Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

This article is named Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 as mirrored within the copyright text of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 Blu-ray case. Please do not move this article. Hallows Horcruxes 08:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be true but why wasn't the move log used. And if the redirection already existed we should have requested it to a administrator. It's all good though I have made mistakes like that in the past and I am requesting an administrator to handle it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright the history is restored. I appreciate your edits so far. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel this article should be combined with the first film. After all, Kill Bill is listed as a single article despite being released in two parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeRodriguez (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast List

The cast section of this article seems to be growing bigger and bigger despite the fact that there is already a list of Harry Potter cast members. There have been attempts to change this, however I'm concerned that it still doesn't adhere to the section on cast lists of the film manual of style . I would like to try and establish some sort of consensus here on whether there should be a cast list and if so, what should the requirements be in order to prevent any future conflict. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial proposal: My suggestion would be the inclusion of significant characters that only appear in this film with the link to the main List of Harry Potter cast members article remaining at the top of the section so that people can find other characters who appear in the other films as well as this one. It seems unnecessary to include every character who appears in the film when there is already a list of all cast members throughout the series, especially since so many edits seem to be adding more characters. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. So specifically what are the recommendations that you purpose so far? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now added a proposal under the original comment. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the limit with the main cast? Who do you think should go and who shouldn't. I actually thought there was a consensus done with this with all the films a while back. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is already a consensus then that would be better than any suggestion that I could make. I‛ll take a look for it later. Thanks for pointing it out. --Mrmatiko (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the talk pages for all the other films, I can see that the cast list issue has been discussed at least once, if not multiple times on each of them. I can't see any clear consensus even on the part 1 talk page where there are at least 5 discussions on the cast list. It would probably be better to wait until the cast list has actually stabilised (after the film has been released) before trying to do anything about it, though I suspect there will be cast list edit wars until then. Mrmatiko (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have found the official cast list here. (It's up on the page now, sourced. However, my sourcing is poor - feel free to correct it!) The link is here: http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/harrypotterandthedeathlyhallows/hp7b/index.html in the About the Movie section, where it lists the current version of the main cast. Evil Genius77 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The big thing about the cast list that I'm not sure about is the descriptions - they seem rather poorly worded and for some characters provide plot points that aren't strictly relevant or necessary, and may well be viewed as spoilers for people wishing only to find out who's in the film, not what happens in it. For example, "the film's main protagonist" is surely enough for Harry Potter; " the film's main protagonist. Later on, father of Ginny's children, James, Lily,and Albus" seems like overkill. I've edited it to give all characters in the description capital letters, but I'd rather scrap the extraneous material altogether. Thoughts? 78.109.188.61 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick note, Professor Flitwick is not a goblin. The page his character is linked to confirms this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.240.237 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

i think there is a cameo of j k rowling. When adult harry arrives in Kings Cross in the train behind him you can se j k rowling and her husband any confirmations yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.231.46.219 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers

Spoilers: Should there really be in so many spoilers in the cast page before the movie comes out? I guess most people have read the book but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.121.154 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers are covered by the content disclaimer and the policy on spoilers, with a detailed cast list this is inevitable. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Part 2 Poster.

I would like to remind everyone that the only official poster for the film to date is the current one on the main Part 2 page. (Harry and Voldemort holding the elder wand) Until Warner Brothers release the final official poster, then we should update it, cause right now, users continue to upload new character banners each time, citing them as the official posters, when they are not. B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no 'official poster'; just shit-loads showing all sorts of characters. However, the one with Harry and Voldemort facing off is probably the most appropriate given that they're the two main characters. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, thats why I continue to revert the edits made to the poster, back to the Harry and Voldemort poster. Is there in protection we can put on that section until the final poster is released? B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to request semi-protection until the film is release on July 15. The running-time keeps being changed too from a properly sourced value. It won't stop all the bad edits, but most of them are coming from IP editors. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably worth requesting semi-protection until all the 'well-meaning' fans find another film to get hard over. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, too many editors continue to change the Poster and runtime, not to mention the cast list :/ B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. There are some other websites believing that the poster with Harry, Ron and Hermione is the official poster, but this one says that Harry and Voldemort is the official poster, why can't we think that the Harry, Ron and Hermione poster to be the official poster than the other websites like IMDB, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes? Unless, there can a poster featuring Harry, Ron and Hermione with credits hidden someone on the internet. Ceauntay59 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Check out Internet Movie Database, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Do they think that the Harry, Ron and Hermione to be the official poster is a lie? I just want to know which poster is the official one when there is no title and billing blocks in it, just pictures and release date :( Ceauntay59 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an 'official poster'.raseaC^{talk to me} 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the poster that you are looking for; it has the credits at the end: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=media&img=33494&id=harrypotter72.htm and its displayed on both boxofficemojo and rottentomatoes--Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That poster has to be the final and current one... Please don't change back the harry and voldemort poster because that's done for... This may look the same like the other poster featuring characters, but this one has billing blocks and title in it. Ceauntay59 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 from Harry Potter wiki has the same poster but without the credits and title. Why can't we just let the other poster to be the main one currently? Ceauntay59 (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the poster and caption for now, we need to determine which one is the official final one, and then semi protect it, along with the caption. B.Davis2003 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Harry and Voldemort poster is back! Ceauntay59 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The current poster is NOT the theatrical poster. The Harry-Ron-Hermione is the one, which is being used for this purpose. It has the title of the film as well the credits displayed. The Harry-Voldemort poster is just one of the numerous promotional posters that we have for the film. IMDB, Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes uses Harry-Ron-Hermione as the main poster, so why do we have to be different? Decodet (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone should change the poster to the Harry-Ron-Hermione poster because it has the title, the credits and the main characters. The rest are just teaser posters including the Harry-Voldemort poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.78.208 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be changed to the poster most likely soon, maybe once the film is released, in the meantime, can we semi protect this section!? B.Davis2003 (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I amended it to read 'Official US poster'. Due to the American date format (7.15 instead of 15.7) this poster couldn't be used in any other country. (I'm not weighing in on the topic of whether or not it is THE official poster or not.) Manning (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone has since changed it to 'Teaser' poster. I don't know the truth, however this is definitely a 'USA only' poster, so keep that aspect in, no matter what else you call it. Manning (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the poster again to the closest official poster, and it even is being used as the main poster in the most popular sites as stated above, if someone wants to change it again, please discuss it. Afterall, why is this page called discussion. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

VOTE

Ok, personally, I am getting really tired of reverting the poster back and forth ect. Since no one has acted on suggestions of making the Poster section smi protected, I think it's time to get down and just pick one of the posters.

Under each poster please say "YES" (opinions are fine) Ok?

Poster 1: Voldemort and Harry, holding the Elder Wand.

NO

Poster 2: Good Trio, with battle of Hogwarts behind them.

I have only seen the trio poster in the theaters that I have visited. The first one was just a teaser poster, I am certain of that. So I would go with the "Good Trio" poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr1656 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Good Trio" poster appears to be the only full poster, with the credits at the bottom. There have been dozens of others but I agree that they appear to be teaser posters. I would use the full poster with credits for Part 2, just like the Part 1 page has that film film's full poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.169.189 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Trio poster is definitely the main poster, for everything said above. I don't even know why we're having this voting since there's a whole discussion above and the majority agrees with the Trio poster. Decodet (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

YES. 71.96.8.139 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

YES

YES, so can we put poster 2 now since there is no one on the other-side, and if the votes for poster 1 were somehow going to increase then we could change it. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

YES Arcadeice (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you B.Davis2003 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

dear B.Davis2003 if the vote is for Poster 2, why do you keep reverting it back to poster 1?

@ABOVE COMMENT, Some other editors thought it was the right poster too, so I therefore went along with their discussions, but now, since no one is acting, thought I would. B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I dont mind that we change it, but before that, a higher quality version of that poster must be in place, the one users are uploading is cropped too much, and is pixelated, please find a clearer poster first before uploading. Thamks guys for your co operation! B.Davis2003 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a better version. --DisneyFriends (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that a vote isn't an acceptable way of bypassing discussion per WP:VOTE and the results of a straw poll shouldn't overrule any consensus or ignore a lack of consensus that is produced by the discussion above this. --Mrmatiko (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I'm slightly concerned about the number of "Do not do (x)" comments that have been added to the article. They seem to be phrased in a way that violates the policy on comments. --Mrmatiko (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a cause for concern. I count 10 hidden instructions in the article: 2 "don't change the poster", 1 "don't add rumors", 1 "only list composer (not orchestrator, conductor)", 1 "don't change runtime", 1 spelling instruction, 3 "don't expand cast list", and 1 about the country.

This last is the only one that links to consensus, which is requested in the policy to which you linked. Above on this talk page, I see discussions of the poster and cast list, but I don't see a really strong statement of consensus in either discussion, which makes the presence of hidden comments for the poster and cast list more questionable.

I think some of the comments are probably okay. HP articles always have issues with people changing British spelling they think is misspelled (falling under the "existing policy" exception of the comment policy), and the runtime appears to have been frequently changed from a sourced value to an unsourced value, so the comment there seems to be called for, although linking to the talk page would be nice. Also, the composer one is an explanation of what is expected in the infobox. As for "do not add rumours", that is no longer necessary now that Desplat is confirmed as composer and I will go remove it.

Do any of the editors who have a bit more invested in the poster and cast list as they now stand know of a discussion to which we could link in those hidden comments? I agree with Mrmatiko that since there is not an "existing policy" that I know of that rules out editing the poster and the cast list, that these five hidden instructions are problematic and it would be better if they linked to a talk-page consensus on the topic. Princess Lirin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No Full "Plot" Story Until Movie Is Out

Someone has already typed a full "plot" story about the movie before its out in theaters on July 15... That can cause major spoilers... Just hold on to your comments if you have already seen the movie. I already removed the full "plot" story right now. If they continue to write a full story before its out on July 15, please revert or undo them. :( thanks :) Ceauntay59 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're one of them, please stop. :( Ceauntay59 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about spoilers here, what I'm concerned about is the likelihood of the plot typed in here actually matching up to the plot in the released movie, considering how far from the original source material some of the previous movies have gone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

if the movie comes out in July 14, can it be finally typed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GastroTV (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As soon the film becomes accessible to the general public—even if that is by advance screenings on July 14 that the public can attend—then a plot can be added. Spoilers don't come into it, the issue is WP:Verifiability. If you are using the film as a source for its own plot, then the film has to be publicly released for the source to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

they added the full plot, even more than before! just warning — Preceding unsigned comment added by GastroTV (talk • contribs) 05:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned "Plot of the Novel" header to match that of Part 1. juan^less 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Both plot, actors and characters should be hidden before the release. The main idea however, about the horcruxes, can remain due to the story foretold in part one. Please change dates from Juy 15 to July 13. In Norway, it was released just after midnight, some 38 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.216.178 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast

Any reason why Draco isn't included in the cast? Dylan (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I agree that Draco should be included in the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 555legoboy555 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Draco is definitely in the cast list. Manning (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't at my time of writing Dylan (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Has this film received a rating yet? (e.g. Pg, pg13, etc.)

Hi. I apologize if this is somewhere in the article (I couldn't locate anything), but has a rating been established yet? Please add if it's not in article and the film has indeed received a rating--that is, if Wiki policy allows mention of it. Thanks, 67.182.237.57 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't document certificates because they vary from country to country. I recommend following the IMDB link at the bottom. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. That would be a headache and and an eyesore to list the rating for every single requested/required country in an already sufficiently long Wiki article--especially since that info is readily available at the IMDB link. Thanks for responding. I should have thought of that IMDB link to save you the trouble, but thanks for highlighting this policy for me. :) 67.182.237.57 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

(I think this should be added to the movie's Wikipedia page) In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, Harry's wand is destroyed and he takes Draco's wand by force. This is shown in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 as well, when Draco corners Harry in the Room of Requirement demanding his wand back. However, when Harry is dueling Voldemort, Priori Incantatem occurs between them. This should not occur as Voldemort is using the Elder Wand and Harry is using Draco Malfoy's wand, instead of using their phoenix tail wands who are brothers. An interesting theory is, however, whether the Elder Wand and Draco's wand could be brothers, thus resulting in the Priori Incantatem.

Snape dies in the boathouse rather than in the Shrieking Shack, where he died in the book.

In the book, Voldemort is killed when the Elder Wand's Killing Curse rebounds on him. In the film, however, when Voldemort is trying to kill Harry, Priori Incantatem occurs between the Elder Wand and Draco Malfoy's wand. However, when Neville kills Nagini, the last Horcrux, and renders Voldemort mortal once more, the Elder Wand recognizes Harry as its true master and appears in Harry's hand; Voldemort, now mortal and wandless, crumbles painfully and is eventually reduced to a pile of black ashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypotter395 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Draco's wand and the Elder Wand cannot be brothers; the Elder Wand's core is a thestral tail hair, and it's the only one of its kind. (JK Rowling has said this herself). What looks like Priori Incantantem is probably just the filmmakers taking liberties to make it cooler. Just so you know. User: Doin'Huh3.5

In the book, Dumbledore explains that the fates of Harry and Voldemort are so combined, that it does not matter which wands they are using, they will not be able to harm each other properly - hence Harry's wand still reacts and performs a kind of Priori Incantatem when Voldemort tries to kill him using Lucious Malfoy's wand. At the end of the movie, a lot of people miss this, but you CAN see that Voldemort's killing curse is rebounding on himself - the greenish glow streams along the side of his wand back into himself, which I guess explains what was making him gasp in horror. The Elder wand always recognised Harry as its master, as in, there was no moment during the final duel where it suddenly changed allegiance. 90.198.74.53 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the above is either WP:OR or so detailed and irrelevant to the overall plot of the film to be of little interest to the general reader. WP tends not to have trivia sections for exactly this reason.

"Nationwide.."

Hello, under Release it says the following "At midnight, Part 2 will screen in 3,800 theatres. Nationwide, it will play in 4,375 theatres, 3,000 3D theaters, and 274 IMAX theatres, the widest release for an IMAX, 3D and a Potter film."

Which nation is it referring to? Maybe that should be included :) Thanks! Grandpa 129 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Nationwide" probably shouldn't be used anyway since this is both the US and Canada (I think). Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemy

"...and director David Yates does not let them down. In fact, in some ways, he helps make up for the shortcomings of the final book."

Are we going to put up with this garbage? HP7p2 was a great movie, but to say that the book had shortcomings, instead of the movie, is just nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.26.162 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from a review, not the unjustifiable pushing of a Point of View that you seem to be suggesting. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, bro, I'm just making conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.26.162 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

semi-protected edit for Visual effects section

Please add the following to the end of the "Visual effects" section:

Giles Hardie, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, called the film a "truly excellent adaptation and a fantastic Potter flick, arguably the best" but it is "not just as good, it is measurably better, in 2D"; according to Hardie, the viewer sees more with 2D "simply for being brighter. As it has progressed, the series has become progressively darker in both tone and lighting. HP7.2 is no exception, with the action mostly taking place at night. This is a dark film and wearing sunglasses just doesn't help." He notes "[t]here are only two scenes, at different parts of the film but both involving large amounts of flame, where the post-production has been targeted at an audience wearing their goggles. Both scenes detract from the overall drama for the sake of a gimmick", as do the "Harry Potter promotional 3D glasses" sold at the cinema, which have rounded lenses modeled after those worn by the title character—as a result, "anyone sitting in the front half of the cinema will be able to see unprocessed 3D footage in their peripheral vision."

Please cite the following reference:

<ref>{{cite web| title= Do not see Harry Potter 3D | first=Giles |last=Hardie | url= http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/blogs/get-flickd/do-not-see-harry-potter-3d-20110716-1hiuy.html | date=July 16, 2011 | publisher= [[The Sydney Morning Herald]] | accessdate= July 16, 2011}}</ref>

Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.214 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That quote is excessively long, we run into copyright issues and undue weight considerations here. Trimming it down to 60-80 words might help. It probably does bear inclusion to balance the positive comments about 3D already there. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)}

Cast List

I'm confused as to what source we use for the cast lists on each HP film article. If we use the cast list from the posters, Warwick Davis and Julie Walters would be included, like she is now, but Jim Broadbant, Emma Thompson, and Bonnie Wright would not be. If we use the names from the credits that are not paired with anyone else, it would have Broadbent, Thompson, and Kelly Macdonald, but no Julie Walters, Warwick Davis or Bonnie Wright. Bonnie Wright should not be included at all unless you use all the other actors that were paired in the credits. These inconsistencies are apparent throughout all the film articles. We need to decide which to use. The poster, or the credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.195.224 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I reckon we should use everyone on the film's credits (that aren't paired) AND everyone on the film's poster. But that's just me and I have no real reasoning as to justify my position. Oh well. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

An english film, english director, english setting, english actors , and yet the United Kingdom is stated as the 'including other countries' categlory? Laughable mistake for a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.112.187 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Re-worded the sentence to better represent/respect the United Kingdom. Mattmarks001 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's a British film with a British setting and with British actors. England's only a quarter of the UK. Cooper 25 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Differences form the book section

I know this might sound like a fanboy rant... and it is, but hear me out please.

The movie suck. As someone who is mostly ignorant in cinema my opinion is not important at all, BUT as a big HP fan, the movie as an adaptation to the book, is terrible so i hereby ask permission to add a "To the best of my abilities NPOV" Differences from the book section. What do you say? Zidane tribal (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea, it is the sort of section that guarantees edit warring similar to that occurring over the cast list and non-neutral statements. --Mrmatiko (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible idea for the above reasons and because you'd be hard pushed to find a movie-adaptation of a book that is true to the source material (because, if it was, the movie would suck) so it would set a bad precedent. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

there are always inconsolable sods who will complain (and know before even watching it, that they will moan) no matter how good the movie is. There was one nerd next to me in the cinema when I watched it, laughing nasally during the serious moments and constantly going "this didn't happen in the book! wtf!! what a letdown!". My point is, it's impossible and impractical to try and turn the entire HP series into identical movies, and they are a lot better BECAUSE of the liberties the directors have taken during them. The movies would be awful otherwise, but you are too much of a fanboy, ignorant of cinema, to realise that. 90.198.74.53 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.26.162 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. The rest of the world and $169,000,000 disagree with you on "The movie suck [sic]". There are always (major) differences between films and books - they are inherently different mediums. On occasion such lists can be useful - when major plot points are completely missed out or changed, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but not here. a_man_alone (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i appreciate the answers and understand the arguments, only thing is... if this is such a BAD idea, how come 5 of the movies articles has "Difference from the books sections"? I`m not saying it is a bad movie, it sucks as an adaptation, i watched, enjoyed and own the other 7 movies, and a_man_alone i don`t know if you have read the book but big plot points were missing. The whole background of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, Harry being the last descendant of the creator of the Cloak, and the final fate of the elder wand just to name a few. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, those sorts of sections are only allowed with explanation of why the filmmakers made changes to the sources. Just pointing out that there are differences is trivial and original research. BOVINEBOY2008 23:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, you got that right. Ok, i guess there won`t be a "Differences form the book section". Thanks for the quick answers. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary overdetail...

The recent plot summary expansion has around 1,162 words. That count is over the 400-700 word guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. Unless someone objects, I am going to start trimming down the plot section in the next couple of days. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. Not on the basis of WP:FILMPLOT because it seems a bit silly to let a blanket policy dicatate the length of thousands of film plot summaries but because the section at the moment is overly-detailed for this particular film and, having just been released, it will naturally be so until someone (such as yourself) hacks it back a bit. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Fifth paragraph is extremely excessive. The time one might spend reading it is comparable to what it takes to watch the entire section of the movie. Batjik Syutfu 17:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the plot section should be trimmed down, though make sure not to cut out all of the detail. Plot section trimming is a common stage in the development of film articles, though it is often overdone. While there is a 400-700 word limit suggested by the guideline, it is important to keep the plot description coherent. The article of the film Avatar, for example, has a plot section which extends beyond 700 words. There was much controversy considering this issue, though it was eventually realized that describing Avatar's intricate plot would require a plot section surpassing 700 words. Please don't make the mistake others have made. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

Trimmed it down to just over 1,000 words. Besides for some language tightening that needs to be done, I think the major points have been addressed. Does anyone have any suggestions for what could be cut, if we're looking to cut 30% of it? I don't think that simple language tightening will cover all of that. NW (Talk) 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every plot point has to be covered, it is just a summary after all. Plot bloat was a major problem on the Part 1 article and stood at 3000 words at one stage, but it was reigned in and is about 650 now. The basic problem is that editors don't know or choose to ignore the word limit. 1000 words isn't disastrous, but it is still excessive, it's just a case of getting the correct level of abstraction. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done my best; 706 words. Hallows Horcruxes 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the recent plot bloat in the past couple of days, I have reedited the plot summary down to 679 words. Is this acceptable? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you did a great job. Once the semi-protected status of this page expired, we have had a ton of unregistered users overloading the plot with unneccesary details. The current version we have is pretty good! Mattmarks001 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt the long description is the noxious work of noxious fangirls. What are we going to do about it? --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fragment

There seems to be a random fragment in the first 2 words of the 'sentence' "IMAX Opening On its opening day". --208.91.156.11 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No "Differences from the book" section?

Just wondering why not? It's quite interesting to read about the changes the filmmakers made. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, do you have any sources citing filmmakers decisions to change plot points? BOVINEBOY2008 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is a general idea that the section would only bring edit wars, and since there isn`t a references specifying them, simply making a list would be original research, i still think is not a bad idea BUT i won`t go against the consensus. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been consensus for some time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination)) that we should not have such articles. NW (Talk) 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is no rule against having such a section, but all listed differences should be accompanied by a sourced explanation for the change. See MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. Just listing differences doesn't cut it, because many adaptations have many differences. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Broadcasted on the cinema in Indonesia one week later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.63.244 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Videogame

I think there should be a small section about the videogame. --Babar Suhail (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an article: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (video game). Edenc1 • Talk 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but the game should be mentioned in this article. --Babar Suhail (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Box-office all time records

Can someone also add the prevoius record holder for the international record table as well, I would do it myself but I don't know how to add new tabs in tables that well. Here is the info: Previous Record Holder 1. Opening weekend worldwide - Half-Blood Prince($394.0 million) http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/worldwideopenings.htm

2. Opening weekend Foreign - Pirates of the Caribbean 4($260.4 million)http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/opening/

3. Opening Weekend UK- Order of the Phoenix($33,543,431) ref: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/opening/

4. Opening weekend Australia - N/A ( probably Half-Blood Prince or New Moon

5. Highest worldwide Imax debut - $20.4 million Transformers: Dark of the Moon (from same ref as the record holder)

6. Fastest to 500 Million Worldwide - Transformers: Dark of the Moon (9 days) ref http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3213&p=.htm

7. Fastest to 600 Million Worldwide - Transformers: Dark of the Moon 11 days same area as the reference for the actual record

8. Fastest to 700 Million Worldwide - On Stranger Tides (16 days) http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3222&p=.htm

9. Fastest to 800 Million Worldwide - Avatar (19 days). http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3222&p=.htm

If anyone can find/confirm the missing ones it would be great. Thanks in advance --Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

INDONESIA

The movie is on cinema, it premiered today in Indonesia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.4.97 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So? If you mean that it should be added that the movie premiered in Indonesia, then that's not gonna happen. We are not gonna add each and every country that the movie premiered in. --Babar Suhail (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the article currently reads, "The film was originally scheduled to open in Indonesia on 13 July 2011.[35] However, the Indonesian government levied a new value added tax tax on royalties from foreign films in February 2011 causing three film studios, including Warner Brothers, to halt the importation of their films, including Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 into the country.[35][36] Theater owners hope to have Harry Potter on their screens by the end of July, barring a continuation of the dispute.[36][37]" 142.161.53.211 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Something is Wrong Here

I just can't help but notice this. In the chart that lists all of the records broken by the film, it says that it's tied with Avatar for fastest film to $1 billion, with 19 days. Well, It's August 1, and the film was released on July 15. It hasn't even been 19 days since it was released. That needs to be changed. It reached $1 billion in 16 days, so it's beaten Avatar's record. 75.8.206.154 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article says it was released on July 13 which would make July 31 the 19th day of release. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The movie was released on July 15 in US, but it was released much earlier in international markets, starting with Kuwait where it was released on July 12. Only Kuwait received this privilege. It hit cinemas in most of the other countries on July 13/14. And since we don't only count the domestic market in the worldwide total, we must also take into consideration the foreign market. After all, its because of the international market that Harry Potter reached the billion dollar milestone, other wise it would be only at $319 million. Now, if Kuwait contribution didn't contribute that much to the film revenue(it didn't), I think it should only be rightful that Kuwait should be considered as an exception, but if they had released Harry Potter in China(Aug. 4) much earlier it would have reached that mark long time ago, and ultimately take over the spot as fastest to the billion dollar milestone. Avatar was treated the same way, Hope it clears up any problems. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think if you subtract Kuwait's gross from the total, and it still made 1 billion between July 13 and July 31 then the record actually still stands: it did a billion in 19 days. It's logical to use the international release date, since if it hadn't been released domestically as yet then we wouldn't say it made 700 million in 0 days of release. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

ant -> and

ant -> and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.197.169 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

never mind already corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.197.169 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Block USER Martello736

I think its enough with what this user has done, I am fed up, he isn't understanding when to stop. PLEASE BLOCK HIM-He has been vandalizing this page more than 10 times. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've served him up at AIV. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, such deplorable actions shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, he tacitly attacked us all with his derogatory edits. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Europe

Under the heading "Northern Europe" the UK, Ireland are referred to as one country. This is not correct. It is true that they are sometimes grouped together to add up box office sales but should not be referred to as one country - "In the UK, Ireland and Malta it brought in a record $14.8 million on its first day and a record $38.3 million as a whole on its opening weekend, marking the highest-grossing opening weekend of all time in the country". This mistake should be rectified immediately.

If that's how box office data is reported then it's fine. Much like 'domestic' refers to the US and Canada when referring to movie box office takings. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question is confusing, but this how Box Office Mojo refers to it look at it here, and since most of Box office data is took from there we follow what they write. Since they don't report individual box office revenues for each of the countries, Box Office Mojo considers it all, if I am not wrong aren't they in the commonwealth except Ireland. Anyways, we follows what the source says if you have a different source which say otherwise please present it. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?

This article has just been marked as a Good Article, and yet oddly, I can find no evidence that it was ever assessed or even nominated as such. Elizium23 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

International Box Office has too much detail?

Does anyone else feel like this article is being overtaken with too much detail, especially the International box office section. I think a smaller, less detailed section is more appropriate. The movie has broken numerous opening day and weekend records, we do not need every detail about every single record. Scale it down? Mattmarks001 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would cut down on the week-by-week accounts. The opening records and the overall performance are what you really want to document. I disagree with the complete removal of the coverage of the UK box office, especially when you've left in the North American box office since this is primarily a British film with some US financial backing. The overall balance between the territories is correct, it is just overly detailed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claims and the redundant tables. I think this addresses the weighting issues with that section. Let me know if you disagree with the alterations. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The records table has been there since the beginning, I think it is much more clean and organized than sentences describing in too much detail. The table, in my opinion, is of more importance. Culture these days direct the eyes away from lengthly paragraphs with extraneous detail, and towards clean layouts that simply describe what the reader is actually looking for. Mattmarks001 (talk)

I think the tables should remain as they summarise the records well although a few of the records (opening week - Asutralia, fastest to $500m/$600m/$700m/$800m/$900m) could probably be ditched. Having said that, I think the box office section still looks waaaay too long but if we're going to list a bunch of records I guess we're stuck with it. Finally, I don't understand the 'Home Markets' section. Films are acounted for domestically, internationally and globally and the UK falls under 'international' so it's a bit misleading to have it broken down into its own section then still refer to 'international' numbers below. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some records may be able to be ditched. Avatar does not have a records table, because most of its records (besides #1 worldwide) have been broken, this is the only movie (that I know of) that is currently holding so many records, and that should be outlined with the tables. I too agree about the Home Markets section, UK is counted as an international market. Plus "Home Markets" isn't a great title for a section. Mattmarks001 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the UK to the international markets section but kept it as a separate paragraph given that it did exceptionally well in the UK box office and there is more to say about it. As far as removing records is concerened, as well as the ones I mention above I think 'Highest grossing film worldwide for 2011' can go, seeing as we have highest grosser of the decade (although it will probably have to be reverted back to '2011' once the decade record is broken). raseaC^{talk to me} 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Already ahead of you! ;) Mattmarks001 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK is only an international market from the perspective of American journalism. The UK market is a domestic market for Harry Potter. Betty Logan (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK is an international market from the perspective of the film industry and therefore should be referred to as such in film articles. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mattmarks001 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The domestic market for a film is the market of the countries that made it. The "domestic" market is only referred to as the domestic market by American journalism, because it is the domestic market from their point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. 'Domestic' refers to the US and Canada, 'International' to the rest of the world and 'Global' to both put together. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is addressed by the Film manual of style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Box_office. It is not a discussion point. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that this was addressed in the MoS and have no problem to using non-conventional terminology to make the article more user-friendly. I've moved the UK analysis to the third paragraph under 'Markets outside of North America' because I think it makes more sense to have the country-specific breakdowns grouped together and the overall overseas analysis lead. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has any problems with my edits please discuss it, and can't we open another article just for Harry Potter's record similar to Avatar, since there is a lot of information. And some of the info came by though analysis from the page/pages, sometimes we have to work with many sources to get information listing them all is illogical. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support that. If we are going to cover everything then we need a separate article because this one is becoming unbalanced. Secondly I apologise for removing content if it was originally sourced. In regards to this article I still think the section needs to be condensed. The records will go within a couple of years so I am still for removing the table under the proviso of WP:RECENTISM. I think it could be structured better too. There are essentially four perspectives to the box office: the global view, the North American one (as a domestic market), the UK (as domestic market), and the non-domestic markets. I would therefore break the box office into four sections of equal weight mirroring those divides (although I would expand the UK section to include the EU countries as its native economic market). For the non-native markets (i.e. outside of North America and the EU) I don't think it's so important to go into too much detail. I would just list the countries where records were set i.e. opening day/opening weekend/highest grossing 2011 film etc and drop the figures. It seems to me that editors are missing the vital middle ground here, by either trying to cover everything or trying to make it too US centric. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ps. I have no objection to you restoring the content I trimmed if we can agree on a plan of action for that section. The main issue is to get everything sourced. Then we need to get a bit of balance in there. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly it wasn't all my work on the box office, it mostly came from user Spinc5, who clearly worked hard on that part of the article. Now, like you were saying we could focus more on the UK and some other countries(commonwealth) and the rest of EU. I was thinking of focusing on countries that have grossed over $9-10 million or some which have accomplished feat. Our main focus should be the opening(day,weekend) and how that compares to other films for UK and some European countries. The rest we can state the opening day/weekend and how it stands if it has a list. Once the run of the film finished we can see how the final grosses performed in important countries.

As for the division I think you have good outline but lets see what other think about it and if they can add something to it or modify it.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If we can't find an approach that Spinc is happy with then the sub-article idea is the best option. Spinc has brought the subject up at the Film Project, but I think it would be better to address the problem within the context of the article, since it's all about the level of detail. If we can come up with the right balance here then it will serve as a model on other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your idea is good, but if it doesn't workout with the rest. I think opening a separate article isn't a bad idea, as we already have a lot of information on its box office achievements.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that no one can actually say that this box-office section is over-detailed just because it is too long. Not all film articles are going to be like this. For example, I don't think Ice Age holds any records in any country, so simply its box office section is very small. But we can't ignore all these records that HP7 and other overseas top-grossers have made in so many countries. For Sweden it only says: "In Sweden, it had a record-breaking opening day of $2.1 million." So what about its record-breaking first weekend of $3.43 million? What about Pirates 4's second-largest opening weekend of $3.42 million? What about the Netherlands? "In the Netherlands, it had a record opening day of $1.7 million." What about its record-breaking opening weekend in this country? Is the second paragraph under "Markets outside of North America" more important than these records? For some editors, it may be, for others, it may not, but I can't find any guidelines in the Wikipedia that say so. Based on those two paragraphs at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film), I think that everything among the top five in any country or even the top ten (when we're talking about all-time charts) is notable.

In addition, quantity doesn't make quality. Let's say a movie earns $11 million in the UK and $9 million in Hungary. Earning so few in the UK is nothing notable just because it is over $10 million. But for Hungary, those $9 million are an all-time record. Besides, I don't think that balance means referring equally to native and non-native markets. The right balance depends on the film's performance in native and non-native markets. We can write a lot about what Spirited Away did in Japan but there's almost nothing to write about it in other markets. That is the balance for this film. Ice Age 3 is the highest-grossing animated film in many territories outside North America. So we should write for all of them and write a few for the US (since it didn't even premiere in number one on its first weekend) but obviously the overseas box office section will be much bigger. It's domestic-to-overseas ratio (or whatever), which is more than 1:3, makes it clear that the interesting facts are about its overseas performance, not its domestic.

In my point of view, during this shrinking of the box office section of HP7 many important facts were left out, beginning from the overseas box office. For example, I don't understand why Greece is more important than Bulgaria or Russia.Spinc5 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree too thats why i proposed to open a seperate article, but if it isn't possible. I think it wasn't bad the way it was before, but citing was hard for some of them. i was wondering what is your source for all the info and the all-time records? i know most is from box office mojo and all the info is correct.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out here that nothing was removed on the grounds of being too detailed, only unsourced content was removed. In some cases the numbers were sourced, but the records themselves were not. The section is at least verifiable now. It could still do with some trimming though. In places like Brazil, Mexico and China I don't think it's necessary to list the grosses for those countries. On the Avatar article for instance, we just note it set the opening day/weekend records in such countries and left it at that. I don't think it is particularly relevant to note it was Warner Bros. highest opening either. That might be relevant for the WB article, but I don't think it is something readers will generally be interested in. I think the first two sections are fine, but the foreign section needs to be tightened up. I would have something like this:

"On its first day at the foreign box office (13 July 2011), Deathly Hallows – Part 2 grossed $43.6 million in 26 countries, placing it 86 percent ahead of Part 1 and 49 percent higher than Half-Blood Prince. From Wednesday until Sunday, on its 5-day opening weekend, it set a new overseas opening record by earning $314 million, a record previously held by Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($260.4 million).

On its second weekend overseas, it held to the top spot but fell precipitously by 62% to $120.2 million despite minor competition. On its third weekend, it faced some competition from Captain America: The First Avenger and Cars 2, both which premiered in some major overseas markets. However, it retained first place and declined 45% to $66.6 million. On its fourth weekend, it had an opening in China which attributed about 47% of the weekend's gross and helped it remain at the summit of the box office depsite competition from The Smurfs. On 8 August 2011, it surpassed On Stranger Tides' international revenue with $801.5 million to become the highest-grossing film of 2011 overseas, and the 3rd highest-grossing film of all-time overseas.

In the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta it brought in a record $14.8 million on its first day.On its opening weekend, it grossed a record $38.3 million, marking the largest opening of all time, ahead of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ($33.5 million). It also achieved the biggest single day gross ever (Saturday).[76] It set opening day records in several EU countries: Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands. In France and the Maghreb region, it scored the second highest-grossing opening of all time and in Germany it scored the fourth-largest opening weekend of all time. In Greece, it is the second highest-grossing film of 2011 behind Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. It also set the opening day and weekend records in Brazil, Mexico and Australia, and set further opening day records in Sweden, Norway, Hong Kong and Japan; in Mexico it is also the highest grossing film of the year."

And of course everything should be sourced too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

With this kind of approach, it's even smaller than what it is now... Maybe we should consider a subarticle. Even the North-America section is too small. Why was the second paragraph deleted? Those records were also notable. Also, there are many other records that aren't written here, like the fastest film to reach $300, 400, 500 and 600 million overseas. Opening weekend records in Chile, Bolivia, Croatia and many others. Second largest opening weekend in Finland. And then come the records in total earnings. It's in the top ten of the UK, Germany and some other countries. The problem about creating a sub-article is that a new question arises: Which other films need such a sub-article? On the other hand, this qualitative approach, that gets rid of numbers, reduces the size of the article. But how can records not be accompanied by numbers? I'm just making thoughts though. There was once such a discussion about Toy Story 3. A sub-artcile, List of box-office records of Toy Story 3 was created. Could we do it for HP7 to provide more data? Spinc5 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for most countries there aren't any all-time charts at Box Office Mojo but you can search the weekend-box-office section of a country to find out which movie holds the opening weekend record. That's why the records themselves didn't have sources. Spinc5 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I didn't think the North America section was too bad, but if there was unsourced claims in there that may be why it was removed. If the record isn't explicitly stated it shouldn't be included. Having to search the entire weekend history for a country because the claim isn't explicitly supported violates WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH i.e. editors shouldn't be analysing and interpreting the information for themselves. I have no objection to you setting up a sub-article and I imagine most editors would support that, but even then they must follow sourcing policy. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New sub-article for Box Office Records

So have we come to a consensus about opening a sub article for the records? I am fine with this, as we will scale down the box office section greatly and allow for more detail in the new article. I do think the prestigious records like opening weekend worldwide etc should still be present in the main article. Mattmarks001 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would like to mention is the problem of neglect of the sub article, it may not happen in potters case, but for example, the toy story 3 sub article has been neglected to an update of it's records (it's still listed as fifth of all time). This is a small problem you do encounter when creating a sub article that is rarely visited. Mattmarks001 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All I ask is that a clean table remains, even if it is redundant. I would rather view a 12-row table outlining all of the records, then sniff through 5 paragraphs with extraneous detail while trying to find the actual record numbers. Mattmarks001 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of a sub-article, its much better and it please everyone I guess. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; the argument put forward by several editors here is that it overwhelms the article, not that it is worthless information. That's a clear argument for finding a new home for it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with all of the points raised by Mattmarks001. Especially the point about neglect, but as mentioned this may not happen with Potter and, at any rate, the sub article would probably eventually be re-merged into the main. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I Think we have arrived at a consensus. How do we go about implementing the sub article, who would like to create it? Mattmarks001 (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I created a sub-article entitled Box-Office Performance of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. Does anyone have a better name to propose or is it ok? Spinc5 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have modelled it on List of box-office records of Toy Story 3 so the names are consistent, but I don't think there is anything wrong with what you have called it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. We should probably change one of the two articles then. I just though that actually it's not a list so maybe we should change the name for the Toy Story 3 article? Spinc5 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you are going to do with the article. If it is going to document more than records then the newer title is probably better. I still think consistency is a plus, so if you think the newer title is more appropriate then consider changing the Toy Story sub-article to match it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I reduced the international Market sub-section to balance it out with the whole box office part and the article, due to the opening of a separate sub-article--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks a lot more balanced now. Balance in the box office section has been an issue of contention for what seems like years; I think we're moving towards a general protocol for dealing with it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrkelly1234, 16 August 2011

it would like to update Harry potter and the deathly hallows part 2 with reliable information on it gross revenue. and protect it from Vandalising. Mrkelly1234 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) thank you very much

This template should only be used to request specific changes. You have to give us specifics, i.e. which vandalism you want removed or numbers you want revised. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is protected from vandalising, that's why you can't edit it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking request as answered. Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.11.68.34, 16 August 2011

in the plot put down nagini is a horcrux

82.11.68.34 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Already there. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GA improvements

Can't we add a section for Cinematography and Filming for only Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow - Part 2? Such sections would put the article somewhere close to the GA standards.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why God why?

Let's be serious here, and let's lay a plan to deal with this issue. Fangirls are one of the most destructive, vexatious force here. WP's guidelines, policies and rules explicitly describe fancrufts and how harmful they are. Please see: WP:FAN, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

It is the same thing with articles about Twilight, Jacob Black, Edward Cullem, Kristen Stewart, Stephanie Meyers, The Hunger Games, and a billion of articles fangirls are obsessed with. Cogent discussion is impossible; summarizing the articles is impossible; and trying to edit those articles in a constructive way is impossible. You can't deny I've got a point. --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen many people editing this article in a constructive way, and there is much cogent discussion on this very talk page. What exactly is the "issue" to which you are referring? I assume you don't mean today's vandalism, because that's not fannish behavior, and it's all gone anyway. The plot summary is currently only 726 words, and several editors have been doing a great job of keeping it there or below. If there is a specific problem about this article, then please fix it or bring it to others' attention; and if there isn't a specific problem, then why the fuss?

Oh, and congratulations on being able to determine the gender of people on the internet without meeting them! And here I thought that female editors were in the minority on Wikipedia. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are constructive editors here! My point is, oh never mind. You obviously didn't get the message, since your contributions center on reverting and reverting (my calculations: 44 reverts for every real edit). I'm not here to build edit count and patrolling pages like a self-appointed watchman. Sorry, but this argument is over. --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Argument over? I wasn't even aware you'd started. You certainly haven't raised any valid points or issues with which we can work. Why exactly are you here? a_man_alone (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear, nobody cares if you're aware or not. Stop being so prying, it's just an irritating trait. Go elsewhere and edit something. --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you and Mrmatiko should stop the harassment. I haven't invaded your talk pages, yet. --Moses I. L. Foch (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there something specific to this topic to discuss? Your concerns sound more general. What about a forum like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or something similar? I'm not sure if this article's talk page is the place to get attention. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A November release

FYE stores are posting that the DVD for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is to be released this November, I'll have to call them to get the exact date but I do know they are currently the only store posting it as Amazon.com nor any site (including FYE.com) has it posted.JamesAlan1986 *^talk 11:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that the main site has it set to be released on November 11, 2011. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 11:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Home Media

The article states that there are 4 home media versions available, when there are 5. Also offered is a two-disc DVD Special edition offered by Wal-Mart and Amazon.UK (on December 2,) though not on Amazon in the U.S. This 2-disc special edition contains most of the extras that are only available on the Blu-Ray so it is vital that this version be included in the article.Rebroxanna (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

3d Dh1/Dh2 Box set

I don't know if its that important, but a box set of the 3D versions of both Deathly Hallows Part 1 and 2 is also available 202.154.141.114 (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Malfoy's wand

The plot section says, Ollivander says they belonged to Bellatrix and Draco Malfoy, but Malfoy has changed his allegiance to a different wand. This is confusing to me, especially since the hidden comment now says that Malfoy's wand has not changed his allegiance and refers to "the document". It seems to me that in the film, Ollivander clearly stated that Malfoy's wand had changed allegiance, and this is how we eventually find out the truth about the Elder Wand. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Yes. Is the reception true? Becuase on the poster, it is squeduled for July 13 in the UK and July 15 in the US. Not to sound like a conspiracist, but I think that someone trolled Rotten Tomatoes. --Austin Robinson 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

Films are often showed to professional critics before the theatrical release so the reviews come out the same day as the film. BOVINEBOY2008 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, don't assume that a release date means that people haven't seen the film yet. Thousands and thousands have already seen the film. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Change "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 recieved positive reviews." to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 recieved universal critical acclaim." Because universal acclaim is what it really received. And to me, a film having positive reviews versus universal critical acclaim is a BIG difference. So please allow me to change it and don't alter it back to saying positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 06:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please change the positive reviews to universal acclaim. Please!!!!!!! I don't know why but it's driving me nuts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lavender Brown's fate in the Battle of Hogwarts

I am convinced after a second watching of the film that Lavender is killed in battle. This is based on her final scene, where Fenrir Greyback is shown attempting to feast on her flesh, and is scared away by Hermione. Then Lavender is shown lifeless and unmoving, with her eyes open. If she were indeed severely injured then I would expect to see her breathe, and move a little bit. She is never shown again in the film, neither walking and talking nor on a stretcher being tended by others. I know this is a divergence from the book, but in the book, her fate after the battle was unknown, and it is possible she succumbed to her injuries soon after. Harry Potter Wikia entry. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I got whatching the movie, I think she died on the film. But since we can't be sure of anything, I don't think we should mention her on plot section. Nobody really can say if she died or if she was seriously injured Decodet (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this the discussion that is being referred to by the editor who keeps re-adding Lavender Brown and saying "see talk"? Because I certainly don't see any consensus here for including Lavender in the list of people who are killed in the battle.

My personal opinion pretty much echoes that of the editor directly above. I think that while Lavender may have died, it's not certain enough to include. It makes more sense to not include her if she was killed (since the list doesn't claim to be complete) than to include her if she was not killed, so let's err on the side of not including her. Princess Lirin (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think she is a significant enough character to mention her fate in the article, and where is the proof that she did not die? Is she shown in the Great Hall, injuries being tended? Is she walking around when Neville challenges Voldemort? Is she there to see her children off from Platform 9-3/4? I think the evidence, and lack thereof, speaks for itself; as I mentioned before, the Harry Potter Wiki is clear on this issue, and cites a book, Harry Potter Page to Screen which might include some fact about this; I would like to know if anyone has a copy. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on not including her, but on including her. Currently, this appears to be original research. If someone can find a copy of that book, and it does indeed say that Lavender dies in the theatrical version of the film, then citing that would be reasonable. But with the amount of argument there is for both sides (as seen in the length of the talk page for Lavender's article over on the HP Wiki), I don't think that we on Wikipedia can be stating definitively one way or another without a source.

(The HP Wiki, as the wiki of a fandom, is more concerned about canon vs. non-canon and not so much about excluding original research; this is why I would not be inclined to treat their decision as final. There are many cases where something is proved well enough for that wiki's satisfaction but is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia: e.g. Draco Malfoy's middle name.)

There's no rule saying we have to mention the fate of every character, and the plot summary is already longer than the 400–700 recommended by WP:FILMPLOT. My suggestion: remove Lavender until somebody interested in this discussion can get to a bookstore and see if Lavender's mentioned in that book, and then once we have that further information we can decide whether Lavender should be included.

Others' opinions? Princess Lirin (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

She is killed in the movie, i dont know how to provide a source, but in the Blu-Ray edition of the film, and in the maximum movie mode, Jessica her self states. "David Yates came up to me a couple of hours before we shot the courtyard scenes, and said, today Jessie, Lavender is going to die" If anyone has the BluRay edition, watch it and see for yourself! B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I own the book, I was actually the one who put it on the Harry Potter Wiki. I can get a quote I put up on Lavender's talk page there as well... "Jessie Cave was also happy to come back, even knowing that Lavender Brown wasn't going to survive the final film. 'She's not very lucky,' the actress understates. 'She doesn't meet a nice ending. She get's eaten by Fenrir Greyback.'" Personally, I don't think this is notable enough to put in the article, she's onscreen for little more than a few seconds... Evil Genius77 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with B.Davis he is right. I checked the blu-ray myself and lavender died.Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Universal critical acclaim"

Main page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film § Neutral_language_in_critical_reception

In order to prevent an edit war and the inevitable decline in civility that follows, I think it is necessary to discuss Fluffymoose (talk · contribs)'s proposal to change the current wording of the first sentence of the Reception section from:

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 received positive reviews;"

to:

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was met with universal acclaim;"

My own view on this is that universal acclaim would require 100% overall review ratings, and even then it still seems too subjective a term to use. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The universal acclaim comment clearly isn't true unless it scores 100%, and "acclaim" is subjective anyway, because a critic can review a film positively without 'acclaiming' it; for example Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 stars, which is a good review but I would say a film needs to achieve full marks to be acclaimed. Similarly, just stating it received positive reviews doesn't really reflect critical consensus—some of the worst films ever made have received positive reviews. We basically need some middle ground that uses neutral langauge, but reflects the critical evaluation of the film. I think "received mainly positive reviews" or "mostly positive reviews" or "reviewed favorably" would all be equally acceptable and neutral. But let's cut out the "universal acclaim" business because that clearly isn't going to stick. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the better term would be universaly or mostly "positive reviews", not all the reviews for DH2 are "universal acclaim" (I think its Metacritic that uses that term). Most of the reviews in the section on reception hover between 80 to 96% ratings. So as said above, unless it gets 100% it won't be considered "universal acclaim". GrayFullbuster (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can we nail this guy on 3RR already? JOJ ^Hutton 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". "Extremely positive reviews" would in fact be "as far as possible without bias" that I can think of to describe the reviews for this film. If that still doesn't work, then I would suggest "critical acclaim", which is used in GAs Up (2009 film) and Drive (2011 film), or even FA American Beauty (film). Just my two cents. Guy546^(Talk) 19:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That, or perhaps we could say many or numerous positive reviews? I think the focus should be the number of positive reviews, not "how" positive they were - "extremely positive" suggests that the reviewers were almost overjoyed by the movie, and while they did enjoy it, it doesn't really sound neutral to me, especially since there are no negative reviews mentioned in that section. From what I understand, the reviews are notable because there were so many that were positive, not because there were a few that almost say that the movie was perfect. I think that the sentence in question should reflect that. Murmuration (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• These edits are still persisting, so it would be great if we could actually propose an alternative backed by consensus. Murmation above suggests "many positive reviews", although while acceptable perhaps doesn't reflect the balance. Remember, we are are trying to quantify not qualify: this means we are trying to best demonstrate the proportion of positive reviews; saying that the reviews are "extremely positive" or the film was "acclaimed" can be taken as qualifiers too, in that they may indicate to the reader how well the film reviewed. While this may be true, review aggregators don't do this, they just count the number of positive reviews, so we should stick to quantifying the critical reception. On that basis I think "mostly positive reviews" is as good as any wording we can probably come up with. Is there anyone who supports or is against this particular wording? The sooner we wrap this up the sooner we can get the article back to a stable state. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm only making such a big deal of this because it used to say universal critical acclaim and now it doesn't. And you know what, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King got the same basic ratings and reviews as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and it says under Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's Reception that it got universal acclaim. And the final Harry Potter film was acclaimed, so don't change it, you should have left it at universal acclaim. And just becuase Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars doesn't mean that every other critic did. On metacritic it received universal acclaim. On rotten tomatoes it recieved a 96% out of 100% and that's higher than what The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King got on the site. And don't you dare compare Harry Potter and it's positive reviews to films that have recieved postive reviews but are still some of the worst movies ever made! If they are some of the worst movies ever made they wouldn't recieve any positive reviews!!!! So, just change it back to universal acclaim, it's what it said and i don't see the reason why you changed it. It's pissing me off!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't say it now is because it's not true. "Widespread acclaim" would be acceptable. "Universal" would not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to even say "widespread acclaim" - I don't like the wording because it sounds as if it is meant to suggest that the movie is very good without allowing the reader an opinion; it sounds non-neutral. "Many positive reviews," on the other hand, allows the reader to understand that a lot of the reviews were positive while still allowing room for negative ones, and doesn't "qualify" the reviews, as Betty Logan discusses above. Murmuration (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King says universal acclaim and that got the same amount of good reception as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. And don't say because Lord of the Rings is in a whole other league compared to Harry Potter, it's not. They are both good fantasy films but that's it. So fine, someone change it to widespread acclaim please, because I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.120 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Or anything with critical acclaim in it would be fine, i don't care. Just anything but "positive reviews" it's just (in my opinion) saying something recieved postive reviews versus critical acclaim make it seems lesser a film. I know it doesn't but that's just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.120 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, no UNIVERSAL critical acclaim just regular critical acclaim. I can live with that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm willing to go for "many positive reviews" as a reasonable compromise between the current "positive reviews" and "Universal acclaim" so that we can put this matter to rest. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  I can live with that too. I'd rather get away from "acclaim" because I think it's a loaded term. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't change it in the first place, none of this would have happened. And no, I won't settle for "many positive reviews" just leave it at plain, old critical acclaim please!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how consensus works: the majority of editors seem to be in favor of not using "acclaimed" at all, so we won't. We don't make changes or exceptions based on what just one editor wants. As it stands, consensus seems to be to use "many positive reviews," so unless someone can find something more suitable (thought I'm not sure you could) I will be changing the sentence in question to reflect what we've discussed. Murmuration (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I give "many positive reviews" to this last comment and support it. Alandeus (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well plenty of other films have been listed as critically acclaimed, why can't Harry Potter 8 be one of them? Because it's "Harry Potter"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.242.120 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And i'm not going to settle for just "many positive reviews", Harry Potter 8 was critically acclaimed. It wouldn't be on many critics top ten lists if it wasn't. So i'm not going to stop until critical acclaim is placed under Reception. And it used to say universal acclaim, I don't care if you people think it's "not true" it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So don't go changing it!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll settle with extremely positive reviews and that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Just leave it at extremely positive reviews or even rave reviews. This isn't necessary to change it in the first place! Acclaim doesn't mean that it got 100% it means that its look upon highly favorably or highly praised!!!! Lord of the Rings didn't get a full 100% from every critic in the world so why does that say universal acclaim?!?!?!?! Tell me that!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret the level of critical reception, the aggregators can do it themselves. Metacritic uses "universal acclaim" so we can quote that for their critical consensus. I really don't see the problem here, because the phrase "universal acclaim" is still actually used in the paragraph, we're just keeping it in the context it is used. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are just raw data, they count the number of positive reviews and then summarise them; we basically do the same thing, we introduce the raw data then provide the sourced interpretations of that data. If the term is used on another article then that can depend on what is actually sourced, but also articles are not always edited by the same group of editors so it's possible that if we all edited LOTR we could be having exactly the same discussion there. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think critical acclaim or rave reviews or widespread critical acclaim seems better than just saying positive reviews since it allows many readers to distinguish the true percentage. Many other articles use critical acclaim for 86-90% favorable. But this movie achieved a 96% percent. It is only rightful that such a position gets the proper wording. LOTR per se is a good example of how it should be; they both got 96% therein. But "extremely" isn't acceptable. I really think that critical acclaim is good or widespread critical acclaim is fine. "universal" on the other hand its a tricky word. Think of the concept as if its on a continuum. 80-90% --> positive reviews; 91%-98% ---> critical acclaim; 99-100% --->universal critical acclaim. The wording isn't very complex if you make the picture clear. I propose this method for many articles to allow readers and editors a fully applicable solution. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is we source the critical reception through aggregators; all they do is count the number of poistive reviews. If a film gets 100% that doesn't mean the film is "acclaimed" or it got "rave" reviews, it just means all the reviews are positive. It's original research to say a film is critical acclaimed when all our source shows is that it received lots of positive reviews. That is literally all that Rotten Tomatoes says: it received lots of positive reviews; so we should just state that. To take a score, or a bunch or reviews and conclude that the film is "acclaimed" is just a point of view which is what we are supposedly trying to aovid on here. I know several other articles use the terminology but as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't mean we should do it here because the rules haven't been applied properly on other articles. The wording is fine as it is now; it correllates with what the sources actually show and reflects the balance of the critical reception. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but the "other stuff" that have the word acclaim aren't a small percentage but a large percentage of movies. If your trying to point out that other articles aren't truly neutral because they use the word acclaim, then that's not logical. As I said previously the reason many editors including myself use different words for films of different rating is to distinguish them. I think that what your saying is that if a film gets 100% favorable then it hasn't received any praise. Positive reviews mean praise otherwise what are they criticizing the bad parts of the movie. (If that is so then it isn't positive). It is just simple ratiocinating that positive can mean acclaim. And in this case it a very true. I have read many articles using critical acclaim for HP8, sadly I can't find them. I agree with the fact that positive does reflect that it has done well but it is quite ambiguous to the readers. using the word positive means 75%-100% favorable. Leaving readers lost is no better either. Does winning an Oscar for Best Picture mean it has attained critical acclaim?(it hasn't won one but I am just asking where does critical acclaim fall in for you)--Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Winning an oscar would not qualify "critical acclaim" because it falls outside of critical analysis; possibly "award winning", maybe. "Acclaim" to me constitutes high praise, or critical laudits, and there are probably many films that have been acclaimed, but I don't think RT and Metacritic scores equip us to draw to those conclusions; they fall short of distinguishing whether the reviews were positive about the film, or acclaimed the film, which is what I think they would have to do for us to draw those types of conclusions. Harry Potter may be "acclaimed", but I don't think it's a conclusion you can arrive at simply by counting the number of positive reviews a film got. I think the terminology is widely mis-used on the film articles because it is overstating what the evidence shows. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. So, if an article from a reliable source were to say that the film was praised by critics or was acclaimed, then will it allow us to use that the term "critical acclaim." I think what other articles have done is simply use logic--A film wouldn't receive 96% favorable if it didn't have anything to praise. One can praise it's acting and visual effects which are clearly shown in many of the reviews by the critics. Not only is it 96% favorable but it has a 100% favorable for Top Critics. A simple deduction can lead to the fact that it has been critically acclaimed. But, back to my first point, will it give you enough substance if I were to find an article that said it was praised by critics?

Moreover, the definition of acclaim means "enthusiastic approval" thus it does correlate with the situation, because if critics didn't approve it then it wouldn't boast a 96% approval rate. And the articles which use critical acclaim are actually classified as "good articles" and "featured articles" at the time of classification. (it hasn't been changed since being classified)

--Eddyghazaley (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is where we differ: widespread approval does not equate to "enthusisastic approval" IMO. As for sourcing "acclaim" this generally depends on the context of the comment. If you have one guy in his review calling it "acclaimed" then that is really no more than just another review–if someone called it a masterpiece we wouldn't immediately label it one; at the other end of the spectrum, if you have someone publishing a phd thesis on the critical reception of Harry Potter and concluding it was acclaimed then that would be more than acceptable, anywhere in between depends on what is being said and who is saying it. But I can't help but feel introducing such loaded terms into the article would be to its detriment; many of the editors are happy with the re-wording that Murmuration proposed above and it is neutral in its tone, and it captures the sentiment that is was a well received film. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Alas, in my point of view the wording is downgrading the true level of praise of the film, thus breaking the neutrality and making it more ambiguous. It seems to me that you have not understood the definition of it yet. "Critical acclaim" means as I said previously enthusiastic approval by a collective community of critics. Thus, in other terms it does equate to "widespread". And your PhD story is highly improbable, no PhD will write a review of HP8. This case you proposed is making me think that you are adamant to any changes to the critical reception section and the introduction.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting anyone to write a phd on the critical reception of Harry Potter, but I think the two examples perfectly demonstrate my point that you've basically got a sliding scale from a comment in a review to a full blown academic treatment, and the threshold for adding the term is somewhere inbetween. We can discuss this until we're blue in the face, but ultimately you propose introducing a subjective term that is open to interpretation and it's just not necessary to do that to convey the critical reception of the film. Readers can see the aggregator scores themselves, they don't to have it intrepreted by us into non-neutral language, and it's obvious from this discussion there is no consensus for including the term. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what you fail to see; using critical acclaim isn't non-neutral. It is another word that an extra step to just saying positive reviews. If you don not approve of so many English words then you aren't supposed to speak it. The English language is all about its variety and gamut of words. We don;t repeat the same words over and over again, its redundant. Soon enough with the prohibition of so many words, I think we are going to have a vocabulary of 200 words. As I said previously think of it as a continuum. This style of continuum is mostly used by many editors. I have never seen such a out-break on using the word critical acclaim. It has been on wiki for many years. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Something being used for a long time doesn't justify its "correctness." As Betty Logan (and a few other editors) have explained, since no reviewers have "acclaimed" the film, we ourselves cannot make the leap from positive reviews to an acclaimed film based only on the quantity of reviews (and their appreciation of the film). Wikipedia is not a collection of essays (where it would be fine to make that leap) but articles that present readers with only the facts which they can interpret for themselves. It is not our job to interpret whether many positive reviews means that the film has been "acclaimed" - to do so would be original research. We cannot use those "extra-step" words because using them risks making something seem better or worse than it actually is. There is a big difference between telling someone, for example, that an apple is red and telling them that an apple is like-ably red, just as there is a difference between "positive reviews" and "acclaimed:" it presents the reader with an idea about how the facts should be received, which definitely is non-neutral. Murmuration (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First off the article that uses "critical acclaim" is a FEATURED ARTICLE(if you read my previous edits), but with what you say comes a consequence: in your terms you are calling a FA article as "incorrect". Thus, you are calling most wiki article as incorrect for the critical section. I doubt whether this problem ever existed long time ago. It is a simple deduction that one can make--96% approval rate means critical acclaim. Wikipedia wouldn't work if there wasn't any deduction, otherwise wikipedia wouldn't create any FA articles. Please read my previous edits before jumping inside a discussion that was already discussed about. And your example doesn't even make sense and it's a horrible analogy. And yes there is a difference between "positive reviews" and "acclaimed". And that difference is essential as a discussed before it allows us distinguish from 60% and 90%. Again, please my previous comments and they may enlighten you.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles are not without fault. The editor(s) that reviewed whatever article you're talking about probably weren't the same ones with whom you've been discussing here, which definitely leads to differences in opinions. I'd like to point out that "most" articles are not featured articles, so how would I be calling "most" articles incorrect...? I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that a featured article = deduction. Articles are featured because they (at least for the most part) comply with Wiki standards and policies, are of good quality, and are interesting, not because they've spelled everything out for the readers. I'd also like to point out that I have been a part of this discussion since its beginning: it is most definitely not I who has declined to read other editor's edits. As it stands, "many positive reviews" is the agreed upon wording, as per the previous discussion. Murmuration (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I never equated featured to deduction. I was simply replying to the concept of Original Research, I never intended to equate them. "Many positive reviews" is better but again you are constraining the variety of words we can use. Critical acclaim is another word for a movie that has been highly approved of. I never said that you decline other people's edits; but your response was already discussed and repeating it was futile. So, I reached to the conclusion that you hadn't read my comments.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's true that some featured articles do either retain policy/guideline issues or were edited in such a way after the feature designation was given; articles have in fact been "de-featured."

This is a long discussion, and I'm not sure if someone has brought this up already, but there is the issue of encyclopedic WP:TONE. "Critical acclaim" is, first of all, a cliche. We shouldn't be using cliches. But more significantly, I don't believe an encyclopedia should use gushy phrasing. It's a matter of scholarly decorum — and whatever the topic, from zoology to Katy Perry, an encyclopedia is ultimately a scholarly work — and that decorum is an important element in credibility. For Wikipedia, ultimately, to succeed on a more respected level than currently, credibility is critical.

Finally, there's the issue of neutral tone. What does "critical acclaim" say that "positive reviews" followed by a 90-100 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating does not say? Nothing. All it does is open the door to fans of one more or another who like to gush about the things they like. Does "critical acclaim" happen at 90 percent RT but not 89 percent? Isn't 51% RT technically critical acclaim? Do you see? It's a vague, imprecise phrase that can be prone to partisan use. Better, I think, to be as neutral as possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point there is a featured article Changeling that uses critical acclaim for a 61% percent if I'm not mistaken. The word "critical acclaim" is quite neutral as it states what the critics are saying and it's not pushing it to far. For the case of 51%, editors would avoid saying critical acclaim, but they would say something like mostly or around...For, Changeling, the movie won awards and was nominated so thus I think it allowed the editors to use "critical acclaim." The word critical acclaim is fine to use when the film has been praised by critics. And in this case, HP8 has been praised for visual effect, and acting(look at RT consensus!!!). Thus, using "critical acclaim" isn't non-neutral; it actually is very neutral. Neutrality isn't the same for all articles. In this case for HP8, it is very applicable and germane. Credibility is also at stake if ambiguity is introduced. Positive Reviews allows a gamut of possibilities ranging from 51%-100% approval. This long range creates ambiguity in readers that's why we use different words for variety and to give a concise and clear image of what the film has achieved.

Nonetheless, I created a set of words to avoid saying the same thing over and over again(positive reviews). Do any of you accept them:

• Critical approval
• Critical praise
• positive criticism
• favorable reviews
• widespread critical approval
• rave reviews

--Eddyghazaley (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of those phrases are perfectly acceptable: Critical approval, positive criticism and favorable—or rather favourable I think under British spelling)—reviews all seem fine to me. Critical praise and rave reviews we start to get into problem terriotory again, and I think "widespread critical approval" is ok too but slightly redundant. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Changeling only recieved critical acclaim at Cannes, the overall reception of the film from critics was mixed to positive and 61 % on RT is not critical acclaim. Critical acclaim on RT is generally ranging from the late 80's to 100%. And Harry Potter 8 recieved 96% out of 100%. And from top critics on the site it recieved a full 100%. So that just proves it's acclaim. And how can acclaim be a loaded term? it's a word that means applaud or praise, its a good thing for heavens sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"its a good thing for heavens sake!" makes my point. We're not here to make things look good ... or bad. We're here to present things in as neutral a way as possible. That's one of the very core tenets of Wikipedia. "Critical acclaim" and, even more so, "rave reviews" are terms associated in people's minds with hyperbolic connotations. The term "positive reviews" does not do that, does it? We can feel the difference, can't we?

As for how much acclaim is represented by an 80 percent or even 100 percent of critics giving a movie a positive review, critics have different scales for different kinds of movies. A good horror-thriller or fantasy film or modest little indie, for example, may get great reviews by the majority of critics for what it is, but are they really comparing it with High Noon or Raging Bull? Does the 100 percent for the Harry Potter movie here mean that it's as good as or better than Citizen Kane? So short of saying "universally positive reviews for the kind of movie it is," saying "positive reviews" is both neutral and accurate.

"Positive reviews" and "favorable reviews" and variations thereof I believe are good terms. For non-English speakers, "criticism" has more than one meaning, and the distinctions between "criticism" and "critique" may be unnecessarily complicated. Even "critical approval" can have more than one meaning: "The real estate development project received a critical approval when the city gave its OK." Again, for native English speakers, not a big deal, but we need to keep WP:WORLDVIEW in mind.

Besides: What's wrong with just neutrally saying "favorable" or "positive" reviews? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if your going to change the critical reception to positive for Harry Potter why don't you just do it for every other film that recieved positive feedback too? And critical acclaim or even universal acclaim is way better than saying positive reviews. It gives distinction. If somebody goes by the critics and they are thinking of seeing this movie and they see the general reception on wikipedia "oh, this film only recieved postive reviews it must be an okay movie." Where as with universal or critical acclaim, people will automatically want to go see it because it's such a high profile description of the overall reception of the movie. And why change Harry Potter's reception? Your trying to make things more accurate? Well, your not! The film recieved universal acclaim because it's considered one of the best reviewed films of the year and films with just positive reviews don't typically make that list! Also, Since you changed it, people will think that (since there are other movies on the site with critical acclaim and universal acclaim under their reception) Harry Potter 8 is a lesser film compared to them. So, just leave it the way it originally was with universal acclaim. And you mustn't be a Harry potter fan because otherwise you wouldn't be doing this!!!! Also, you clearly havent seen the film to know that it was acclaimed by fans and critics alike!!!!! And the reason why we should use acclaim is because it describes the quality and impact of a film. Also it's way better than saying something got positive reviews.Saying positive reviews just seems so bland to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffymoose (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason it is being discussed in relation to this film is because an editor raised the issue here. If it had been raised on another film article I most likely would have given the same response. I do actually hope the outcome of this debate does set some kind of precedent for neutral wording of the critical reception on film articles. And if you are fan to the point that you cannot objectively edit the article then you are advised to peruse WP:COI. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think critical praise works in this case, because if you look at the RT consensus, they have decided that many of the critics praised acting and visual effects. So, it is a simple deduction that allows us to reach to the conclusion that it was acclaimed or praised in that area. So, critical praise or critical acclaim isn't a far fetched idea. Its quite neutral since we are expressing the tone of the site and it is actually true--it has been praised.(it's on a reliable site)--Eddyghazaley (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Praise" doesn't seem like a neutral word to me; neither does "acclaim," at least not in relation to "positive reviews" or "favorable reviews." I think we're running into WP:PEACOCK issues. And by staying as neutral as possible, I think we can better avoid highly fanatical editors like Fluffymoose there above, who think Wikipedia should be a consumer guide, or who want to be highly supportive of movies they like. The more neutral the language we use, the less we need to deal with fannish overenthusiasm.

We've gone on for awhile about this on this page. Maybe we need to open up this discussion to more editors at whatever WP:FILM Manual of Style page covers critical reception. If we can help nail down precise language, that would save all of us a lot of time the future. What do we think? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth dropping a note at the film project because this is an issue prevalent on other film articles; Fluffy is right about one thing, if we aren't going to use the terminology here it shouldn't really be deployed on other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree this discussion should be brought up to the WP:FILM, because we are changing articles that have been on wiki for more than 6 years. I think this problem should reach out to more people and hopefully we can find a solution to it that is passe-partout and effective for most articles.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anybody wanna volunteer to take point and write up an RfC for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll post an RFC to this discussion; the arguments included here pretty much sum up the whole debate, and the guidelines really only need to be altered if the argument here holds up. If a load of editors come in and give the ok for using terms like "acclaim" and "rave reviews" then there isn't much point starting a discussion about guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Has this discussion be posted as an RFC yet.-Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception. I was expecting it to continue here but a fresh discussion seems to have started on the project page in the wider context of all film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

After a long discussion about what term to use on the Wiki project talk, I think the main consensus that was reached was citing if any terms are to be used. So, I have gathered a few reliable news site that use the term "Critical acclaim" verbatim, so therefore I can use the term in the article on the condition that it is cited as I am doing. The sites are here 1, 2, 3, and 4(not so well known that's why I kept it as # four. I am gonna go ahead and change the word "positive reviews" to "Critical acclaim" and cite it for the introduction.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't footnote in the lead, since it's a summary of what's presumably verifiably cited in the body of the article. I would not use the term in the lead since it's certainly more non-neutral than "positively/favorably reviewed." If a critic or an RT/Metacritic summary uses that hyperbolic term, then of course we include it in within the quote in the Reception section. But the whole point of the discussion on the other page is not to use loaded terms in Wikipedia's voice, but solely within quotes from reputable critics / film-critic aggregate sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't me who is using the term. It's the general public, as you can see I have provided you with a few articles which use the word "critical acclaim" and some of the articles are reliable. The introduction is used merely to identify the overall view of the movie. If we don't footnote, then again we are simply making conclusions that are quite above board which clearly contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't think it's non-neutral as it came from a reliable source. The Metacritic summary also uses the term "universal acclaim", so in a way or another I am not running too far from what the article states, but I am backing up by writing with substance in this case an article. A critic will not use the word "critical acclaim" because he is not summing up all of the critical reviews, he is simply reviewing the film in respect to himself. Now the RT summary will never use it because it is quite stupid to use it, because it adds no extra information to how the film performed(the numbers show it). What they decide to do is summarize and try to condense what the majority of the critics are trying to point out. And in this case, for HP8 they clearly are accentuating the areas the film was praised(acting, visual effects, plot,...etc.).The main consensus reached on the Film project talk page is the long time rule of wiki--using citations as a reliable source--which is what I am doing. IT was the best way to go. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, this movie just won an award at RT for being the best reviewed film of the year on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/golden_tomatoes_awards_2011/wide/)Penny Lane's America (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic's opinion is Metacritic's opinion, and can be cited in the Reception section as such. No one's arguing that. But not in the lead as the final word, for many reasons. First, "universal acclaim" is not factually true — "universal" is 100 percent and there's no 100 percent on RT (and even if there were, it's already been discussed that RT says positive for a review that's the equivalent of just 51 percent positive). Secondly, some sources say that, but it's not a universal opinion that it got universal acclaim. Finally it's contentious (look at all this debate), WP:PEACOCK language. Citations from a reliable source is absolutely, as you say, a core policy. So is neutral language.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I never advocated using the term "universal" as I also agree that it's an inaccurate word, but that's the way it is in respect to Metacritic and I can't do any thing about it obviously. I haven't searched for "universal" critical acclaim because I truly find it wrong and highly non-neutral.(I am quite sure that you aren't going to find an article from a reliable source using that exact word.) Now for "Critical Acclaim", it isn't non-neutral, since most articles use that phrase("critical acclaim" not to be mixed up with "universal critical acclaim"). Moreover, it isn't me who is using that language and I am in no way using over the top type of language. I am simply using the same exact word from the article no conclusion and therefore no Peacock language. And the word changes you did to the paragraph seem silly, but I agree that it was quite redundant. I think we should make the sentence more relevant to what the paragraph actually talks about(something similar to became a financial and critical success, or just add "became a financial success and is amongst one of the best-reviewed films of 2011"...). What do you think?--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your last phrase is perfect (with a slight, purely technical syntactical tweak). Didn't meant to conflate the "universal" mentions. But, yeah, I think you nailed it. I would totally say "became a financial success and was one of the best-reviewed films of 2011". Perfect! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would work like a topic sentence, and then if the film garners any notable awards like the Oscars we could add it under that paragraph.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing the critcal consensus please. (Fluffymoose (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

There is a consensus, just not your version of it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I Strongly oppose the use of "Many positive reviews" because a movie with majority negative reviews could have many positive reviews. It should say majority positive or something that indicates most reviewers by the sites that keep track gave it good reviews. Not many. A movie can have 50 good reviews and 100 bad reviews and you can write it has many positives. Please remove many positive, it really does seem like most of the reviews were bad with that language. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)