Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reverted book seven release date (07/07/07)

I reverted these edits by 69.177.41.96. There was no citation, but after digging around, I found it mentioned here on HPANA; however, even this article notes in big bold letters that this is only a theory, and that Rowling has made no such announcements. Therefore, this is fan speculation. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an unsupported idea of when the book 'should' be published - I see no reason why it should be included here. David Arthur 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of this article

We have the ability to do something with this page as is now. I know Wikipedia not for speculation, but there are some things that are known to be true about book 7. Perhaps we could compile the factual things, things verifable through interviews, etc? Tuvas 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is the correct theroy because she always talks about how 7 is the most powerful magicla number. well why not give out your book on the day will 3 7s? [[User:unknown}]] 20:04, October 2006 (UTC)

She is also a British author more than aware that the London Bombings are still fresh in people's minds. And like others have said, never has JKR ever suggested the book will be released on 07/07/07. That is just a fan rumour. [[Cosmic quest:Cosmic quest}]] 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dates in this article and in the series are questionable . . .

I noticed that this article was lifted from the Book 7 page of the Harry Potter lexicon site ... but I do think that the idea is wrong ... anyone comment. 24.255.115.243 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See Dates in Harry Potter. The books aren't set in any particular time, fans just try to make them be in a particular time, which is why there are two Mondays in a row in book 4 and the PlayStation is an anachronism. Book 1 being set in is the most common theory, from Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake in Chamber of Secrets. Hermione1980 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

JKR herself confirmed these dates when she drew the Black family tree, citing 1980 as the year of Draco's birth. Cosmic quest 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WARNING! COPYVIO!

Okay, I have just compared the Lexicon's page on this with our article. Pretty much everything on this page except for the leading section is a copyvio, either directly quoted or with a few words altered here and there. I don't know how you want to handle this (remove? reword?) but we need to take care of it quick. Hermione1980 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've reworked it. The article is still pretty lousy, but at least it's not a copyvio. Hermione1980 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you can use the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems to take care of it immediately. Brian Jason Drake 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the damage was done by someone editing anonymously as 68.36.13.172, who when the page had a cleanup tag on it replaced the whole thing. Sandpiper 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clues from Azkaban film.

In the article it says there are some clues in the Azkaban film about the upcoming books. I've been thinking and do you know any things that are in the film that aren't in the Azkaban book, I've made a short list, please add to it.

• Shrunken heads
• When Sirius says to Lupin when he's turning into a werewolf, "This is your heart, your hearts hearts here!" --Daniel O^{my talk}. 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• On the Marauder's Map, a room marked Room of Doom --Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Non-verbal spell casting

Non-verbal spell casting wasn't in the book. You're kidding right? We've been seeing non-verbal spell casting since Hagrid's fire when he first sees Harry and a couple of examples from book 3 are when they treat Ron's leg and when they force Pettigrew to transform back. Brian Jason Drake 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I added that Marauder's Map thing. A user on IMDB reported it. It's supposedly when Harry's looking on the map and he sees Peter Pettigrew...can someone confirm? --Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just looked over the movie, it's true. It's when Harry gets out of bed looking for Pettigrew in the corridors. --Thrashmeister 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read in a Harry Potter essay somewhere that during the scene when Harry is learning the Patronus Charm from Lupin, Harry uses the memory (he's not even sure if it's a real memory) of his parents talking to him, just talking, as being a happy enough thought to conjure a Patronus. And in the book, Harry doesn't have this thought. Harry racks his brain a thrid time on page 241 of my American version of the book. "The moment when he'd first found out he was a wizard, and would be leaving the Dursle's for Hogwarts! If that wasn't a happy memory, he didn't know what was..." I think that an essay I read about how "the power the dark lord knows not" (a.k.a. love), is not truly evident in any spell other than the Patronus Charm. In the movie, Harry produces his Patronus based on his love, this time his LOVE for his family. Perhaps something with a Patronus produced by love will help defeat Voldemort... Emily 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Can people please knock off the speculation? Fan forums abound, but this is not one of them. Thank you. Hermione1980 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But J.K. Rowling SAID that there were clues to future books in the third movie. Perhaps it was books 6 when there's Dumbledore's trick with extinguishing and re-lighting a candle, along with the remark that "But you know, happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light." And sorry. Emily 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JKR spoke about the clues in the interview included on the DVD. Now, I think I saw somewhere that she referred to the scene with Remus talking to Harry, but I don't think she says that on the DVD.

I heard this somewhere, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Apparently in the movie, Sirius comments about how it will be nice to walk through the halls as a free man. Also, on his wanted poster it has the number 390. 199.126.166.13 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

People are too heavy handed about speculation. There is speculation out there, you can't deny it. Summaries of speculation should be included especially where it can be referenced to a peer reviewed source, which would include any web site where readers can post comments on submitted theories.--SmokeyJoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of what you mean by peer-reviewed sources? I personally don't think, for example, that fan forums have a high enough standard to be defined as a "peer-reviewed source", though that's my own personal standard. I don't know how other people feel, but I think we shouldn't change standards on Wikipedia by too much simply because there are a lot of Harry Potter fans who have a lot of theories about Book Seven. Disclaimer: just my opinion. Others may differ. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

An example might be: "There is widespread speculation that Dumbledore is not dead (see for example http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=44049&p=4)". It should be OK to cover fan speculation. I'd like to create a distinction here: this is not the place to speculate, but speculation, as it occurs out there and is verifiable, is OK to summarise. I'm not advocating a lowering of standards.--SmokeyJoe 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a discussion thread in a fan forum, which I don't think is up the the Wikipedia standards of a "peer-reviewed source". Now, there are some sources not up to the standards of peer-reviewed sources that would be fine because they are official Harry Potter sties. For example, if Rowling were to make enough note of people with that theory to comment on it in her official web site, it might be good enough to cover it. If there were mentions of this fan speculation on any of the official sites as noted in Harry Potter#External links, I think those would be fine. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The contents of a fan forum are "peer-reviewed" by any reasonable definition. But what kind of "source" are they? They a not a source of facts on the Harry Potter books, certainly. They are a source for the existance of speculation. Information on the speculation surrounding the books is worthy information for inclusion, just like other real-world information such as dates of release and numbers of books sold. The crude warnings against "speculation" should be changed to a warning to "not add your own speculation".--SmokeyJoe 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Your definition of "peer-reviewed" is slightly loose here. I think you're defining "peer review" as someone looking at what other people post on fan forums, then commenting on it. Fan forums do not go through a formal peer-review process that print publications go through. That is what distinguishes publishers from, say, the vanity press. That's what I mean by "peer-review". WP:NOR provides a great read on this information, and WP:V points out the need to use reputable sources of information. Regardless of whether the hosting web site is reputable or not, fan forums have posts written by anyone in the general public, and therefore their comments are not reputable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot one more reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the guidelines, especially "no original research". Actually, I have been trying to take the same position as you did in the talk archive in July 2005. But, I've been trying to say that the apparent ban on speculation is wrong. On this point, I am pleased to see that Evilphoenix has removed the offensive header. The real problem in my opinion is the insertion of uncited information. There is nothing wrong with speculation/theories (per se), as long as they have been published elsewhere. Recently, it has looked like Evilphoenix is an aggressive deletionist with a vendetta against speculation. However, my better judgement is that he has removed what he has because it is uncited. I note that among the fan forums, possibly acceptable publications of theories exist. In contrast, I would criticize http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ as an individual’s opinion piece that does not invite comments (aka peer-review). (It is, however, redeemed by its high quality)--SmokeyJoe 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is something that someone wants to add: "There is no official title yet but rumoured title Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat is not the title of book seven. However there has been mild speculation that Harry Potter and the War of the Wizards. When the title is reaveled is unknown. Many think the mysterious Room of Requirement (Now locked) on J.K. Rowling's personal site will tell the title and release date of seven when it opens again. When it does, we do not know."

Whether this is worthy is debatable, but its most immediate problem is that it is uncited and thus unverified. For example: Where (what publication) was the title rumoured, and by who? Where was it revealed that Pyramids of Furmat will not be the title? Where was that mild speculation published? Who thinks that about the Room of Req. and where was it published? We are supposed to be not interested in truth, but verifiability.--SmokeyJoe 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Pyramids of Furmat is one of the titles that have been circulating for some time now, and J. K. Rowling has confirmed it to be false. The rest (especially the title The War of the Wizards; the title is as yet unknown to anyone other than J. K. Rowling, and so posting rumoured titles for any purpose other than debunking them is completely unproductive) is merely unencycloopædic speculation, and although it is reasonably certain that both the title and publication date will at some point be available from her web site, there is no particular reason why it must come from the same 'room' as it did for The Half-Blood Prince. Also, for those who argue that simply inviting readers to add comments makes something a peer-reviewed source, I suggest a look at the article Peer review. David Arthur 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with David, but I meant to emphasize that contributions have to be cited (verifiable). After reading deep into the histories of these Harry Potter pages, I see that the failure to cite (even poorly) is consistently the worst failing of peoples contributions. I am not saying that by citing a fan forum thread you can make a theory encycloopædic, but it would be nice to see some serious attempts. Also, simply inviting, or having, comments does not make peer review, and peer review doesn't make something reputable, and reputable doesn't make something notable. But lets see if we can at least get people to cite. --SmokeyJoe 08:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation removed. Hermione1980 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My dad thinks (not seriusly of course) that Harry and Hermione will die, leaving Ron to marry Ginny.:-D Hybee 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well that's dads for you. Sandpiper 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wiki

Could some people help out at the Harry Potter Wiki, it's a fan club for Harry Potter fans. We are running out of users, so just click on this link the Harry Potter Wiki and please help out.Daniel O^{my talk}. 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable outstanding questions

Okay, it was inevitable that people would start adding stuff to these outstanding questions, but since I've seen these sections grow to massive proportions, I should probably start a section about it. How big should this section be? I don't want the past to repeat itself and have dozens of trivial questions take over this article again. I'm getting rid of the professions of James and Lilly Potter because that's not an explicit outstanding question arising from the book. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think these outstanding questions should be explicitly stated. Nowhere in book six does Harry Potter wonder what his parents did for a living. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the more citations the better. I'm not a huge fan of just randomly adding in outstanding questions. I think we should focus in this article on finding sources where Rowling is talking about this book, or other people's analysis of this book (The Lexicon has some great essays that we could use) rather than random speculation. Hey Deathphoenix, I could use your help over at J.K. Rowling, I'm madly working along on getting the article well cited, and I'm making some good progress. I'd appreciate your input on the Talk page and any contribution you'd be willing to lend to the process. I'm hoping to do some cleaning on the HPB article soon and maybe some similar stuff on Harry Potter too, which I've also cleaned out a lot of uncited stuff from. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try, buddy, though I'm particularly busy today. I'll add J.K. Rowling to our watchlist and see what I can do soon. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One good way to judge the value of these outstanding questions would be to see if there's already a Wikipedia article about it. Every one of the questions now posed has some reference to it on Wikipedia, with the only questionable being Hogwarts. Each of these has a pretty well-written list as to why people think it might happen, and why people think it won't, generally all quite accurate. Perhaps that should be the qualifying factor to add more stuff? --Tuvas 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a pretty good way to judge of it, though I think outstanding questions should really be mentioned on the book as something that is a definite "mystery". R.A.B. is an excellent example of this. The identity of the Horcruxes is another excellent example. Whether Hogwarts will stay open is kind of borderline in my opinion, but in the book, Hogwarts shutting down is actually mentioned as a possibility, so is worthy of mention. Other examples should be comparable with these, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Do you all think it appropriate to place dates on the statements here? I don't believe that there is an official timeline, and don't think it belongs here. Tuvas 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What statements where?--SmokeyJoe 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One example: Harry will turn seventeen on 31 July 1997. There are about 4-5 of these statements. Tuvas 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there's sort of this pattern that we're placing Harry's birth year as 1980, and thats where that's coming from. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Dates in Harry Potter. Pruneau 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am more interested in the thought that in a year or two, after the release of Book 7, the entire article will be re-written. Or will this page be moved to a Prior speculation page, as per Book 6? I guess that it will be, in which case the dates will not belong, as they are not the subject of speculation/anticipation of the release of Book 7.SmokeyJoe 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason I mention these dates is they really have no real proof, nor signifigance. They are a somewhat accepted theory, and that's about all. There is only one place in the books that even gives a hint of a date, to which all of these dates are based off of. In my mind they don't really belong here. Tuvas 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Prune the dates.SmokeyJoe 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

JKR just published some more dates with her release of the Black family tree (Harry Potter), though the wiki version does not list the dates, presumably because of the difficulty cramming them into the page. Warner brothers also published dates on their film DVDs (though admittedly I have yet to make the software work so I can see it). I imagine that relevant info from here will be carried forward to the new book 7 page, and this page will be kept for reference, as is the case for the equivalent page written before HBP was published. The book is about one year at school, so the relative dates/ages of all the characters are very well defined.

Title

Jo say in her website that she almost say one time the title of the seven book (In the F.A.Q. area, about the books, page 3 the last question). Anybody know when did that happen? --ometzit 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Protection?

Why is this page protected? It keeps fans from otherwise contributing to the page.

This page is protected because of alot of spam attacks. A registered user can in fact edit here, but I suspect the reson is long gone for this course of action. Tuvas 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore stuff

Whilst I'm at it, I might as well mention that in the "What to look for" section, someone should add something about the Phoenix imagery rampant in book 6 (especially at Dumbledore's funeral) and throughout the series. If you remember your Egyptian mythology, its quite likely that Dumbledore will make a Phoenix style comeback in book seven; Rowling isn't sadistic enough to kill off one of her fans' favourite characters.

Of course she is. She's done it twice, whether or not either one of them will come back. It has nothing to do with sadism - if the story calls for it, it must be done, and to heck with what the readers think. --DearPrudence 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See dumbledoreisnotdead.com

Uhm, this isn't the place to debate as to weither Dumbledore is alive or not. If you wish to engage in such debate, go to the many fan forms that are around. There isn't enough evidence to place the speculation that Dumbledore is alive on Wikipedia, with the possible exception being on his page, as some of the arguments as to him being alive. This page should be kept to nothing more than a brief mention that there is debate as to if he is alive, nothing more. Tuvas 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Better Book 7 Analysis Page

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7

This has a great rundown of what will happen in the book, based on past interviews; also great information.

And for a list of what the outstanding questions of Harry Potter are:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft

If you are looking for a well researched speculation check out this page SNAPE DIES: A THEORY ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BOOK 7 (Cvgbook7theory 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Other authors writing Harry Potter

"It is currently unknown, despite rumours, if Rowling will allow other authors to write novels set in the Harry Potter Universe not concerning Harry or the events covered in the series."

Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that Rowling isn't going to do this. --DearPrudence 16:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, per your feedback. I agree that it is unnecessary, but not because it's obvious Rowling isn't going to do this. I would agree that I don't think Rowling would do this, but never say never. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary, in an encyclopedia article, to speculate on something that's unknown. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

She specifivaly stated that she is going to "kill off" sevral of the main charicters to prevent this rather this means hair or not i dont know

extraordinary absence of storyline

I know this article bobs up and down like the remains of a shipwreck, but it really has been stripped of even the basic obvious elements which it must contain to be a coherent article. For example, an overview of the very very basic plot of the entire series Good=Harry v. bad=Voldemort, wizards/magic/mystery/whodunnit. Someone totally unfamiliar with the series who heard there was to be a new book and looked it up would get no idea what it is about. Sandpiper 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, though given that Rowling's been hoarding over her plot like a mother hen, I suppose that a plot summary of this book would pretty much amount to the following possibilities:

1. Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. He kills Voldemort.
2. Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. They kill one another.
3. Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. Voldemort kills Harry.

I'm sure there are some other plot elements I'm missing, but this is what I know for sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it would appear that over the years JKR has chalked up quite a lot of interview comments about forthcoming events, and now there is only one place they can go. Mostly veering towards the trivia end of plotting, but nonetheless from her. But the article had got to the state where it didn't even mention voldemort or horxruxes. Sandpiper 14:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need so much information about the series as a whole? I don't think something like the number of pages of the previous books is relevant to this article. Someone who has read the other books might find that the introduction is too long, and come to the conclusion that is no information specific to book seven in the article because it is too far below. I see your point about adding basic information about the Harry Potter series, but I think that a couple of sentences would be enough. If the reader wants to know more, they can follow the link to Harry Potter. Most readers of the article will probably be Harry Potter fans, and the article should remain useful for them. Pruneau 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I have put in three sentences at the top summarising the plot, and I think that is enough. The second para talks about how JKR originally outlined her plot, and how it has changed from then, and the third gives an idea of what sort of books these are. I put in the page count because it is a simple fact which demonstrates how the books have changed. Sime of this may be information common to all the books, but it does therefore describe this one. Sandpiper 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, this doesn't read to me as an article on book 7. My screen is filled by the first 19 lines of the article, and these 19 lines give no information at all about book 7. The articles on the first six books do not contain such an introduction. Anyone who wants to know about the success and general storyline of the Harry Potter series can read Harry Potter; anyone reading the article on book 7 will want information specific to book seven. I am tempted to rewrite your edits in a much shortened way, but I'd rather wait for input from other editors. Pruneau 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be WP:BOLD! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the more general information to a separate section. Wiki is not paper, you know, the article is hardly so long that we need to be deleting stuff from it. Sandpiper 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rewrite" in a "shortened way" doesn't necessarily mean deleting stuff. Even if Wikipedia is NOT paper, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to use 1000 words to express something if 750 words will say the same thing (minimalism is part of what I learned in the course of my job). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true. And I go round doing it too, condensing together bits of articles which are separated but really saying the same thing. But I'm still a bit wary about this article, which frankly has leant very much too heavily on one source. Better to do a bit more adding as diversely as possible. The intro/background could do with some references too. Need to look up where JKR talks about her plot/work program. Sandpiper 00:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Articles just cry out for pictures. I don't know if anyone has suggestions for one suitable image we might use? Sandpiper 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't exactly alot of pictures for book 7 floating around... Maybe some can be found though... Hmmm... Tuvas 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It already has two. Image:Current event marker.png and Image:Nuvola apps bookcase.png :-) Just don't forget that most Harry-Potter related pictures require a valid Fair use rationale. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of real life event related to the book might be good. JKR picking up a writing award? Publishers offices, if they look anyway decent? Even just a pic of JKR, as might go on a book jacket Sandpiper 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Harry Potter logo from Harry Potter. It's far from perfect, but it can do the job until we find omething better.Pruneau 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this?? http://harry-potter-fansite.ifrance.com/book6.jpg Daniel O^{my talk}. 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a fake (fan-made) cover image for book 6, when it was rumoured it would be called Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch. The guy next to Harry is Dumbledore; that's how he was depicted in the early English versions of book 1. Pruneau 21:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's Corenelius Fudge, not Dumbledore Oli 11:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear in book 1, does he? I think he's only mentioned by Hagrid. It would make much more sense if it wasn't Dumbledore, but I assumed it was him because in the later editions, it's definitely him. Pruneau 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in the later editions, it's definitely Dumbledore. However, on the earlier editions, the guy is shown wearing a striped suit (like Corenelius Fudge) and smoking a pipe (certainly not like Dumbledore. I wonder who is was actully meant to be. If it was meant to be Dumbledore, then it's quite an odd illustration (Oli 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Nicolas Flamel (the mystery of that book)? What would a pentangled star signify?Michaelsanders 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Coming of Age

I don't have a citation for this but Harry and Neville do not come of age at the "same time". Harry's birthday is on 31st July and Neville's on 1st August. Oli

That's slightly incorrect, Neville's is the 30th of July, but the idea is correct. Tuvas 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - I'll edit it now. Thanks. (Oli)

Book's title?

Do we actually know that it will be called "Harry Potter and the ..." (as obvious as it seems)? That's what's currently in the infobox. Brian Jason Drake 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt she'll change it now. It does seem a little forward but there's not much we can do about it now. There'll never be a consensus for removing it because everyone will leap up and say "She's bound to keep it" and if someone removes it without a discussion it'll be back there in five minutes. There's so many Harry Potter fans and they're generally so young that common sense doesn't apply to them.--Simondrake 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - sometimes you have to choose your battles with youthful editors carefully, to minimize the reversion wars and maintain some degree of peace. Go after the big targets - for example the fake book cover from France that was circulating with the title Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch (see above)... --T-dot 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, but I think in the interview she had with Emerson and Melissa she did say it was going to be Harry Potter and the _____, but I could be mistaken. Tuvas 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link: WBD chat (4 March 2004).

Potter47: What is the sixth book going to be called? The seventh?

JK Rowling replies -> It will be called 'Harry Potter and...' something. Catchy, don't you think? And I think I'll follow the same model for seven.

Pruneau 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's possible she won't. Look at the Unfortunate Event books. All EXCEPT the last have alliterative titles, maybe J.K. will do something differen't with the last.Flight29Down 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosopher's or Sorcerer's Stone?

At the bottom of the page.....the first book is called Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone. Edit? Why can't we edit this page?

"The Philosopher's Stone" is the title of the book when it was released in the United Kingdom. However, JK Rowling called the book "The Sorcerer's Stone" is the United States because she thought that newer title states more clearly that the book is more magical Oli 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No she didn't: her editor did. She had agreed because she was so new in the world of editing that she didn't dare oppose a big publishing house. She now says she regrets the title change. Lgriot 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I never knew that! Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't know that when I posted that comment. Sorcerer's Stone is better, though, in my opinion.

The Philosopher's stone is a historical fact. Although no real person is known to succeed in making it, many people tried! Including Nicholas Flamel who was a real person. Therefore, it makes no sense to call it the “Sorcerer’s Stone”. The reason they did it in the US is because the editors believed that American kids are too afraid of a serious topic like philosophy and would not read a book about a philosopher’s object, whatever it was. I would like to believe this is not true. What do you think? (Cvgbook7theory 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Beyond Book 7

The section contains good information, but should it strictly be in the Book Seven article? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

well for $%&*? sake, don't start a book eight article! This article is kinda about what happens next in HP, so I think it reasonable to mention anything known. Sandpiper 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure - I was being a bit too by-the-book lol. Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in Book 8, as a result of a final curse by Voldemort, Harry and Ginny give birth to Damien "The Omen". --T-dot 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha maybe... :P. On a serious note, perhaps this section could be placed into the Harry Potter article, rather than the Book seven one. What do you think? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it. As I said, I think the facts of JKR's known intentions do belong in this article. It is relevant that book 7 is intended to be the last, so all storylines will be tied up. The section doesn't really say very much else, just makes a joke about wizarding universities, which logically would be harry's next year of education, were the series to continue. i am not attached to the notion of mentioning universities, but it forms part of the quote where JKR says no more books. I judge it would not misrepresent the quote if it were shortened to remove mention of universities, but it is not really doing any harm. Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll leave it as it is. Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry/Ginny/Spiderman/Superman

If the given comparison ([1]) is correct (I've never heard of it), why remove it? Brian Jason Drake 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry and Ginny Weasley fell in love midway through book 6, but at the end he said he needed to leave her, for her protection as he went after Voldemort. (Spiderman and Superman provided the same reasoning to their beloveds, but both went on to get married in the end.) (posted by User:Matchups - contribs)

Because it would be pure fan speculation invented by "shippers" to suggest that Harry and Ginny would get back together and "marry" because Spiderman and Superman did, as implied by the deleted parenthetical phrase. Furthermore it constitutes Original Research. Finally the Superman and Spiderman story lines are totally irrelevant to the HP storylines. Such a post would be appropriate on a fan forum or blob page, or perhaps in the discussion area, but not on the front page of an encyclopedic article. --T-dot 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. Any Spiderman or Superman fan would know this aspect of their histories. Yes, the comparison is speculative, but so is this entire page. Providing information to help the reader make informed judgment as to whether particular speculation is reasonable is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia. Also, officially or not, there seems to be an entertainment aspect to Wikipedia. Why else, IMHO, would we have articles listing people born on various days? And one way WP provides this entertainment is by finding excuses for links to other articles. Matchups 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an answer to the last would be that there is absolutely nothing wrong with entertaining factual trivia in the correct place. I would answer your original question a little differently to T-dot. information is selected for inclusion on any page, so the question I ask myself is whether a particular piece of information is worthy of a mention. Funnily enough, having watched the GOF film, I would perhaps consider that the romance between Harry and Ginny becomes rather more important to a film viewer than to a book reader. The books mentioned romance, but the film highlighted it. I do not think this specifically will play a big part in the last book, but who knows? but, since actually I don't know, it is difficult to include it. It is quite hard to draw reasonable certainties about how the book will go from what we are told in the first six books. Most of the page actually is not speculation, but information from the author. Has she made any comments on what will happen to their relationship? Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right--the page is not speculation. It is primarily fact which encourages speculation. The comment about the other two superheroes is also that sort of fact. However, after thinking about it for some time, the key point is that the comment does not belong in this context, which is listing the open questions rather than discussing them. The comment would be more appropriate on Ginny's page, where the issue of her romantic history and future are discussed in more detail. Matchups 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Error

In the section "Information from JK Rowling" it says:

"After completion of Goblet of Fire she was interviewed and commented that she was startled by clues which had crept into the film, relating to the final outcome of the series. In particular, she referred to the scene where Remus Lupin talks to Harry about his mother, but she may have meant other scenes as well."

The movie that is suposed to be referenced is Prisoner of Azkaban. This is the movie Lupin talks to Harry about his mother. Remus Lupin is not even in Goblet of Fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luv2luvem (talk • contribs)

Incredibly ugly language

"Severus Snape has been an important and enigmatic character throughout the books, with it never being quite clear which side of the war he is on." Please, could we, PLEASE, have that in proper English such as "and his true loyalty has always remained unclear"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.57.25 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely. Be bold. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I can't edit the page. 87.122.57.25

I've edited it. Oli 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection on the article

Hey, can the protection be removed from this article? Someone who is an admin will have to do it, but I know there are a few admins around here. Yes, we run the risk of vandelism, but, there's always that risk. Tuvas 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

When you're signed in, you can edit it can't you? Oli 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't affect me at all (I always sign in, it's alot easier to find my pages to edit like that), but if you look above, how many people want changes that don't have an account? It's not an uncommon thing, it might just be time to make that change. Tuvas 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Typo/Mislinking

Under Notable Unanswered Questions:

Snape links to a Disambiguation page instead of Severus Snape

Elfich 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I'll change it now. Oli 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When it was edited, one of the links was linked properly, the other is linked as an edit request to Severus Snape. Elfich 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Dumbledore dead?

He could not be dead. I think you should take time to read this page. [2]

Is this comment directed at someone who has been insisting that Dumbledore is dead? Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore's state of being alive can be contested either way, but even with a website such as dumbledoreisnotdead.com, we most certainly couldn't post here on Wikipedia that he is alive, when he appearently died. I'll admit there's enough chance of such a thing to post that the point is contended, but not enough to outright say one way or another. Tuvas 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment is not directed to anyone. I put it on so people can read the clues on the page. I found it interesting. --Daniel O^{my talk}. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have enough information to outright say that Dumbledore is alive, but as Dumbledore appeared to be dead in the book, a fact which was not denied by the author, and with Wikipedia being a fact-based encyclopaedia, I don't think that, until an official confirmation is given, this possibility should be cited. If you're interested in reading more about Dumbledore's possible survival, you might find this article insightful. --Lividore 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In the section continuing storylines from previous books the section on Harry refers to Dumbledore being dead. The statement that Dumbledore is has been confirmed by JK Rowling. The rest of the sentance (headmaster portrait yada yada yada) is completely speculation. This should be addressed. Elfich 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

It says in the infobox that the book is to be released in 2007, however, it says in the relevant section that the date is speculated to be 2007. Do we have proof of a 07 release date? If so, it should be put in the section or refrenced... -- Banes 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof of a '07 release, however, it seems quite likely. As I recall, there is an interview with the british publisher saying that they hope to print the book in 2007. Still, it won't be official 'till JKR's said so. Tuvas 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the 07/07/07 possible release date I think it should be mentioned that this is now even more unlikely due to the London bombings. 82.109.228.38

Incorrect information

The first harry potter book was 300 pages, not 200 pages -- and also, the largest one was close to 900 pages (around 870) rather than the stated 600 pages.

The British Edition of the first book was 223 pages. As for the largest one (OotP), the British one was 760 pages, so you can say it was close to 800. --Lividore 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding questions

This topic was discussed above, but nobody added them in the end even though it was agreed that they could be added. I think that I should add them. Does anybody have any objections? If nobody replies, I'll assume not. Oli 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [Fixed link. Brian Jason Drake (diff)]

OK - there have been no replies so I will add the section. If anybody has any objections, please add them below. Oli 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The section has been added but needs improving. It would be appreciated it somebody could add to it. Oli 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is some overlap with the "continuing storylines" section. I'm not clear which items should be removed/edited where, perhaps someone else will be inspired to take this on. Matchups 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-read it and see what you mean. Do you think we should keep the section? Oli 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed How did Harry actually get Voldemort's powers? because Harry doesn't have HWMNBN's powers, so the question is meaningless. Matchups 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - then please explain this excerpt from Ch. 18 (Dobby's Reward) in Chamber of Secrets:

..."You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining ancestor [sic] of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." ^[HP2] --T-dot 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of this quote. Perhaps the issue should be reinserted on the main page, but rephrased. Something like "How were some of Voldemort's powers transferred to Harry the night he gave him the scar?" Though I wonder whether the question is generally seen as significant enough for inclusion. Matchups 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. That's what I get for being bold!

Actually, it seems to me that the question of the "hows" and "whys" of Voldemorts powers transferring to Harry would be far less interesting than, say, "Besides speaking Parseltongue, what other powers were transferred from Voldemort to Harry?". For example, when Harry "spoke" to the snake that was attacking Justin Finch-Fletchley in Chamber of Secrets / ch. 11 (The Dueling Club), the result appeared to be more of a command from clear authority than a simple plea or request, as "...miraculously - inexplicably - the snake slumped to the floor, docile as a thick, black garden hose, its eyes now on Harry."^[HP2]. This led many of the students (and to some extent, Harry himself) to believe that Harry was in fact the true Heir of Slytherin. Another interesting "power" is that that Harry was able to covertly "see into" Voldemort's mind in Order of the Phoenix without even trying ... this seems pretty remarkable as well. So anyway, you were not very far from the mark in deleting the original, rather "dull" question, and raising the issue. --T-dot 05:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, somebody's gotten rid of the section entirely. Could it be discussed here first?Oli 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else above already pointed out that a section titled 'outstanding questions' would really be repeating exactly what is already in 'continuing storylines'. it is the same thing. There is already a difficulty trying to split stuff in the two section, one based on info in the book and the other based on the sayings of JKR. She tends to have been asked and hence said something interesting about the important points in the books. It is bad form to repeat the same thing twice, but dificult to split it. I have tended to err on lumping it in with sayings of JKR, where she has commented on something and then not mention as a separate point arising solely from the books. Sandpiper 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The end

the end is near