given for the split? It is being attributed (in the press I have seen) to coverage of the material - but, of course, that coverage also notes that it will also yield hundreds of millions of dollars in additional profits to release a second movie. bd2412 T 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not until we have a couple of sources that confirm it, and then we choose the more reliable of those concurring sources. At Wikipedia, there is no rush to be the first with the story. We just have to be accurate. Allow me to repeat that: WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Times, page 39. Happy‑melon 12:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Deathly Hallows is so rich, the story so dense and there is so much that is resolved that, after discussing it with Jo [Rowling], we came to the conclusion that two parts were needed" - David Heyman
"Films will be made back to back by David Yates"
"Radcliffe... said the decision to split the final book was motivated by artistic concerns rather than the hope of making another £450 million from cinema audiences"
"The Deathly Hallows films will be released six months apart, at Christmas 2010 and in summer of 2011"
"This way, we have an extra hour and a half to celebrate what this franchise has been and do justice to all the words and ideas in the amazing story. This is the end of the story too. We want to give it a full meal" - Alan Horn, president of Warner Bros Entertainment
All from Malvern, Jack (March 14 2008). "Longer spell at box office for Harry Potter". The Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Happy‑melon 12:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that as it is one film, released in two parts (like Kill Bill), we'll only be needed one article when it starts shooting (like Kill Bill, again)? I see no need for two articles, but I'm thinking that some other might. Gran2 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill is a case of a film being cut-up in the editing room, but Yates and Kloves are making two films based on one novel. Do it as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (films), and split when the second film's title is confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the second part will be given a different title. Why would we need to split them anyway? We probably won't have so much useful content that the page size goes too high. Happy‑melon 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best option is to have both films in one article, and then split the article into two sections for each part. And it's unconfirmed on what the titles will be so it's best to leave it until more information is released to public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammy0002 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"s are unencyclopedic!

That's why I'm getting rid of all of them in the article, except titles! 208.126.51.37 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Happy‑melon 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wth do thata men!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.51.37 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...he agrees with you? (Heard of Dictionary.com?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page?

Is it really necessary to have a redirect page titled "Harry potrer and the deathly haallow"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.53.21 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But chances are, in a room full of monkeys searching Wikipedia by typing randomly on a keyboard, the page will be found. I guess it's not entirely useless after all. :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well turns out there ain't no such page. Don't create it, not even to save the monkeys some time. Instead go teach them how to touch-type. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To create HP8 article

The phrases "HP1" to "HP7" redirect to the corresponding Potter books, but HP8 does not yet exist. I recommend creating it. A true eight novel (not a background book but a story) is being created by JKR. The only thing currently known about it is a chapter title: "First clash of the monolith". It is theorised to refer to the Ayers Rock, as Hermione still needs to go to Australia to recover her parents. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Give us a link of the press release and I'll get right on it for you. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a prequel, which is meant to be set 3 years before Harry's birth. Would that really be classed as HP8? Jammy (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's not an actual book, [2], so I'm not actually sure whether an article is appropriate. Maybe a section under Harry Potter? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sales" Section Removal

On 6 May, apparent vandalism resulted in most or all parts of this article being removed. Most parts were restored over the next few days, but the "Sales" section has, apparently, never been restored. I suggest that the "Sales" section be restored to this article, using the version in place as of 6 May (with, perhaps, some updates). Fragesteller (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names in Epilogue

Rowling, on her website behind the door, provides middle names for four and only four of the children introduced in the Epilogue: James Sirius, Albus Severus, Lily Luna, and Scorpius Hyperion. I see little stylistic reason in this context for including middle names only for the first three (Harry and Ginny's children) and omitting that of the fourth (Draco's son). She clearly had a reason for including this name: presumably, to make a connection to the "astronomical" naming theme in the Black family line (i.e., Draco's mother's family), since Hyperion is both a mythological figure and one of Saturn's moons. Fragesteller (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows&oldid=223346016"