Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/Archive 4

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

{{spoiler}}

Source Request

In the Fan Reaction section, there's a line about how some fans have gone as far as to create hate sites regarding their dissatisfaction with the romantic subplots. This either needs a corroborating source or two, or to be removed as unsupported.

Cleanup

There's a big "cleanup" notice on the article asking for help to meet Wikipedia's "quality standards". There's nothing on this talk page obviously related to that notice. What is it there for? Brian Jason Drake 08:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed the "Cleanup tag" section a long way below, which is vague anyway. Brian Jason Drake 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

About an entry made in an earlier edit...

Could somebody tell me waht is ment by "This led to a new YTMND fad."? Jason Palpatine 09:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

See Harry Potter trolling Duomillia 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dumbledore In the Cave

What was Dumbledore dreaming about when Harry was feeding him the poison drink? --unsigned by User:24.19.17.220

Good question, but we'll never know. --Zetawoof 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing fact from fantasy

Could we please bear in mind, when discussing whether real world people or events might relate to those in the books, that the story is set in a world where 1 September always falls on a Sunday? —Phil | Talk 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this? Brian Jason Drake 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot synopsis a bit too short

Isn't the plot synopsis a bit too short. The Order of the Pheonix plot synopsis seems to be a lot better--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I think it contains the right balance of conciseness and detail. If you want to read a longer plot synopsis with more detail, try Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary. Actually, I think the Order of the Phoenix plot synopsis is too big. I'd like to eventually get around to paring that one too. --Deathphoenix 12:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've begun a Wikibook plot for both (they are now linked in both the articles): Harry Potter plots. We can put long plots there from now on, giving Harry Potter fans a place for detail and keeping the nonencyclopedic deleters from anger. — 131.230.109.211 02:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a great place for such a detailed synopsis, and it's an alternative location for these things in case the other Harry Potter plot synopses get deleted from WP. Excellent work! --Deathphoenix 15:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now, it is too short to the point of being unusable. Nothing sensible exists on 'books either. Sandpiper 09:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

An erroneous book?

3 things:

First, why wait until now to deal with Big V's half soul? Why not get on the case when they knew he was up and about again, i.e. book 2? We wouldn't then have to wade through five badly written books.

Second: If they have to swim through the cave to where there is air, why not just apparate there in the first place?

Third: etc, etc, etc, etc......

It's called verisimilitude. Wikipedia Talk pages are not for talking about the book, it's for talking about the article. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks on Wikipedia, please. --Sanguinus 15:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps that statement should be removed. Anybody second that? Fshy93 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Voldemort's half-soul is is weakness and strength. Harry knows now that Voldemort can't be destroyed easily. All seven pieces of of his part-soul must be destroyed for him to be vanquished forever. Half the reason for the back-story is why Voldemort became what he was. The other half was clues to the location of his soul.

Restored the plot synopsis

It's been seven hours since User:H.J.Potter stuck the {{inuse}} tag to the plot synopsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=19566151&oldid=19562227 diff), but the only thing that came out of this was an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=next&oldid=19566151 unfinished plot synopsis. I think seven hours is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a major edit, so I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=19584920&oldid=19583757 restored the pre-{{inuse}} version. --Deathphoenix 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The first time he put an {{inuse}} tag was over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=prev&oldid=19527890 21 hours ago), so I'm thinking it was a bad faith edit. User:H.J.Potter, if you disagree and are trying to improve the article, please do so off-line (or in a sandbox in your user page), and paste the results into the article when you are done. Thank you. --Deathphoenix 17:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

you know, it did say that the locket was protected, you would think that Big V would protect it as much as possible so that people have to get to it the hard way. you really are a big idiot.

Featured Article

Feel like making this a Featured article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! Hot dog! Where do we start? Hermione1980 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The criteria can be seen at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the references to the ref/Note template. I think we should need sales figures, NYT best seller list, Amazon rating, other lists, and some how mention the hoaxes and also internet parodies surrounding this book. One website my brother visits alot, YTMND, has a lot of videos pertaining to X doing something to Y. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone gets excited, it's highly doubtful that this article will become an FA any time soon. There's still far too much activity, with constant changes, edits, and reverts, and until it stabilizes it's not going to be supported for FA status. Exploding Boy 01:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

We got peer review to do first, which will last a month. I figured, by that time, the stability of the article should be firm. I, though it might not be relevant, noticed that Tony Blair is a Featured article, though he is the current PM of the UK. Just something I figure we could do, since we got many people looking at this article now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The other problem, of course, it that this article really tells you bugger all about the story, which is what most people looking at it will want to know. The Blair article is controversial because it has to skirt around lots of discussion but still include widely held opinions about the man. But there are pages and pages of it, and it gives a good grounding. This article completely fails to address the interesting bits. Big tables of stuff? six cover pictures? ISBN numbers?Sandpiper 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Speculation in short synopsis.

I have a problem with the end of the following sentence: Severus Snape makes an "Unbreakable Vow" to Draco Malfoy's mother that he will aid Draco in his first mission as a Death Eater: to kill Professor Dumbledore. Unless I missed it, Draco's true mission was never "set in stone" and said outright by JK Rolling, it was just implied, thought not in the beginning of the book. I think the sentence should be cut off at the colon (:).--michael180 18:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have a small problem with it, but for different reasons. I think it is highly likely that his mission is to kill Dumbledore. Whenever Draco mentions his mission, Dumbledore says words to the effect of "but Draco, you are not a killer" or "you cannot kill me". In this conversation, Dumbledore showed that he's aware of Draco's mission, though not the specifics, so his answers indicate that Draco's mission is to kill Dumbledore. However, I think mentioning his mission this early on almost "ruins" the plot synopsis, because the reader didn't know outright what his mission was, and this plot synopsis should maybe cover the same material. So I'd be in favour of removing it. What does everyone else think? --Deathphoenix 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the end of the book, where Draco doesn't kill Dumbledore, makes it perfectly clear that that was his mission. - Violet Evans 05:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It certaimly seems to be clear after the events at the end. But I can't find anywhere it is written down in black and white. I agree that it would be better to avoid specifying what the mission was. Just in case :) --Telsa 07:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the text. Thanks for your feedback, folks. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

InstaBlock?

This is one of the most vandalized pages at wiki, and its probably the same 1 to 3 guy(s). I think whenever we see that Snape kills Dumbledore crap we instantly block the vandal for 48 hours, much like we do at George W. Bush. Redwolf24 05:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me Red, just keep up with the good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though 48 hours is a little long unless it's the same IP range. I'd say 24 hours, but increased for repeat vandals or those using the same IP range as a previous vandal. Use the shotgun with my compliments. Unfortunately, {{thendoit}} doesn't apply to me here, so you'll have to do it when folks come here to play. --Deathphoenix 05:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. Phoenix let us block any who do it... Redwolf24 07:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is thendoit?! Redwolf24 07:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If I read it right, Death might not be able to block folks. So, basically, if you want to block the vandals, then do so. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's right. My apologies Redwolf, I'm feeling very metaphorical today. --Deathphoenix 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you (or anyone else) blocks a user or IP for vandalising this page, please leave a note on their talk page so we don't have to waste time typing out a {{subst:test2a}} or something. Thanks... --Deathphoenix 12:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I always tell them they've been blocked, no worries. Redwolf24 20:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh one other thing, how about we protect it for a week. No one will really care after that long... Redwolf24 05:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't directed at you specifically, just something that I think would be useful. I sent a test2 or test2a once only to find that the user had already been blocked. --Deathphoenix 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dedications?

I see Exploding Boy reverted my deletion of the dedication section of the page. Since when are dedications being posted on book pages? Also, no other HP book page has a dedication section. I removed it in an attempt to make the book pages consistent. I really don't see a point to keeping the section. -Matt 20:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It explains the dedication page. I found it interesting and didn't understand the dedication when I first read it. I think there are no "Dedication" sections in the other books because the others were pretty much standard fare for dedications. This one was different and required some explanation. If it wasn't for its inclusion in this article, I'd still be scratching my head over the meaning of "ink-and-paper twin". --Deathphoenix 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said when I tried to delete this, the dedication has no relevance to the BOOK. I would be fine with its inclusion in the J.K. Rowling article. The ONLY assertion of notability is that she was pregnant when she wrote the book and the dedication conveys that. By that token, we could include the dedication "To X with love" because the dedication explains that the author loves their significant other. Deathphoenix, it seems like Withinfocus and I are against this. You are the only one reverting it...Savidan 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalizations

I do not have a copy of the book handy. Can anyone check the capitalization of horcrux or half-blood prince in them, not when they are introduced (or in the capitalized book title), but, say, when Hermione talks about them. I'm pretty sure horcrux isn't capitalized, but I'm not sure about either of them. Thanks. — 131.230.133.185 06:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's "Horcrux" and "Half-Blood Prince", both capitalised. Hermione1980 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In that case, apologies for my edits to 'h' rather than 'H', I am currently re-reading HBP and thought it was 'h', but will pay more attention for the last few chapters! Peeper 12:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Disambig notice

The disambiguation notice for Half-Blood Prince (character) is probably unnecessary. As someone else has noted in an edit summary, anyone that ends up at this article is likely searching for the book, anyway. Besides, Half-Blood Prince (character) really ought to be merged into this article or Severus Snape. android79 20:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with getting rid of the notice for Half-Blood Prince (character). Because Half-Blood Prince redirects here, people may want information about the character. HBP (character} could possibly be redirected to Snape, only if it is a little more obvious that Snape is the HBP. Otherwise, put that Snape is the HBP right at the top of the HBP (character) page and change the top line to "The Half-Blood Prince is a nickname to the fictional character, Snape, in J. K. Rowling's book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." (possibly mention book 7). --michael180 21:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the fact that Snape is the Half-Blood Prince is both in this and Snape's article; that article is currently just a repeat of what's available elsewhere. I also believe that if it redirects to Snape, people will be very quick to pick up that the Half-Blood Prince is Snape. Why else would it redirect there, after all ? — 131.230.133.185 04:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

In considering this question, I ask myself this: how many people are going to attempt to go directly to an article titled 'Half-Blood Prince (character)'? I expect that most people would try 'Half-Blood Prince' first, and find the information they need here (especially if we add a section with a heading that clearly states, 'This section will tell you what the title means and who the HBP is'). No unmarked spoilers that way. -- Perey 11:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Adult version

So what's the difference between the normal and the adult version? --Silvestre Zabala 18:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Different cover and binding, same text. --Zetawoof 20:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added your reply to the article --Silvestre Zabala 13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Plot synopsis too short (and too long)

I read the plot synopsis on this article. It is very short, and misleading too when compared against the actual book. It may be suitable for an article which makes no pretense at informing the reader about the story. Otherwise it is unhelpfull. The links to wikibooks are also unhelpful. If you follow them you will find a synopsis divided into one paragraph on a page for each chapter. This is impossible to read, and very probably too long overall for most purposes. Why is there no synopsis of a sensible length? Is it the intention to remove all useful content about the story from this article? Sandpiper 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

When the book came out and this article became very popular, there were many people contributing. That lead to a massive and heavily-bloated plot synopsis including such details as which students were going out with whom, contributing to a rather large and unreadable synopsis for readers who just wanted a quick summary. Many discussions on this talk page (some current, some archived) reached a general consensus that the synopsis was much too large, and that people should work to shrink down the plot synopsis. This is more or less the result of that discussion. Yes, I make no bones about the fact that I strongly prefer a shorter plot synopsis. However, I wash my hands of the whole affair for the next month or so (see the top of my user page for more details), but if you wish to bring up this conversation again, I wouldn't mind seeing whether the consensus now is to include such miniscule details, or having a brief synopsis as discussed before. --Deathphoenix 05:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Deathphoenix. This article is about the book. The plot is just one aspect of the book. At one stage, we had an article which had three or four paragraphs of detailed plot per chapter. Some of our Shakespeare plot summaries are shorter than these chapter summaries! The article was gigantic, unbalanced, and uneditable (many times over the recommended limit of article size and very slow to load). So, that said: in what way is the present summary misleading? How long (or, in how much detail) is a sensible length? Telsa 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not at all arguing that such a long synopsis is suitable. I complained above that exactly that same description is now on wikibooks, linked to, and unusable. But the one here now is way too short. Wiki policy says that a plot description should not be so long as to make a long article in its own right. This is way below that. If you do not want any useful plot description on this page as it is essentialy non-fiction material, then I propose having an article simply for the plot. Yes, I am aware the long page was deleted, but this would be a sensible length, not either of the two extreme choices available now. I strongly suspect this would achieve consensus, if only because otherwise you are proposing deletion of all articles describing plots. Sandpiper 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I can understand why the Wikibooks one might be in separate pages for chapters but I am just guessing, as I am not a Wikibooks contributor. It's probably something to take up on Wikibooks, not here.

Second, no, I am not proposing the deletion of all articles describing plots! I haven't proposed any deletion at all! And I don't think I have seen anyone else propose that either. I would love to read the Wiki policy on plot summaries or articles about books or whatever it is, actually. I have looked for such a thing and failed to find it. So I have mostly been using what I have seen in other articles as a guide. And other articles vary widely. If you could provide a link to this policy, that would be brilliant.

Finally, to repeat: what would you call a sensible length? This is what I asked in my last comment: in what way is the present summary misleading? How long (or, in how much detail) is a sensible length? I see that you (or someone) just deleted exactly what Draco's first mission is from the current summary. (Which I have no quarrel with at all: it's never specified.) Is that an example of the sort of thing you mean? If so, we may be much nearer consensus than we think :)

Telsa 16:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Telsa.I find wiki wide and rambling, which makes it difficult to remember to come back to a conversation, or where some information came from. However, there is a page called wikipedia:fiction, which also mentions Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. The former anyway seems to have changed somewhat in the last month, making it difficult to cite, and also makes some rather optimistic references to HP articles and wikibooks on HP as examples. By which I mean, my knowledge of what they are referring to does not seem to exactly bear out the comments they are trying to make. But it is something to think about.

As to the immediate issue of this plot summary. I checked the list, and i think you are right, that I deleted the section referring to Draco's first mission. However I did this not because in principle I felt it should not be mentioned, but because it was wrong. yes, the mission was to kill dumbledore, but it is very unclear that Snape knowingly swore to do this, rather that he swore and found out later what he had sworn to. Quite an important difference, and not the first time he has done this.(particularly, when he got Voldemort to kill james and Lily without realising who would be killed).

You may be glad to hear that I have mellowed somewhat on the issue of plot length. My first reaction, well also my current one, is that the summary here does cover the very bare bones of the story, but nothing more. It is quite short and the article as a whole would not suffer if this section doubled in size, purely thinking about length. It contained (contains?) some inaccuracies, and I felt was a little muddled in order and grammar...all of which are important in a very tight summary. I am not going to add anything (much?) untill I get round to reading the book again, as I would not say that right now I remembered it well enough to add important points.

However, as I said, I have mellowed a little. The HP articles do not really seem to fit the mould envisaged by the guidelines above about fiction. There is far far too much stuff to fit in one article. This volume too is reasonable, as this has become a very noteable book, and indeed the story is now spread over several books. So I find i can live with a pretty short summary here, just so long as the important material does get covered somewhere else. This works quite well in the many articles about individual characters, places, and miscellanea.

I had a vehement discussion the other day with someone in the publishing trade, who considered HP to be a pretty poor book. I understand her point of view, particularly as she gave up after the early books, which are the most traditionally child-book like. But I have read quite a lot of books, and the way JKR has slotted pieces together across all 7 books is quite exceptional. Many authors write a series about the same characters, but few have knitted the plot together in such a way that dominoes toppled in book 1 suddenly push over two more in book 7....So I can go along with a 'divide and conquer' strategy to tackling the series.

Maybe most of all I have been annoyed by the flashing signs of dire consequences if anyone adds anything, accompanied by exhortations to continue shrinking everything. Enough is enough. I can agree with what you said about not having a vast summary here, but this one is still on the edge of starvation. Sandpiper 00:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Image at the top

Currently, it's this picture: Image:Harry Potter lines.jpg, which is a picture of people outside a bookstore trying to get a copy of the book. Isn't this, like, less appropriate then say a picture of the book cover? There is a problem, of course, of choosing which book cover to put at the top, but I think it'd be more appropriate than the current picture. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 16:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Several of the articles list all the front covers; others only one or two. I think this issue should be considered in terms of the whole set of articles, as I have proposed in Talk:Harry Potter#Individual Book Articles. Bigbluefish 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the B&N guy?

There's a famous video clip on the Internet guy who yells out a major plot point on opening night at a B&N. Is this notable enough to be put on the Controversies section?

I'd say no. Ask yourself: will anyone care about the B&N guy in a year? If not, he's not notable. Nandesuka 12:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth considering to include that. It led to a popular Internet trend of posting the plot point onto blogs, forums, etc., leading to an important plot point being spoiled for the fans.

Regarding merging "Internet trolling" in.

As far as I've been told, this was added in because a deleted page was voted to be merged into this page. Talk to Tony Sidaway if you have any questions, but please don't remove it without talking to him first. Ral315 05:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, unmerging is fine. The article deletion debate was originally closed with a "no consensus, merge" result, hence the merge. But that isn't binding; if there is a consensus that the article is better off without it, it should be removed. Discuss and arrive at a consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it for the second time. As Tony points out, there's no reason to have this here. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I have not stated, nor do I have an opinion on, whether there is no reason to have the information here. It does at least seem to be germane to the subject matter of the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This book is not the best

I found that this book was too lame. It makes the last book all too predictable. Unless Ms. Rowling has something completely innovative in mind, I don't think the last book will be one thatanyone should bother reading.

This talk page is to discuss what's in the article, not a forum of opinion. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, funnily enough redwolf, the article is much more about printing details and opinion about the book than about the story. So it would be highly appropriate to include some comment on whether it was a good or bad book. But that said, perhaps anon should read it again, because having spent quite some time reading it and thinking about it, there are a lot of things which will remain uncertain until it is actually published.Sandpiper 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"It makes the last book all too predictable."? What on Earth do you mean? This takes place AFTER the last book -- i.e. the last book is past history. History is predictable because it happened. -- Jason Palpatine 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore's motivation in paralysing Harry

I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=24329891&oldid=24320692 reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=24320692&oldid=24281951 this edit because the novel kept vague Dumbledore's motivations behind paralysing Harry. I think Rowling did this quite deliberately, and I think the plot overview should also not mention his motivations unless this is officially reported by Rowling herself. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - I made the edit, but on another reading you're right, it was vaguer than I remembered. Cheers for checking! Although now I'm even more confused about what actually happened up there...! Peeper 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Yeah, that part of the novel is very confusing. Kudos to Rowling for making Book 7 a must-read book, if only to answer the myriad of questions left behind... --Deathphoenix 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason is most likely so that Harry doesn't intervene. Of course, this would mean he wants to die, which would still leave a lack of motivation as to WHY he wanted to die... But the question shouldn't be why Harry was paralyzed...

Environmental Concerns section

This section (about people promoting a boycott of the US Scholastic edition in favour of the Canadian Raincoast edition, which used a higher percentage of recycled paper) is indeed genuine. I remember reading about it at the time, and a quick Google turns up a lot of references (top of the list: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0718_050718_harrypotter.html). -- Perey 11:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Points of Interest

The entire http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=29179879&oldid=29153035 Points of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=29180711&oldid=29179879 Interest section reads like a long personal essay. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 13:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I chopped it down brutally in an attempt to just get closer to sourced material and summary. I wouldn't cry if it went away completely, though. Nandesuka 13:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I find the 'Points of Interest' sections for the HP books to often be the most interesting parts, as they challenge you, make you ask questions. However, for this page, whilst the 'Points of Interest' made are valid, there are actually only two of them. Could we include some more? Perhaps people are concerned about making the article too long, in which case I would say cut down the points you've already got and add some more. For example:

1. Harry finding out that it is not because of the prophecy that he has to kill Voldemort.
2. The suggestion circling discussion boards that the real Slytherin locket may have fallen into Mundungus and subsequently Aberforth Dumbledore's hands?

These are just ideas, maybe not great suggestions, but my point is that one of the main reasons this book is so exciting is beacuse of the mystery, especially surrounding various characters, and it seems a shame to miss this out! What do you all think? Thanks

I don't think this section is needed. Reasons are, first, its original research, and if it isn't, there aren't any sources mentioned. Second, it is upto the reader to decide what parts of the novel interest him. What conclusions he draws from events depicted in the book should be left to him; it is not for an encyclopedia to critically analyse a book. Anyone agree? Bluerain 09:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

This article needs to be cleaned up to have a longer plot summary and less of this random stuff. Including the full text of the dedication, for example, is touching but really has very little relevance. Go and read the article on War and Peace. I don't think it begins that way. Savidan 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how the dedication text is "random". If you want a longer plot summary, make it longer. So what if another article begins differently? Brian Jason Drake 10:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Draco Malfoy

"Early on in the story, Severus Snape makes an Unbreakable Vow to Draco Malfoy's mother Narcissa that he will protect Draco and aid him in his first mission as a Death Eater, although the exact details of the mission are kept secret at this point."

A Death Eater? Says who? No reference is given in the article. On top of the Astronomy tower, the book mentions there being four Death Eaters plus Malfoy, suggesting that Malfoy is not a Death Eater.

The exact details of the mission haven't been revealed yet. It was only suggested that the mission was Dumbledore's murder. Brian Jason Drake 09:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts

Since the Battle of Hogwarts was merged into this article, I don't see much about the Battle. A section below of the battle would be a good idea. --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

more vandalism

Hi, can someone with the editing power remove the vandalism (Dedication and Environmental Concerns). And maybe flag the user responsible.

Lemmingz 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done. By the way, the article doesn't seem to be protected, you should feel free to edit it, especially to remove such vandalism. - Nunh-huh 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Long-time lurker, so I actually have no idea how to use Wikipedia anyways!

Lemmingz 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary: 860 words???

What the hell happened to the plot synopsis? Previous discussions many months ago (and often repeated) often agreed that the plot synopsis was too long, and had to be shortened since a more detailed synopsis is available at Wikibooks). Now, at 860 words, this synopsis is far too long as a section in a short article about the book. If people must keep up with their obsession with writing extremely long plot summaries, please take a look at wikibooks:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Half-Blood Prince. When I have time, I'll have to get around to chopping this plot synopsis down and restore the previous suggestion against expanding the plot synopsis to being very large. --Deathphoenix 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With a little work, I edited out some unnecessary details (and reworded some sentences) to bring this down from 860 words to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=35716896&oldid=35109096 659. Probably needs some more editing, but I left in the more important plot points. Anything further likely belongs in the WikiBooks entry. --Deathphoenix 20:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A sypnopsis should be shorter. It still looks too long, good job done to summarise the plot. The full plot should be at Wikibooks. Cut down the not so important points would be a good idea. Maybe the most it should have is around 450 words. --Terence Ong 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually cut it down to 299 words a long time ago (see here), but the constant barrage of detailed edits and not seeing other people really help me cut it down is wearing down on me. If you can provide some much needed support, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Deathphoenix 14:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a great fan of Harry Potter, but sadly I haven't read the Half Blood Prince as I'm still reading first part of the Order of the Phoenix. I'm quite slow, and Wikipedia has taken up all my time from reading the book. Not a lot of time now. Sorry. :( --Terence Ong 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll do the best I can. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a bit blunt, but the book is very long and embarking on a noble attempt to shorten the synopsis will leave many important details out. It is no wonder people want to re-add them. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may also be blunt, there are many works of literature that are much longer and better than HBP, yet they have shorter plot synopses. Obviously, I'm a fan of the Harry Potter series, but even I don't see how HBP is so special that it deserves such a long entry (especially when there is a super-detailed entry in Wikibooks) when other works (such as War and Peace or King Lear) do not. I've left in some fairly important plot details (the latest addition, of Harry and Ginny, certainly deserves mention) but there are a whole host of side plots that certainly shouldn't be put in here. --Deathphoenix 06:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does this book need to be compared to others with entries on Wikipedia? This series has a dedicated fan base, and if it's Wikipedia article is thorough as a result, I don't see why its length should be limited just because other books' synopsis' aren't as long. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that it doesn't need to be exceedingly long because this article is a brief summary of information about the book itself, and an overly long and detailed plot synopsis would take over the article and be useless to a brief plot summary. Also, a long plot summary is completely redundant since a detailed plot summary already exists in Wikibooks. --Deathphoenix 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article plot summary is way too short to be useful. On the other hand, if we are talking about that behemoth thing on wikibooks, that is also way too long to be useful. Cutting this description to such a short description is not very helpful. On the other hand, I am quite in favour of a relatively short quick summary, followed by separate topic sections adding further detail about important points. This has the benefit that readers can choose either to read just the quick summary, or then go on to read more detail. Sandpiper 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Luxtehaven!

I would like to thank Uwser Luxtehaven very much for his/her improvement of the part ofthe mistakes section regarding Professor Slughorn mistakenly calling Ron Weasley Rupert. That user got that part all right! That's what it's all about. Ron isn't important enough for Slughorn to remember him. The "accidential" use of the name Rupert is an insider joke by Joanne Rowling but Slughorn using the wrong name on Ron is part of the story. --Maxl 00:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

More errors which aren't

I don't know why this article attracts so many "the book says this, but it can't be right, because.." claims, 90% of which are wrong. The latest is the remark that "On page 101 (Bloomsbury edition) it is stated that Hermione had eleven OWLs. This is, however, incorrect. In her 5th year in Hogwarts she used to have all the subjects Harry used to have (nine) minus divination which she had dropped plus Arithmancy and Ancient Runes. That would be 10 subjects and she could not have got more OWLs than she had had subjects."

She could not have got more? Why not? When I did O-levels (the obvious origin of OWLs), it was routine to take English Literature and English Language as separate subjects, although the same lessons (English) led to both. Similarly, A-level maths courses in the UK have led to more than one maths exam for years: I am told by people with more recent school experience than I that nothing has changed.This might be two branches of maths, such as "Maths (Stats)" and "Maths (Mech)"; or it might involve entering pupils for both Maths and Further Maths simultaneously. Perhaps Hermione did "Ancient Runes (Futhark)" and "Ancient Runes (Ogham)". Perhaps it was "Arithmancy (Pure)" and "Arithmancy (Applied)". Maybe she sat Further Muggle Studies and Harry just didn't notice.

I am all for close reading and picking up the little references, but a lot of the "this is incorrect" or "Rowling made a mistake" assertions are, to put it charitably, over-eager to find errors.

Telsa (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Anything that is clearly wrong has a place, but some of these errors... require some interpretation. I can't speak for the O-levels, but since you're in the know, I'd defer to you for that. This section is probably more for the unambiguous mistakes. --Deathphoenix 13:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

If someone who actively edits this page, or someone who can, merge Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Summary into this article, and redirect, or speedy delete as a useless redirect once complete, it would be much appreciated. Pepsidrinka 04:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That article is taken straight from the Harry Potter wiki, and ours is longer anyway. -05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregAsche (talk • contribs)

I did manage to get a couple sentences out of that, which I merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=42160360&oldid=42160249 this edit. If you're confused about the "however" at the end of my edit, it was an unfinished thought that perhaps that article (and this article, for that matter) was a copyvio because some of the sentences were the same word-for-word. However, looking at the edit history from when the summary was created, I see no evidence for this. It's more likely that (based on GregAsche's comments above) the Harry Potter wiki copied the content from here initially. Anyway, we have no further use for that extra page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but this is almost identical to an older version of the plot summary, albeit without Wikilinks, and that version was the one copied over to the Harry Potter Wiki in the first place. Looks like an AfD is in order? --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be neccessary. The PROD tag has been added, and I'm optimistic that it will be deleted. Pepsidrinka 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Error: DADA?

At one point in the book, the Defense Against the Dark Arts class is referred to as DADA, which I believe is the only time it's shortened in the series. If anyone feels this is something to point out, I can find the page number for reference. -- chicken queen 06:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

this section is full of weasel words and is obviously one person trying to get their views across. The book wasn't prefect, but some sources would be nice.

Uncited material

There is a good amount of material that is well cited in this article, however there is a fair amount that still needs citation. Right now I'm currently working on improving the citation for J. K. Rowling, however I intend to visit this article soon. Please if you can, help provide citation information for any areas of the article that do not have them. A simple link such as this one : www.wikipedia.org within the appropriate places in the text would be fantastic. I can deal with the proper formatting of the citations (note the new References section on J.K. Rowling, which is mainly my work), but it helps me tremendously to know where to look to verify and cite the material. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My plan is to begin by removing material that is uncited per WP:Verify to an archive such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/Uncited, and then from there to add back in material as references are located. Thank you and best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Dead?

I'd like to know if this can be included in the article? Check out this site: www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/. Sure, it's only speculation, but it answers some questions, like "What was Dumbledore's motivation in paralysing Harry" raised on this page; and also provides a good source of the point: "...Though many fans believe Severus Snape is still fighting on the side of the Order of the Phoenix..." raised on the main page in the Points of Interest section.

Also, another point: (this may be the reason the foll. text was ommited from the UK edition, and why no clarification has been issued by JK Rowling on it) ------------ But this is the same passage from the American edition (text missing from the UK edition highlighted):

"He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice." "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...When the time comes we can protect him too. Come over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer..." Malfoy stared at Dumbledore. (HBP US Edition pg 591)

Both of the ommissions are directly related, they are about having Draco appeared to have died, so it would seem the ommisions are intentional.

Did J.K. include those lines originally, and then decide she had gone too far and made the clue too transparent and obvious? Is it possible she decided to remove them, but the lines got accidentally included in the American edition anyway? -----------

Besides these, the site has a nice case, giving some good reasons and citations from the book.

I think it'd make an interesting addition to this article. Maybe, an extra section can be added on this topic, or atleast an external link to this site provided. --Bluerain 13:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's one problem with thisL it's fan speculation, which is original research. Unfortunately, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is that we don't allow original research (read Wikipedia:No original research for more details). As for the site, it's simply a web site created by a Harry Potter fan who just doesn't want to face the reality that (a) Dumbledore is dead, and (b) the death of a mentor, and possibly a father figure, is a common literary device designed the spur the growth and maturity of a young protagonist. In any case, this web site is already listed on Harry Potter: Book Seven, though I am going to move this link to Harry Potter fandom in a about two minutes.

Doesn't Wikipedia:No original research only apply to original research on Wikipedia? If the article just references the website then that doesn't violate the no original research policy. If the site has enough support or notability in the fan community then it belongs. --59.167.223.41 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

--Deathphoenix ʕ 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can state that some fans think Snape is still on the right side, why can't you atleast make a passable mention that some fans also think Dumbledore ain't dead? --Bluerain 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because something else is inb, isn't an argument that this is in either. In fact, I removed speculation like that from the Snape article in the past. I just haven't really paid recent attention to the Snape article now. And no, mentioning that some fans think Dumbledore isn't dead is speculation and original research. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is no original research, and I don't want to see this broken simply because some fans want to be heard on Wikipedia. This kind of speculation is appropriate for a fan forum, but not an encyclopedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction (sorry, my brain must be asleep). Whether Snape is good or not is clearly supposed to be a matter of contention, from Rowling's content in the books. However, she tried to be as unambiguous with Dumbledore's death as possible. A bunch of fans getting together and deciding that Dumbledore isn't dead isn't encyclopedic or notable enough. If Rowling says that Dumbledore might not be dead, fine, I'll consider the desire to include it. She's addressed Snape's character (and its complexity) many times. She has not done so with Dumbledore being possibly alive. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

However, she tried to be as unambiguous with Dumbledore's death as possible.
I heard she refused to confirm or deny it; how is that "unambiguous"? Brian Jason Drake 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, though I'd like to clarify that I'm in no way related to that fan-club, and don't want it to 'be heard', if thats what you're implying. I just felt it had good connection to a lot of the points mentioned on the main page, and an entire 'copyright'ed website would be considered different from something like an HP fan forum, but if Wiki has a policy against it, then that's fair enough. --Bluerain 13:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to say you're connected to the web site, nor am I saying that the web site itself isn't notable enough to have a link. In fact, I think a link to the club *does* belong, since it is notable enough (with a good enough Alexa and Google rank), but linked in the fandom page where all the other fan sites are linked. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What about 'Fan Reactions' para in the main article? The reference given to J K Rowling's quote is invalid (or atleast isn't working for me). Also, #11 in the Reference section leads to the 'Dumbledore Not Dead' webiste. Barring that, the rest of the para has no references or citations, just lines like -- "Fans on one end claimed...while others criticised...", "There is a section of the adult fan base that believes...", and the last line about critics hailing it as the best book in the series. If so, then who are these fans, and adults, and critics?

Also, Reference #6 ( "Editorial: Harry's legal wizardry" from the Toronto Star) also seems invalid. --Bluerain 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Take a stab at editing these topics. You found some useful broken links and stuff, so maybe you can take a stab at fixing some of those. I'm admittedly a little spotty with references (especially since I didn't add these problem ones that you found). --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new so I'm still learning how it's all done. Anyway, I've fixed the reference links, though I don't understand why the 'HP6' link isn't working. Someone pls fix that if they can. --Bluerain 10:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

'Dumbledoreisnotdead' is not original research. Original research means personal opinions of an editor, or unreliable sources. A website that gives proof as such and is cited in many other articles in definitely not original research.

From what I have seen the website is reasonable and reliable at worst. Since whether Dumbledore is dead is in fact quite disputed, I will add that part. Aranherunar 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of the article?

Shouldn't the Editions, Translations, and Dedication sections come towards the end of the article? --Bluerain 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't arrange it that way, but my personal opinion is that it's fine this way. This is an article about the book, and arranging it this way is a good way to focus on the fact that this is a book. The primary focus of this article is not the plot overview, it's about the book itself. Just my two cents. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure its a book, but the release dates of its subsequent translations can't be more important than the plot overwiew. I don't even understand why the Translations section is there; most of them are already past their release date. We could just merge it with this article Harry Potter in translation, or else just provide an external link to the Veritaserum site that gives all the dates. Any ideas? --Bluerain 10:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list of the release dates in the Translation section to an external link, and provided an internal link to the Harry Potter in translation article. About the Editions being ahead of the Plot Overwiew, that's how its done on other HP pages, but the Da Vinci Code page lists them at the end. So is there a standard mentioned on Wikipedia about the order? I personally believe the Editions should be moved to the end of the article, but I'd like other people's opinions on it. Also, should I delete the Book Cover images in the Editions section? It takes up too much space, and we already have the two main book covers in bigger sizes at the side. --Bluerain 08:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose changing the order rather drastically:

1. Lead
2. Points of interest
3. Controversies
4. Prior speculation (A section I just added, could be expanded with a very short summary from the article it links to.)
5. Plot overview
6. Mistakes
7. Missing text
8. Other (including:)

Dedication

Translations

Editions

The purpose of this would be to move the spoilers into one section (from plot overview to missing text) that is lower down in the page and, overall, to make the article more appropriate to the general audience. In general, someone who hasn't read the book will be more interested in the points of interest and controversies than the specifics of the plot. And someone who has read the book already knows the plot. (For that matter, the plot summary we have right now probably could be cut in half to improve the article.) What do people think? zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me.SmokeyJoe 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of having it this way:

1. Lead
2. Plot Overwiew
3. Controversies (Include Missing Text and Prior speculation in here)
4. Points of Interest
5. Mistakes
6. Translations
7. Editions

We could get rid of the 'Dedication' - its not really useful information. Also, I don't know whats going on with the Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but I say we delete that article and instead include that information in the 'Controversies' section of this article. Replies? --Bluerain 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Prior Speculation article has a *lot* of stuff, most of which do not belong in this article. Either we can delete the whole thing and merge in only a fraction of the material collected, or contain a short introduction into Prior Speculation and then link from there. As to including the plot overview at the top, I think what we have now in the lead ("Set during Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, the novel explores Lord Voldemort's past, and Harry's preparations for the final battle amidst emerging romantic relationships"; which, by the way, is a very good, tight summary) is all we need in the beginning of the article - the details I don't think are as necessary for the reader to see right away, and should be moved farther down. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for deletion. And I still believe the Plot Overwiew is more important than the other sections of this article, and hence should be directly after the Lead. Guess we'll need some more opinions on this. --Bluerain 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Snape as a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor?

this is often questioned. why? because Dumbledore wants Harry to continue his dreams of becoming an Auror thus lowering the passing mark in the potions subjects. he rather select Horace Slughorn to replace Snape.

Dumbledore presumedly knew from the start what was going to happen with Harry and Potions - he appears to have done nothing for five years (Horace Slughorn wasn't very enthusiastic about coming back). Perhaps it has to do with the DADA job being "jinxed"? Brian Jason Drake 06:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

missing page number in "mistakes"

the thing about Slughorn calling Ron "Rupert" is found on page 485 in the American edition.

Thanks. I added it in.

This is actually meant to be in the book i beleive as Slughorn is not caring towards Ron and therefore forgets his name, calling him somlething alike. Thanks, C.L

missing text

There is a section about the discrepancy between the UK and US version re Draco being offered a place in hiding. My problem is whether anyone can confirm that the text in question is actually missing from the UK version, or whether it was added to the US version. in the absence of a definitive answer, it has been accepted practice to assume the UK version is the original and definitive text. This may sound daft, but there are people out there making all sorts of conclusions about book 7 on the basis of which version is definitive. Sandpiper 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to be more neutral and to be "added" rather than "missing." But can someone else confirm the existence (or lack thereof) in the other versions? Hbdragon88 20:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Problem

I'm just thinking out loud but when Harry checks the date of the book it is from 60 years ago. He explicitly says neither his father nor his friends were at school back then. This would disqualify Severus. I understand the book could be a hand-me-down but school books seldom can be used for 20 years at a time. I guess my question is, has Rowlings confirmed Snape is the Prince or might he have been lying? The date of the book seems signifigant to me.

See my response here --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore's Death Speculation

OK, I know that this is speculation but many fans believe that Dumbledore is not dead. I understand that this is speculation but after reading the Dumbledore article, I noticed that there was speculation over Dumbloedore's death included:

Some Harry Potter fans have come up with various theories as to how and why they think he may have survived Snape's Avada Kedavra. There are websites devoted to that cause. www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com

Although this is speculation, I think that it should be included, if only with one sentence. Oli 10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states that fans speculate over Dumbledore's death and that of a main character in book 5 - that's vague! There don't appear to be any links to anything that might help here. Brian Jason Drake 07:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

The page has been semi-protected since the middle of April, and as that protection means that several good faith editors are unable to correct inaccuracies, I've unprotected the page. Feel free to leave a message on my page if vandalism becomes a problem. Jude (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes?

The following text was added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=56589721&oldid=56432870 this edit - note that the edit summary identifies these things as "mistakes":

If it takes 6 months to brew Felix Felicis, then how could Slughorn make it in time for the first day of school? After all, he agreed to teach at Hogwarts in July. How could it be ready by September?

Page 135 of The U.S. edition "If Malfoy wants something fixing, and he has to threaten Bogins [...]" "Fixing" should be "fixed".

Arguable: Why does Dumbledore have to drink the potion to get to the locket? Couldn't he have just scooped it out and dumped it in the surrounding waters or on the ground? (Rowling, J.K. (2005). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.US ISBN 0439784549.)

The page 135 comment could be verified by anyone with a book and added to the Mistakes section, which already has a similar comment. The other items are just questions and probably should be removed. Brian Jason Drake 07:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, mistakes by the author or publisher does not mean things that you don't understand or can't explain, things that defy physics (this is a magical world, after all), or the characters' plotted mistakes or lack of knowledge (are characters supposed to be perfect ?). For example, one real mistake was the misordering of the dead people coming out of Harry's wand in the Goblet of Fire. The 'mistakes' that were listed in this article can hardly be said to be worthy of the name. — 131.230.133.186 02:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the "mistake" was in dialogue. There was one real mistake in the article (the misspelling of "sight"), but that is not notable. I agree they should have been removed. Brian Jason Drake 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There was also a mistake concerning the Felix Felicis. On page 188 of the American version, it says, "One tiny bottle of Felix Felicis," said Slughorn, taking a miniscule glass bottle with a cork in it out of his pocket and showing it to them all. "Enough for twelve hours' luck. From dawn till dusk you will be lucky in everything you attempt. Twelve hours right? Well, on page 476, it states, "So, Harry- you going to use Felix Felicis or what?"" Ron demanded. "Yeah, I s'pose I better," said Harry. "I don't reckon I'll need all of it, not twenty-four hours woth, it can't take all night.... I'll just take a mouthful. Two or three hours should do it." It's a difference in the time Felix Felicis offers to make the person lucky. I really do think there should be a Mistakes section in the article. I'm sorry, I'm just making observations. ¡Gracias! Kyo cat 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

The image box at the bottom of the page is inconsistent with the rest of the Harry Potter book articles. I think that this should either become a new standard or be changed in accordance with the other pages. Either way, I think that it would be best to limit the images on the English Wikipedia page to covers of Engish versions. Otherwise, the box at the bottom of this page (which contains multiple translations' covers) could expand indefinately to show the covers of countless translations. -Phi*n!x 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this used to exist?

harryfansowned.ytmnd.com/ This YTMND seems to indicate that an article witha full plot synopsis of this book used to exist. Shouldn't there be a record of it?

There was a note (I just restored it) at Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary before it was vandalised. I don't know why the synopsis doesn't appear in the article's history (breaking GFDL rules?). Brian Jason Drake 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this

The entry reads, in part

"The identity of the Half-Blood Prince character has no apparent bearing on the main plot of the series, some critics charge, and since Harry's main concern throughout this book is to solve the mystery of this character's true identity, the driving plot of the book is not truly resolved."

The HBP's identity is revealed before the end of the book; in what sense is this mystery not resolved?

Stop removing this text!

{{spoiler}} "Half-Blood Prince marks Harry Potter's key emotional maturation, completing his transformation from the angry, petulant teenager of book five, into a strong, young man, aware of his destiny and able to bear its burden. The tragic death of Professor Dumbledore, one of the few people whom Harry had ever been able to think of as 'family', is widely regarded as having been a major catalyst responsible for this change." {{endspoiler}} There is absolutely no reason for this text to be removed. As you will see on Talk:Utawarerumono , in the section marked 'Spoilers', one user correctly quotes: "...Wikipedia, which strives first to inform, spoilers or not"

Therefore, do not remove this text simply because it is a spoiler. Doing so is obviously simple vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.75.93 (talk • contribs)

The problem is - you are introducing a massive spoiler, very early in the article, granted with a spoiler warning, but then you are not closing the spoiler warning when the material is no longer spoiling. This makes virtually the entire article unreadable, it prevents the reader from being able to read anything useful. This is contrary to Wiki guidelines regarding using spoilers and spoiler warnings, and does not serve the reader - it is a major disservice to the community when articles become unreadable due to randomly placed spoilers. Either move the spoiler information down into the spoiler zone, or find a way to close the spoiler (using {endspoiler}) so the reader can cautiously read the unspoiled material without ruining the plot line. Thanks. --T-dot 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) PS - I added a spoiler warning to your openly placed spoiler above, and then correctly closed it. --T-dot 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Section about the film

As there is a link to the film page at the top of the article, is a section about the film necessary? 0L1 10:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)