Re-closing the move request. I don't care why it was originally moved but the consensus is to leave it here so it's left here. Moved your POST-MOVE REQUEST comments to the bottom. |
|||
Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
:There isn't one. Magical children raised as wizards are discouraged by the ministry of magic from being sent to primary school, to avoid the problems faced by Harry, and the risks of culture clash and of the magical children spilling secrets about the wizarding world. Instead, these children are privately tutored, or taught by their parents. Only muggle-borns, and those few half-bloods or pure-bloods such as Harry and Voldemort, who are brought up in the muggle world, attend (muggle) primary school, where, according to Rowling, the MoM keeps an eye out to deal with spontaneous eruptions of magic, such as (to give some of Harry's examples) turning a teacher's wig blue, or accidentally apparating onto a roof. Harry may well have had such a watch on his school, to stop the teachers wondering about all of these examples in great detail. In any case, Hogwarts is the only British educational institution - there are neither universities nor primary schools.[[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
:There isn't one. Magical children raised as wizards are discouraged by the ministry of magic from being sent to primary school, to avoid the problems faced by Harry, and the risks of culture clash and of the magical children spilling secrets about the wizarding world. Instead, these children are privately tutored, or taught by their parents. Only muggle-borns, and those few half-bloods or pure-bloods such as Harry and Voldemort, who are brought up in the muggle world, attend (muggle) primary school, where, according to Rowling, the MoM keeps an eye out to deal with spontaneous eruptions of magic, such as (to give some of Harry's examples) turning a teacher's wig blue, or accidentally apparating onto a roof. Harry may well have had such a watch on his school, to stop the teachers wondering about all of these examples in great detail. In any case, Hogwarts is the only British educational institution - there are neither universities nor primary schools.[[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Requested move == |
== Requested move == |
||
Line 540: | Line 544: | ||
It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". [[User:SNS|SNS]] 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". [[User:SNS|SNS]] 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I '''oppose''' moving it back to the old title, for the same reason I '''oppose''' the move presently under discussion. There is no perfect article name for a book that hasn't been named by its author. Let the current title stand. [[User:Marc Shepherd|Marc Shepherd]] 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
:I '''oppose''' moving it back to the old title, for the same reason I '''oppose''' the move presently under discussion. There is no perfect article name for a book that hasn't been named by its author. Let the current title stand. [[User:Marc Shepherd|Marc Shepherd]] 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
==Rowling has two possible titles for Book Seven== |
==Rowling has two possible titles for Book Seven== |
||
Line 557: | Line 555: | ||
:I just noticed it's already added in the article. I'll add the Washington Post article as another reference since it's from a more credible source. The one on there now is from a fan site. [[User:Throw|Throw]] 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
:I just noticed it's already added in the article. I'll add the Washington Post article as another reference since it's from a more credible source. The one on there now is from a fan site. [[User:Throw|Throw]] 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Post-move comments== |
|||
⚫ | Well i have just un-archived it. Yes, I did see that someone had deleted the entire end of this talk page, though i was not able to put it back. The editor was doing some very odd things and refusing to produce pages from the history list. was anyone mucking about with it? I have still to receive an explanation why this page was moved in the first place, and why it should not go back where it came from . I know the explanation given was that the original title was against some policy, but i'm damned if i know what policy. No one has explained this. it was moved by someone with very few edits, then the whole discussion here deleted by someone with no edits. What is goihg on? [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:15, 17 September 2006
Previous discussion: /Archive1
Reverted book seven release date (07/07/07)
I reverted these edits by 69.177.41.96. There was no citation, but after digging around, I found it mentioned here on HPANA; however, even this article notes in big bold letters that this is only a theory, and that Rowling has made no such announcements. Therefore, this is fan speculation. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's an unsupported idea of when the book 'should' be published - I see no reason why it should be included here. David Arthur 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Use of this article
We have the ability to do something with this page as is now. I know Wikipedia not for speculation, but there are some things that are known to be true about book 7. Perhaps we could compile the factual things, things verifable through interviews, etc? Tuvas 03:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Dates in this article and in the series are questionable . . .
I noticed that this article was lifted from the Book 7 page of the Harry Potter lexicon site ... but I do think that the 1997-1998 idea is wrong ... anyone comment. 24.255.115.243 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- See Dates in Harry Potter. The books aren't set in any particular time, fans just try to make them be in a particular time, which is why there are two Mondays in a row in book 4 and the PlayStation is an anachronism. Book 1 being set in 1991-1992 is the most common theory, from Nearly Headless Nick's deathday cake in Chamber of Secrets. Hermione1980 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
WARNING! COPYVIO!
Okay, I have just compared the Lexicon's page on this with our article. Pretty much everything on this page except for the leading section is a copyvio, either directly quoted or with a few words altered here and there. I don't know how you want to handle this (remove? reword?) but we need to take care of it quick. Hermione1980 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've reworked it. The article is still pretty lousy, but at least it's not a copyvio. Hermione1980 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- For future reference, you can use the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems to take care of it immediately. Brian Jason Drake 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me the damage was done by someone editing anonymously as 68.36.13.172, who when the page had a cleanup tag on it replaced the whole thing. Sandpiper 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Clues from Azkaban film.
In the article it says there are some clues in the Azkaban film about the upcoming books. I've been thinking and do you know any things that are in the film that aren't in the Azkaban book, I've made a short list, please add to it.
- Shrunken heads
- When Sirius says to Lupin when he's turning into a werewolf, "This is your heart, your hearts hearts here!" --Daniel Omy talk. 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- On the Marauder's Map, a room marked Room of Doom --Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Non-verbal spell casting
- Non-verbal spell casting wasn't in the book. You're kidding right? We've been seeing non-verbal spell casting since Hagrid's fire when he first sees Harry and a couple of examples from book 3 are when they treat Ron's leg and when they force Pettigrew to transform back. Brian Jason Drake 08:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I added that Marauder's Map thing. A user on IMDB reported it. It's supposedly when Harry's looking on the map and he sees Peter Pettigrew...can someone confirm? --Thrashmeister 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I just looked over the movie, it's true. It's when Harry gets out of bed looking for Pettigrew in the corridors. --Thrashmeister 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read in a Harry Potter essay somewhere that during the scene when Harry is learning the Patronus Charm from Lupin, Harry uses the memory (he's not even sure if it's a real memory) of his parents talking to him, just talking, as being a happy enough thought to conjure a Patronus. And in the book, Harry doesn't have this thought. Harry racks his brain a thrid time on page 241 of my American version of the book. "The moment when he'd first found out he was a wizard, and would be leaving the Dursle's for Hogwarts! If that wasn't a happy memory, he didn't know what was..." I think that an essay I read about how "the power the dark lord knows not" (a.k.a. love), is not truly evident in any spell other than the Patronus Charm. In the movie, Harry produces his Patronus based on his love, this time his LOVE for his family. Perhaps something with a Patronus produced by love will help defeat Voldemort... Emily 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can people please knock off the speculation? Fan forums abound, but this is not one of them. Thank you. Hermione1980 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
But J.K. Rowling SAID that there were clues to future books in the third movie. Perhaps it was books 6 when there's Dumbledore's trick with extinguishing and re-lighting a candle, along with the remark that "But you know, happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light." And sorry. Emily 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- JKR spoke about the clues in the interview included on the DVD. Now, I think I saw somewhere that she referred to the scene with Remus talking to Harry, but I don't think she says that on the DVD.
I heard this somewhere, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Apparently in the movie, Sirius comments about how it will be nice to walk through the halls as a free man. Also, on his wanted poster it has the number 390. 199.126.166.13 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Speculation
People are too heavy handed about speculation. There is speculation out there, you can't deny it. Summaries of speculation should be included especially where it can be referenced to a peer reviewed source, which would include any web site where readers can post comments on submitted theories.--SmokeyJoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of what you mean by peer-reviewed sources? I personally don't think, for example, that fan forums have a high enough standard to be defined as a "peer-reviewed source", though that's my own personal standard. I don't know how other people feel, but I think we shouldn't change standards on Wikipedia by too much simply because there are a lot of Harry Potter fans who have a lot of theories about Book Seven. Disclaimer: just my opinion. Others may differ. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
An example might be: "There is widespread speculation that Dumbledore is not dead (see for example http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=44049&p=4)". It should be OK to cover fan speculation. I'd like to create a distinction here: this is not the place to speculate, but speculation, as it occurs out there and is verifiable, is OK to summarise. I'm not advocating a lowering of standards.--SmokeyJoe 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's a discussion thread in a fan forum, which I don't think is up the the Wikipedia standards of a "peer-reviewed source". Now, there are some sources not up to the standards of peer-reviewed sources that would be fine because they are official Harry Potter sties. For example, if Rowling were to make enough note of people with that theory to comment on it in her official web site, it might be good enough to cover it. If there were mentions of this fan speculation on any of the official sites as noted in Harry Potter#External links, I think those would be fine. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The contents of a fan forum are "peer-reviewed" by any reasonable definition. But what kind of "source" are they? They a not a source of facts on the Harry Potter books, certainly. They are a source for the existance of speculation. Information on the speculation surrounding the books is worthy information for inclusion, just like other real-world information such as dates of release and numbers of books sold. The crude warnings against "speculation" should be changed to a warning to "not add your own speculation".--SmokeyJoe 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Your definition of "peer-reviewed" is slightly loose here. I think you're defining "peer review" as someone looking at what other people post on fan forums, then commenting on it. Fan forums do not go through a formal peer-review process that print publications go through. That is what distinguishes publishers from, say, the vanity press. That's what I mean by "peer-review". WP:NOR provides a great read on this information, and WP:V points out the need to use reputable sources of information. Regardless of whether the hosting web site is reputable or not, fan forums have posts written by anyone in the general public, and therefore their comments are not reputable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry. I forgot one more reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the guidelines, especially "no original research". Actually, I have been trying to take the same position as you did in the talk archive in July 2005. But, I've been trying to say that the apparent ban on speculation is wrong. On this point, I am pleased to see that Evilphoenix has removed the offensive header. The real problem in my opinion is the insertion of uncited information. There is nothing wrong with speculation/theories (per se), as long as they have been published elsewhere. Recently, it has looked like Evilphoenix is an aggressive deletionist with a vendetta against speculation. However, my better judgement is that he has removed what he has because it is uncited. I note that among the fan forums, possibly acceptable publications of theories exist. In contrast, I would criticize http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ as an individual’s opinion piece that does not invite comments (aka peer-review). (It is, however, redeemed by its high quality)--SmokeyJoe 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is something that someone wants to add: "There is no official title yet but rumoured title Harry Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat is not the title of book seven. However there has been mild speculation that Harry Potter and the War of the Wizards. When the title is reaveled is unknown. Many think the mysterious Room of Requirement (Now locked) on J.K. Rowling's personal site will tell the title and release date of seven when it opens again. When it does, we do not know."
- Whether this is worthy is debatable, but its most immediate problem is that it is uncited and thus unverified. For example: Where (what publication) was the title rumoured, and by who? Where was it revealed that Pyramids of Furmat will not be the title? Where was that mild speculation published? Who thinks that about the Room of Req. and where was it published? We are supposed to be not interested in truth, but verifiability.--SmokeyJoe 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Pyramids of Furmat is one of the titles that have been circulating for some time now, and J. K. Rowling has confirmed it to be false. The rest (especially the title The War of the Wizards; the title is as yet unknown to anyone other than J. K. Rowling, and so posting rumoured titles for any purpose other than debunking them is completely unproductive) is merely unencycloopædic speculation, and although it is reasonably certain that both the title and publication date will at some point be available from her web site, there is no particular reason why it must come from the same 'room' as it did for The Half-Blood Prince. Also, for those who argue that simply inviting readers to add comments makes something a peer-reviewed source, I suggest a look at the article Peer review. David Arthur 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree with David, but I meant to emphasize that contributions have to be cited (verifiable). After reading deep into the histories of these Harry Potter pages, I see that the failure to cite (even poorly) is consistently the worst failing of peoples contributions. I am not saying that by citing a fan forum thread you can make a theory encycloopædic, but it would be nice to see some serious attempts. Also, simply inviting, or having, comments does not make peer review, and peer review doesn't make something reputable, and reputable doesn't make something notable. But lets see if we can at least get people to cite. --SmokeyJoe 08:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Speculation removed. Hermione1980 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My dad thinks (not seriusly of course) that Harry and Hermione will die, leaving Ron to marry Ginny.:-D Hybee 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- well that's dads for you. Sandpiper 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Harry Potter Wiki
Could some people help out at the Harry Potter Wiki, it's a fan club for Harry Potter fans. We are running out of users, so just click on this link the Harry Potter Wiki and please help out.Daniel Omy talk. 15:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Notable outstanding questions
Okay, it was inevitable that people would start adding stuff to these outstanding questions, but since I've seen these sections grow to massive proportions, I should probably start a section about it. How big should this section be? I don't want the past to repeat itself and have dozens of trivial questions take over this article again. I'm getting rid of the professions of James and Lilly Potter because that's not an explicit outstanding question arising from the book. If you disagree, please let me know, but I think these outstanding questions should be explicitly stated. Nowhere in book six does Harry Potter wonder what his parents did for a living. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the more citations the better. I'm not a huge fan of just randomly adding in outstanding questions. I think we should focus in this article on finding sources where Rowling is talking about this book, or other people's analysis of this book (The Lexicon has some great essays that we could use) rather than random speculation. Hey Deathphoenix, I could use your help over at J.K. Rowling, I'm madly working along on getting the article well cited, and I'm making some good progress. I'd appreciate your input on the Talk page and any contribution you'd be willing to lend to the process. I'm hoping to do some cleaning on the HPB article soon and maybe some similar stuff on Harry Potter too, which I've also cleaned out a lot of uncited stuff from. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'll try, buddy, though I'm particularly busy today. I'll add J.K. Rowling to our watchlist and see what I can do soon. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
One good way to judge the value of these outstanding questions would be to see if there's already a Wikipedia article about it. Every one of the questions now posed has some reference to it on Wikipedia, with the only questionable being Hogwarts. Each of these has a pretty well-written list as to why people think it might happen, and why people think it won't, generally all quite accurate. Perhaps that should be the qualifying factor to add more stuff? --Tuvas 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is a pretty good way to judge of it, though I think outstanding questions should really be mentioned on the book as something that is a definite "mystery". R.A.B. is an excellent example of this. The identity of the Horcruxes is another excellent example. Whether Hogwarts will stay open is kind of borderline in my opinion, but in the book, Hogwarts shutting down is actually mentioned as a possibility, so is worthy of mention. Other examples should be comparable with these, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Dates
Do you all think it appropriate to place dates on the statements here? I don't believe that there is an official timeline, and don't think it belongs here. Tuvas 04:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- What statements where?--SmokeyJoe 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
One example: Harry will turn seventeen on 31 July 1997. There are about 4-5 of these statements. Tuvas 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well there's sort of this pattern that we're placing Harry's birth year as 1980, and thats where that's coming from. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Have a look at Dates in Harry Potter. Pruneau 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am more interested in the thought that in a year or two, after the release of Book 7, the entire article will be re-written. Or will this page be moved to a Prior speculation page, as per Book 6? I guess that it will be, in which case the dates will not belong, as they are not the subject of speculation/anticipation of the release of Book 7.SmokeyJoe 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason I mention these dates is they really have no real proof, nor signifigance. They are a somewhat accepted theory, and that's about all. There is only one place in the books that even gives a hint of a date, to which all of these dates are based off of. In my mind they don't really belong here. Tuvas 05:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Prune the dates.SmokeyJoe 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
JKR just published some more dates with her release of the Black family tree (Harry Potter), though the wiki version does not list the dates, presumably because of the difficulty cramming them into the page. Warner brothers also published dates on their film DVDs (though admittedly I have yet to make the software work so I can see it). I imagine that relevant info from here will be carried forward to the new book 7 page, and this page will be kept for reference, as is the case for the equivalent page written before HBP was published. The book is about one year at school, so the relative dates/ages of all the characters are very well defined.
Title
Jo say in her website that she almost say one time the title of the seven book (In the F.A.Q. area, about the books, page 3 the last question). Anybody know when did that happen? --ometzit 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Why Protection?
Why is this page protected? It keeps fans from otherwise contributing to the page.
- This page is protected because of alot of spam attacks. A registered user can in fact edit here, but I suspect the reson is long gone for this course of action. Tuvas 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Dumbledore stuff
Whilst I'm at it, I might as well mention that in the "What to look for" section, someone should add something about the Phoenix imagery rampant in book 6 (especially at Dumbledore's funeral) and throughout the series. If you remember your Egyptian mythology, its quite likely that Dumbledore will make a Phoenix style comeback in book seven; Rowling isn't sadistic enough to kill off one of her fans' favourite characters.
- Of course she is. She's done it twice, whether or not either one of them will come back. It has nothing to do with sadism - if the story calls for it, it must be done, and to heck with what the readers think. --DearPrudence 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Uhm, this isn't the place to debate as to weither Dumbledore is alive or not. If you wish to engage in such debate, go to the many fan forms that are around. There isn't enough evidence to place the speculation that Dumbledore is alive on Wikipedia, with the possible exception being on his page, as some of the arguments as to him being alive. This page should be kept to nothing more than a brief mention that there is debate as to if he is alive, nothing more. Tuvas 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Better Book 7 Analysis Page
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7
This has a great rundown of what will happen in the book, based on past interviews; also great information.
And for a list of what the outstanding questions of Harry Potter are:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft
If you are looking for a well researched speculation check out this page SNAPE DIES: A THEORY ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN BOOK 7 (Cvgbook7theory 03:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
Other authors writing Harry Potter
"It is currently unknown, despite rumours, if Rowling will allow other authors to write novels set in the Harry Potter Universe not concerning Harry or the events covered in the series."
Is this really necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that Rowling isn't going to do this. --DearPrudence 16:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it, per your feedback. I agree that it is unnecessary, but not because it's obvious Rowling isn't going to do this. I would agree that I don't think Rowling would do this, but never say never. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary, in an encyclopedia article, to speculate on something that's unknown. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
She specifivaly stated that she is going to "kill off" sevral of the main charicters to prevent this rather this means hair or not i dont know
extraordinary absence of storyline
I know this article bobs up and down like the remains of a shipwreck, but it really has been stripped of even the basic obvious elements which it must contain to be a coherent article. For example, an overview of the very very basic plot of the entire series Good=Harry v. bad=Voldemort, wizards/magic/mystery/whodunnit. Someone totally unfamiliar with the series who heard there was to be a new book and looked it up would get no idea what it is about. Sandpiper 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's true, though given that Rowling's been hoarding over her plot like a mother hen, I suppose that a plot summary of this book would pretty much amount to the following possibilities:
- Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. He kills Voldemort.
- Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. They kill one another.
- Harry tracks and destroys the remaining four Horcruxes. A few other people die. He faces Voldemort in a battle of good against evil. Voldemort kills Harry.
- I'm sure there are some other plot elements I'm missing, but this is what I know for sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well it would appear that over the years JKR has chalked up quite a lot of interview comments about forthcoming events, and now there is only one place they can go. Mostly veering towards the trivia end of plotting, but nonetheless from her. But the article had got to the state where it didn't even mention voldemort or horxruxes. Sandpiper 14:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do we really need so much information about the series as a whole? I don't think something like the number of pages of the previous books is relevant to this article. Someone who has read the other books might find that the introduction is too long, and come to the conclusion that is no information specific to book seven in the article because it is too far below. I see your point about adding basic information about the Harry Potter series, but I think that a couple of sentences would be enough. If the reader wants to know more, they can follow the link to Harry Potter. Most readers of the article will probably be Harry Potter fans, and the article should remain useful for them. Pruneau 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well I have put in three sentences at the top summarising the plot, and I think that is enough. The second para talks about how JKR originally outlined her plot, and how it has changed from then, and the third gives an idea of what sort of books these are. I put in the page count because it is a simple fact which demonstrates how the books have changed. Sime of this may be information common to all the books, but it does therefore describe this one. Sandpiper 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Still, this doesn't read to me as an article on book 7. My screen is filled by the first 19 lines of the article, and these 19 lines give no information at all about book 7. The articles on the first six books do not contain such an introduction. Anyone who wants to know about the success and general storyline of the Harry Potter series can read Harry Potter; anyone reading the article on book 7 will want information specific to book seven. I am tempted to rewrite your edits in a much shortened way, but I'd rather wait for input from other editors. Pruneau 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Be WP:BOLD! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved the more general information to a separate section. Wiki is not paper, you know, the article is hardly so long that we need to be deleting stuff from it. Sandpiper 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Rewrite" in a "shortened way" doesn't necessarily mean deleting stuff. Even if Wikipedia is NOT paper, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to use 1000 words to express something if 750 words will say the same thing (minimalism is part of what I learned in the course of my job). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's true. And I go round doing it too, condensing together bits of articles which are separated but really saying the same thing. But I'm still a bit wary about this article, which frankly has leant very much too heavily on one source. Better to do a bit more adding as diversely as possible. The intro/background could do with some references too. Need to look up where JKR talks about her plot/work program. Sandpiper 00:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved the more general information to a separate section. Wiki is not paper, you know, the article is hardly so long that we need to be deleting stuff from it. Sandpiper 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Be WP:BOLD! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Still, this doesn't read to me as an article on book 7. My screen is filled by the first 19 lines of the article, and these 19 lines give no information at all about book 7. The articles on the first six books do not contain such an introduction. Anyone who wants to know about the success and general storyline of the Harry Potter series can read Harry Potter; anyone reading the article on book 7 will want information specific to book seven. I am tempted to rewrite your edits in a much shortened way, but I'd rather wait for input from other editors. Pruneau 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well I have put in three sentences at the top summarising the plot, and I think that is enough. The second para talks about how JKR originally outlined her plot, and how it has changed from then, and the third gives an idea of what sort of books these are. I put in the page count because it is a simple fact which demonstrates how the books have changed. Sime of this may be information common to all the books, but it does therefore describe this one. Sandpiper 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Picture
Articles just cry out for pictures. I don't know if anyone has suggestions for one suitable image we might use? Sandpiper 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- There isn't exactly alot of pictures for book 7 floating around... Maybe some can be found though... Hmmm... Tuvas 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- It already has two. Image:Current event marker.png and Image:Nuvola apps bookcase.png :-) Just don't forget that most Harry-Potter related pictures require a valid Fair use rationale. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some kind of real life event related to the book might be good. JKR picking up a writing award? Publishers offices, if they look anyway decent? Even just a pic of JKR, as might go on a book jacket Sandpiper 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the Harry Potter logo from Harry Potter. It's far from perfect, but it can do the job until we find omething better.Pruneau 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some kind of real life event related to the book might be good. JKR picking up a writing award? Publishers offices, if they look anyway decent? Even just a pic of JKR, as might go on a book jacket Sandpiper 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What's this?? http://harry-potter-fansite.ifrance.com/book6.jpg Daniel Omy talk. 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a fake (fan-made) cover image for book 6, when it was rumoured it would be called Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch. The guy next to Harry is Dumbledore; that's how he was depicted in the early English versions of book 1. Pruneau 21:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's Corenelius Fudge, not Dumbledore Oli 11:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Cornelius Fudge doesn't appear in book 1, does he? I think he's only mentioned by Hagrid. It would make much more sense if it wasn't Dumbledore, but I assumed it was him because in the later editions, it's definitely him. Pruneau 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's Corenelius Fudge, not Dumbledore Oli 11:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, in the later editions, it's definitely Dumbledore. However, on the earlier editions, the guy is shown wearing a striped suit (like Corenelius Fudge) and smoking a pipe (certainly not like Dumbledore. I wonder who is was actully meant to be. If it was meant to be Dumbledore, then it's quite an odd illustration (Oli 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
- Nicolas Flamel (the mystery of that book)? What would a pentangled star signify?Michaelsanders 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, in the later editions, it's definitely Dumbledore. However, on the earlier editions, the guy is shown wearing a striped suit (like Corenelius Fudge) and smoking a pipe (certainly not like Dumbledore. I wonder who is was actully meant to be. If it was meant to be Dumbledore, then it's quite an odd illustration (Oli 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
Coming of Age
I don't have a citation for this but Harry and Neville do not come of age at the "same time". Harry's birthday is on 31st July and Neville's on 1st August. Oli
- That's slightly incorrect, Neville's is the 30th of July, but the idea is correct. Tuvas 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right - I'll edit it now. Thanks. (Oli)
Book's title?
Do we actually know that it will be called "Harry Potter and the ..." (as obvious as it seems)? That's what's currently in the infobox. Brian Jason Drake 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt she'll change it now. It does seem a little forward but there's not much we can do about it now. There'll never be a consensus for removing it because everyone will leap up and say "She's bound to keep it" and if someone removes it without a discussion it'll be back there in five minutes. There's so many Harry Potter fans and they're generally so young that common sense doesn't apply to them.--Simondrake 02:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed - sometimes you have to choose your battles with youthful editors carefully, to minimize the reversion wars and maintain some degree of peace. Go after the big targets - for example the fake book cover from France that was circulating with the title Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch (see above)... --T-dot 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, but I think in the interview she had with Emerson and Melissa she did say it was going to be Harry Potter and the _____, but I could be mistaken. Tuvas 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a link: WBD chat (4 March 2004).
- Potter47: What is the sixth book going to be called? The seventh?
- JK Rowling replies -> It will be called 'Harry Potter and...' something. Catchy, don't you think? And I think I'll follow the same model for seven.
- Pruneau 13:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Philosopher's or Sorcerer's Stone?
At the bottom of the page.....the first book is called Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's Stone. Edit? Why can't we edit this page?
- "The Philosopher's Stone" is the title of the book when it was released in the United Kingdom. However, JK Rowling called the book "The Sorcerer's Stone" is the United States because she thought that newer title states more clearly that the book is more magical Oli 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- No she didn't: her editor did. She had agreed because she was so new in the world of editing that she didn't dare oppose a big publishing house. She now says she regrets the title change. Lgriot 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I never knew that! Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I didn't know that when I posted that comment. Sorcerer's Stone is better, though, in my opinion.
The Philosopher's stone is a historical fact. Although no real person is known to succeed in making it, many people tried! Including Nicholas Flamel who was a real person. Therefore, it makes no sense to call it the “Sorcerer’s Stone”. The reason they did it in the US is because the editors believed that American kids are too afraid of a serious topic like philosophy and would not read a book about a philosopher’s object, whatever it was. I would like to believe this is not true. What do you think? (Cvgbook7theory 03:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
Beyond Book 7
The section contains good information, but should it strictly be in the Book Seven article? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- well for $%&*? sake, don't start a book eight article! This article is kinda about what happens next in HP, so I think it reasonable to mention anything known. Sandpiper 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - I was being a bit too by-the-book lol. Oli 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Haha maybe... :P. On a serious note, perhaps this section could be placed into the Harry Potter article, rather than the Book seven one. What do you think? Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I looked at it. As I said, I think the facts of JKR's known intentions do belong in this article. It is relevant that book 7 is intended to be the last, so all storylines will be tied up. The section doesn't really say very much else, just makes a joke about wizarding universities, which logically would be harry's next year of education, were the series to continue. i am not attached to the notion of mentioning universities, but it forms part of the quote where JKR says no more books. I judge it would not misrepresent the quote if it were shortened to remove mention of universities, but it is not really doing any harm. Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK I'll leave it as it is. Oli 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Harry/Ginny/Spiderman/Superman
If the given comparison ([1]) is correct (I've never heard of it), why remove it? Brian Jason Drake 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Harry and Ginny Weasley fell in love midway through book 6, but at the end he said he needed to leave her, for her protection as he went after Voldemort. (Spiderman and Superman provided the same reasoning to their beloveds, but both went on to get married in the end.) (posted by User:Matchups - contribs)
- Because it would be pure fan speculation invented by "shippers" to suggest that Harry and Ginny would get back together and "marry" because Spiderman and Superman did, as implied by the deleted parenthetical phrase. Furthermore it constitutes Original Research. Finally the Superman and Spiderman story lines are totally irrelevant to the HP storylines. Such a post would be appropriate on a fan forum or blob page, or perhaps in the discussion area, but not on the front page of an encyclopedic article. --T-dot 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not original research. Any Spiderman or Superman fan would know this aspect of their histories. Yes, the comparison is speculative, but so is this entire page. Providing information to help the reader make informed judgment as to whether particular speculation is reasonable is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia. Also, officially or not, there seems to be an entertainment aspect to Wikipedia. Why else, IMHO, would we have articles listing people born on various days? And one way WP provides this entertainment is by finding excuses for links to other articles. Matchups 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think an answer to the last would be that there is absolutely nothing wrong with entertaining factual trivia in the correct place. I would answer your original question a little differently to T-dot. information is selected for inclusion on any page, so the question I ask myself is whether a particular piece of information is worthy of a mention. Funnily enough, having watched the GOF film, I would perhaps consider that the romance between Harry and Ginny becomes rather more important to a film viewer than to a book reader. The books mentioned romance, but the film highlighted it. I do not think this specifically will play a big part in the last book, but who knows? but, since actually I don't know, it is difficult to include it. It is quite hard to draw reasonable certainties about how the book will go from what we are told in the first six books. Most of the page actually is not speculation, but information from the author. Has she made any comments on what will happen to their relationship? Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're right--the page is not speculation. It is primarily fact which encourages speculation. The comment about the other two superheroes is also that sort of fact. However, after thinking about it for some time, the key point is that the comment does not belong in this context, which is listing the open questions rather than discussing them. The comment would be more appropriate on Ginny's page, where the issue of her romantic history and future are discussed in more detail. Matchups 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think an answer to the last would be that there is absolutely nothing wrong with entertaining factual trivia in the correct place. I would answer your original question a little differently to T-dot. information is selected for inclusion on any page, so the question I ask myself is whether a particular piece of information is worthy of a mention. Funnily enough, having watched the GOF film, I would perhaps consider that the romance between Harry and Ginny becomes rather more important to a film viewer than to a book reader. The books mentioned romance, but the film highlighted it. I do not think this specifically will play a big part in the last book, but who knows? but, since actually I don't know, it is difficult to include it. It is quite hard to draw reasonable certainties about how the book will go from what we are told in the first six books. Most of the page actually is not speculation, but information from the author. Has she made any comments on what will happen to their relationship? Sandpiper 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not original research. Any Spiderman or Superman fan would know this aspect of their histories. Yes, the comparison is speculative, but so is this entire page. Providing information to help the reader make informed judgment as to whether particular speculation is reasonable is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia. Also, officially or not, there seems to be an entertainment aspect to Wikipedia. Why else, IMHO, would we have articles listing people born on various days? And one way WP provides this entertainment is by finding excuses for links to other articles. Matchups 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Error
In the section "Information from JK Rowling" it says:
"After completion of Goblet of Fire she was interviewed and commented that she was startled by clues which had crept into the film, relating to the final outcome of the series. In particular, she referred to the scene where Remus Lupin talks to Harry about his mother, but she may have meant other scenes as well."
The movie that is suposed to be referenced is Prisoner of Azkaban. This is the movie Lupin talks to Harry about his mother. Remus Lupin is not even in Goblet of Fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luv2luvem (talk • contribs)
Incredibly ugly language
"Severus Snape has been an important and enigmatic character throughout the books, with it never being quite clear which side of the war he is on." Please, could we, PLEASE, have that in proper English such as "and his true loyalty has always remained unclear"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.57.25 (talk • contribs)
I would, but I can't edit the page. 87.122.57.25
- I've edited it. Oli 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Protection on the article
Hey, can the protection be removed from this article? Someone who is an admin will have to do it, but I know there are a few admins around here. Yes, we run the risk of vandelism, but, there's always that risk. Tuvas 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- When you're signed in, you can edit it can't you? Oli 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it doesn't affect me at all (I always sign in, it's alot easier to find my pages to edit like that), but if you look above, how many people want changes that don't have an account? It's not an uncommon thing, it might just be time to make that change. Tuvas 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Typo/Mislinking
Under Notable Unanswered Questions:
Snape links to a Disambiguation page instead of Severus Snape
Elfich 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out - I'll change it now. Oli 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When it was edited, one of the links was linked properly, the other is linked as an edit request to Severus Snape. Elfich 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Dumbledore dead?
He could not be dead. I think you should take time to read this page. [2]
- Is this comment directed at someone who has been insisting that Dumbledore is dead? Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dumbledore's state of being alive can be contested either way, but even with a website such as dumbledoreisnotdead.com, we most certainly couldn't post here on Wikipedia that he is alive, when he appearently died. I'll admit there's enough chance of such a thing to post that the point is contended, but not enough to outright say one way or another. Tuvas 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The comment is not directed to anyone. I put it on so people can read the clues on the page. I found it interesting. --Daniel Omy talk. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have enough information to outright say that Dumbledore is alive, but as Dumbledore appeared to be dead in the book, a fact which was not denied by the author, and with Wikipedia being a fact-based encyclopaedia, I don't think that, until an official confirmation is given, this possibility should be cited. If you're interested in reading more about Dumbledore's possible survival, you might find this article insightful. --Lividore 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the section continuing storylines from previous books the section on Harry refers to Dumbledore being dead. The statement that Dumbledore is has been confirmed by JK Rowling. The rest of the sentance (headmaster portrait yada yada yada) is completely speculation. This should be addressed. Elfich 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Release Date
It says in the infobox that the book is to be released in 2007, however, it says in the relevant section that the date is speculated to be 2007. Do we have proof of a 07 release date? If so, it should be put in the section or refrenced... -- Banes 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is no proof of a '07 release, however, it seems quite likely. As I recall, there is an interview with the british publisher saying that they hope to print the book in 2007. Still, it won't be official 'till JKR's said so. Tuvas 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the 07/07/07 possible release date I think it should be mentioned that this is now even more unlikely due to the London bombings. 82.109.228.38
Incorrect information
The first harry potter book was 300 pages, not 200 pages -- and also, the largest one was close to 900 pages (around 870) rather than the stated 600 pages.
- The British Edition of the first book was 223 pages. As for the largest one (OotP), the British one was 760 pages, so you can say it was close to 800. --Lividore 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Outstanding questions
This topic was discussed above, but nobody added them in the end even though it was agreed that they could be added. I think that I should add them. Does anybody have any objections? If nobody replies, I'll assume not. Oli 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [Fixed link. Brian Jason Drake (diff)]
- OK - there have been no replies so I will add the section. If anybody has any objections, please add them below. Oli 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The section has been added but needs improving. It would be appreciated it somebody could add to it. Oli 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, but there is some overlap with the "continuing storylines" section. I'm not clear which items should be removed/edited where, perhaps someone else will be inspired to take this on. Matchups 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have re-read it and see what you mean. Do you think we should keep the section? Oli 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed How did Harry actually get Voldemort's powers? because Harry doesn't have HWMNBN's powers, so the question is meaningless. Matchups 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK - then please explain this excerpt from Ch. 18 (Dobby's Reward) in Chamber of Secrets:
- ..."You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining ancestor [sic] of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." [HP2] --T-dot 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me of this quote. Perhaps the issue should be reinserted on the main page, but rephrased. Something like "How were some of Voldemort's powers transferred to Harry the night he gave him the scar?" Though I wonder whether the question is generally seen as significant enough for inclusion. Matchups 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. That's what I get for being bold!
- Actually, it seems to me that the question of the "hows" and "whys" of Voldemorts powers transferring to Harry would be far less interesting than, say, "Besides speaking Parseltongue, what other powers were transferred from Voldemort to Harry?". For example, when Harry "spoke" to the snake that was attacking Justin Finch-Fletchley in Chamber of Secrets / ch. 11 (The Dueling Club), the result appeared to be more of a command from clear authority than a simple plea or request, as "...miraculously - inexplicably - the snake slumped to the floor, docile as a thick, black garden hose, its eyes now on Harry."[HP2]. This led many of the students (and to some extent, Harry himself) to believe that Harry was in fact the true Heir of Slytherin. Another interesting "power" is that that Harry was able to covertly "see into" Voldemort's mind in Order of the Phoenix without even trying ... this seems pretty remarkable as well. So anyway, you were not very far from the mark in deleting the original, rather "dull" question, and raising the issue. --T-dot 05:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Right, somebody's gotten rid of the section entirely. Could it be discussed here first?Oli 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Someone else above already pointed out that a section titled 'outstanding questions' would really be repeating exactly what is already in 'continuing storylines'. it is the same thing. There is already a difficulty trying to split stuff in the two section, one based on info in the book and the other based on the sayings of JKR. She tends to have been asked and hence said something interesting about the important points in the books. It is bad form to repeat the same thing twice, but dificult to split it. I have tended to err on lumping it in with sayings of JKR, where she has commented on something and then not mention as a separate point arising solely from the books. Sandpiper 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Right, somebody's gotten rid of the section entirely. Could it be discussed here first?Oli 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Merger
- I agree. It would make sense to do so, since the article is about Harry Potter himself, not the book. Though, a link to "Harry Potter Book Seven" could probably be left there. --SSJ4 Aragorn 03:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Same reason as above. Dragix 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand, this is just a part of an article. Is there really any reason to merge the article? Tuvas 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I presume the idea is to take the content from 'potter' and place it in 'book 7', though most likely most if it is already there, and anything left out has been not included on purpose. I do not approve of having two articles saying the same thing. Harry's article is long (deservedly), but there already exists an article covering the ground in this section. So make a reference to it and get rid of the remaining entry within Harry's article. Sandpiper 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand, this is just a part of an article. Is there really any reason to merge the article? Tuvas 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
References
I know that references are quire important, but I'm noticing alot of inconsistancy, in fact, almost none of the references are done is what is the normal method. See WP:CITET for some ways to make references, and use the ref tags to put them in the reference section. I'll go through this when I have time, but thought I'd post this first. Tuvas 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think they are virtually all done in the normal method, which is to say make a list of relevant websites at the bottom of the page. Whether they are being done as some people would like them done for consistency within wiki is quite another matter. I for one do not know what that is, and I imagine nor do most others here. But I would also suspect that none of these people who have been good enough to add some reference has been asked their view how they would like references to be done. People on wiki mainly learn by looking at pages. i have yet to see a page where references have been made in a coherent way which i can look at and understand. Sandpiper 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Further to the last, I just looked at the page you reference. Oh God! I have enough trouble trying to make sense of the forest of copyright tags fo images without spending half my life trying to understand this page too. perhaps that is why it is a mess. Sandpiper
- Well, I hope that just going and doing some of them will help to explain what I'm meaning a bit more. I'll work on getting the rest of them in standard wiki reference meaning, it will help the article read better, and help people who want to look up more information find it quickly and easily. Tuvas 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just to continue on my previous statements, if you are going to add any references, please do so in the formats as above. It took me over an hour to get things so they are looking as they are, and it only takes a minute to maintain. Thanks! Tuvas 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- It took rather more than a minute to insert a new reference, buy I managed to cut and paste one so it works. However I have a problem with this. The 'approved references are not as good as the old ones. With an inline link, I click the link and can directly open a new page with the reference in fromt of me. That is what I want. With this system I get to see a copy of the table of references at the bottom of the same page, not what I want. Then, I have to remember what number the link was, find it, and finally open a new page. Not exactly a seamless operation. If people want to see the reference, I doubt they want to instead be presented with a list of all the article's references. Is this an option or a failing of this method? Sandpiper 08:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a few reasons for this. One of the important things, especially for something like this, is that the access date is included. It can tell alot more about the information. Still, it is the standard for Wikipedia, so, we might want to use it. Tuvas 16:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It took rather more than a minute to insert a new reference, buy I managed to cut and paste one so it works. However I have a problem with this. The 'approved references are not as good as the old ones. With an inline link, I click the link and can directly open a new page with the reference in fromt of me. That is what I want. With this system I get to see a copy of the table of references at the bottom of the same page, not what I want. Then, I have to remember what number the link was, find it, and finally open a new page. Not exactly a seamless operation. If people want to see the reference, I doubt they want to instead be presented with a list of all the article's references. Is this an option or a failing of this method? Sandpiper 08:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Further to the last, I just looked at the page you reference. Oh God! I have enough trouble trying to make sense of the forest of copyright tags fo images without spending half my life trying to understand this page too. perhaps that is why it is a mess. Sandpiper
I just noticed that at least one pair of the new references was using the same identifying name. I think i sorted it out, but I am certainly not confident enough of working with this pea soup system to be sure it is correct. If I didn't know vaguely the references myself i would not have been able to sort out the mix up using this integrated referencing system. I do not understand the complex referencing commands well enough to be able to debug them reliably, and still have seen no sensible help page explaining them. (though admittedly this page is now the best example of their use I have seen). The thing about standards is they can always be improved. This one has two serious issues now, being too complex for occasional users to understand is a very serious one. Sandpiper 10:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Vote
This should be interesting...
Harry Potter: Wanted dead or alive
Vote now!
Continuing storylines from previous books
Just a few comments on this section. This section is for things which are clearly supported from previous books for what might happen in book 7. It is for obvious things, such as the hunt for the Horcruxes, Snape's lingering loyalties, etc. Also, it is not the section for anything quoted from JKR, please include these statements in the following section. Please remember that this page is not for speculation, which is very difficult for a book that hasn't even been released yet. Believe you me, I've been as guilty of it as any of you... Still, this article has come a long ways! Tuvas 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- does the book really say that ron and hermione will accompany Harry to privet drive? I don't remember thatSandpiper 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- and in the next section, anyone know where harry having a new pet comes from? (asside from whether that is likely to materially affect the plot?) Sandpiper
- the discontinuous richard and judy quote when she was asked about authors killing characters: the quote is correct but is inserted misleadingly. I havn't had time to check it, but my recollection is that she did not imply she intended to do this, but what is included here does rather imply that. Sandpiper
- Good finds. I was looking more for the references, and not so much other stuff, although I did notice alot of speculation... I'm sure there's more, I was surprised how much speculation has grown into this article... Tuvas 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- are you? I thought it was doing rather well. Sandpiper 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Release date is 7/7/07
Someone has put on the article page that the Order of the Pheonix film is going to released 6 days after Harry Potter book 7 is released. If you go on this countdown to the Order of the Pheonix fim (I found it on the leaky cauldron website) it says Order of the Pheonix film is going to be released on the 13/7/07. That's 6 days after the 7/7/07! Is that proof that it's going be released on the 7/7/07 or not? Here's the website:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/countdown_ootp.swf
--Daniel Omy talk. 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Many fans want the realease date to be 7.7.07. I know i do. andrew 08:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The truth is, 7-7-07 is totally unconfirmed, in fact, even though it was I who first put this bit on here, I wish I hadn't... It would be crazy to release the book and the movie so close to each other, although it could be possible... Who knows. There is no official book release date, because the book isn't done, and you can't rush a book. Because the book's not even done, I think it might even take longer than that. Who knows... Tuvas 01:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was intended to be proof that the book was unlikely to be released on 7/7/7. But I am not convinced by that argument either. It all depends, so I am content to make a note 1) when the film comes out, which may complicate things and 2) fans have suggested that 7/7/7 would be a very appropriate date, which is true. Sandpiper 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Context is missing
Now I realise that this article is aimed mostly at fans wanting to have a place where all the information about book 7 can be found without looking around lots of websites. However, this is still wikipedia and the degree of previous knoledge assumed by the article is a bit excessive. Untill my morest recent edit the first mention of the word wizard or a derative was "Each volume contains a complete problem and task for the heroes to complete, but each has also added to the background information about the wizarding world in general", even though the article has never mentioned that the books take place in a "wizarding world". In the next section characters are referd to by their first names only with no explination as to who they are and what diffrence it makes tht harry is going to "Bill's wedding". Most of this stuff can be fixed by adding a few words here and there, linking to people full names to show who is related to who etc. Dalf | Talk 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The last time I tried to stick in an introductory section describing the basic outline of the plot I was struck down for putting in too much detail, I think the specific criticism was that i was describing the earlier books in an article about the last one. (all of three sentences about them). I also thought that the article (much worse than now) absolutely failed to explain to a newcomer what it was talking bout. Hmm.
On the other hand, maybe you are thinking about the various quotes which tend to be terse and unexplained unless you know the story. I am not sure how much we can pad these out without this part getting rather too wordy for something intending to get across the points to someone who is familiar with the plot, at least well enough to know the characters. Sandpiper 09:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am talking mostly about changing things like, "[[Bill Weasley|Bill]] and [[Fleur Delacour|Fleur's]] wedding" to "[[Bill Weasley]] and [[Fleur Delacour]] wedding" because someone might ask 'who the hell are bill and Fleur?' Granted that is why the words are linked but shoudl you have to read 5 - 10 sub pages to understand the one when you can simply include 3-4 more words. Even the change I just suggested (of which there are many more in the article that could be done) would give a clue that Bill is related to Ron and it is herefore a weasley family weeding and the article at this point has at least somewhat introduced who the Weasleys are. It is probbly nto in this instance needed to add "Rons brother Bill" but that is the sort of thing I am aiming at. The fact that "Wizarding world" is casually thrown in midway thorugh the article without mentioning wizards or the setting is just bad form (Even is magic was mentioned how many settings contain magic?). Dalf | Talk 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Number of pages in books
I noticed that the mention of book length for philosophers stone (223 pages UK) and phoenix (766 pages UK) seem to change about. Possibly the US page counts are different (well, I'm sure they are, as page numbering for quotes is different, which makes it difficult to do). So are we adhering to the Uk ones, or what? Sandpiper 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
JK is from the UK, so UK page count. (11987 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
Is Named?
I don't know wht it is called, but my friend's, mom's, old boss is a friend of Rowling's (or so he says), and claims to have the first eight chapters. User:Jntg4
- Unless I misunderstood what you wrote, I don't think so. With Rowling being so tight on giving out details about the book, I somehow doubt that she would give away the firs eight chapters to a friend. I seem to remember JK saying somewhere that she didn't reveal what happens in future books even to her family. Anyway, this probably isn't the best place to post it. Try posting it at a fan forum. 0L1 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps we have the Lockheart real person? Tuvas 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- haha, maybe... 0L1 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps, Book Seven is most important part of Harry Potter book. I guess. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Title of book 7"
Quoted from the final line in the section "Continuing storylines from previous books" on this article: The title of book 7 is most likely already decided by J.K. Rowling, and will most likely begin with "Harry Potter and the...". Well gee whiz you think? Anyway I'm removing it, unless anyone can explain to me what it means/if it has any importance at all besides making me laugh. Code E 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You think humour is not important in an article? if it made you laugh then it was well worth including. Sandpiper 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a joke, it's an encyclopedia. So no it's not worth including. Code E 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, wikipedia may become a joke of it fails to understand that articles need to entertain as well as inform. But since it seems necessary to belabour the point, the actual title of the new book is of interest to everyone. I am not too keen on debate as to 'the pillar of Storge', and so forth (though JKR has now, in a sense, endorsed that debate by including it on her own website), but I seem to recall a quote where she effectively endorses the title as 'Harry Potter and..', and it quite sensibly follows based upon the titles of all the other books. It is one of the more established expectations about the new book. Sandpiper 07:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd dare to say it's the best information given. I can't remember where off the top of my head, but I know that JKR has stated that book 7 will be "Harry Potter and...", it is a bit of information which is useful. If it's humor, it's at least not original humor, and I have seen alot worse, take the grumpy old man article. Tuvas 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandlaism
Just removed some vandalism - this page was made a redirect to Talk: Harry Potter Book Seven on 010101010101! (or something like that). It's all fixed now but I thought I should point it out. 0L1 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Harry Potter's birthday
Here it says how Harry Potter's birthday is July 31. I always thought it was July 30. In the first book, it mentions how the day when the Dursleys spent the night on the hut was Harry's birthday. The next day, Hagrid takes Harry to Diagon Alley and takes the philosopher's stone from Gringotts. Later they mention that the Gringotts day was July 31, so I assumed Harry's birthday was the day before, July 30.
Did I miss something? Or should Harry's birthday be put as July 30 instead? Thank you! Jonathan talk 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hagrid takes Harry on his birthday. If you will recall, Hagrid disturbed the Dursleys at apx. 12:01 AM 7/31 Harry's birthday is just starting. After they discuss his background, Harry & Hagrid sleep, waking up on the morning of the 31, go to Diagon alley and get the stone on July 31. jj 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- July 30 is actually Neivelle's birthday, not Harry Potter, I'm sure you're just confusing the two.
More Speculation
At least two main characters are slated to be killed off, and some rumors claim that one of them may be Harry himself.
(→Other - actually, the interview says two MORE characters have been killed)
We need to cite our references before we can post this. What interview? When was it? and "some rumors claim" is weasel wording and is not allowed in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. --T-dot 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
i didnt say rumors claim; i hate speculation. the quote is already in the info from JK section. (11987 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
- I saw that after the fact. She says "two" not "at least two". And the rumors about Potter are rumors, not quotes from Rowling.
- In a June 2006 interview about the previously-written ending, JK Rowling admitted that -
- "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die...A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil...They go for the main characters, or I do" --T-dot 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt adding tht potter thing, but the sentance said that two characters will die; which isnt comnpletley true. (11987 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
- I see your point. We could either have Rowling (1) adding two MORE main characters to the death list, or (2) have Rowling changing her mind on WHICH TWO she will kill off. Which is it? I don't know. If you feel it is (1), then please feel free to add "At least two main characters will die" to the "Information from Rowling" part where she is directly quoted about it - rather than the "Other" section which is not referenced. Case closed. --T-dot
- (nevermind - I did it myself, but please feel free to edit, and sorry for the confusion.) --T-dot 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Book title vandalism ..... WTF?!?
This is just light hearted you can skip if you want. If not .... can someone explaine to me what the irristable draw of vandalizing the book title thing is? I mean honestly is every 13 year old boy in the enaglish speaking workd going to have a go? I mean why the book title when they could be bragging about a friend's homosexuality or some thing. Anyway I was a bit curious and bord so I thought I would compile a list, if any vandals happen to be reading this (because I know you all check the talk page first) please not that the follwing titles have been tried (since July 10th):
- Harry Potter Book: Fuck Da Police - Could not work and "and the" into that?
- WB has trademarked one that perfectly fits: Harry Potter and the Alchemist's Cell - Have they now?
- Harry Potter: The Butthead of Hogwarts - Another deft (or perhaps daft?) deviation from the standard ".... and the ..." style.
- Harry Potter and the Final Battle
- Harry Potter and the Great Revelation and Harry Potter and the Parseltongue trophy these two were added as speculation at least.
- Harry Potter and the End - Yes very creative.
- Harry Potter and the Poison Horcrux - Well this time at least you did 4 or 5 diffrent places in the article. A little harder to clean up but honestly.
- Harry Potter and the Poison Horcrux - Because exploding ones that burn off your hand are not enough! At least you stick to your guns.
- Harry Potter and the End of the Series - Oh you are so clever *pat on the head*
- Harry Potter and the Never Ending Story - Who is the hero of this one? Is there going to be a flying dragon dog thing?
What ever the title turns out to be this edit assures us that it will be aswsome. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I decided to try making a small change - to Harry Potter (Year 7). It seems leaving it as Harry Potter and the ... provides too much temptation for internet trolls and vandals (and well meaning novices) to add on their favorite tagline that they heard from someone claiming to know the truth and had it posted on their myspace or blog page. Bless their hearts. --T-dot 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look - all the other books so far have contained a barely noticeable subtitle on the spine - e.g. "Year 4" on Goblet of Fire. Of course the title will not be Harry Potter (Book 7) or Harry Potter (Year 7) - that is not the point. Leaving the title as "Harry Potter and the..." is an open invitation to "Finish This Title!!!" - it is almost like advertizing a contest to see who comes up with something that some others might take as "real" - just like leaving a candy bowl on the coffee table - the kids are going to get in it. I propose to "finish it" for the time being, until the real title is released, with something corresponding to the title of this article "Harry Potter book 7" - or "Harry Potter (book 7)" or "Harry Potter (Year 7)", which is a surrogate for the real title. --T-dot 11:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The year tag exists only on American editions. I think the best option for now is to simply deem the title unknown, which is both accurate and less likely to tempt trolls.--Lividore 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Speculation
I deleted speculation. (11987 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
- Thank you. Personally, I think we CAN post the "dangling threads" from the previous books, but once we cross into the territory of what "may" happen or "is expected" to happen or "most fans believe" will happen in Book 7- then we have violated the borders of speculation, and probably done some unencyclopedic weasel wording - see WP:AWW. These threads from the previous books can be in the form of the carefully phrased dispositions of the major important characters and properties as the previous book ends (eg: Dumbledore = dead and snoozing in his picture in the headmaster's office at Hogwarts, Harry = setting out to destroy Voldemort once and for all, Ron and Hermione = committing themselves to assist Harry on his path, Snape = on the run with Draco Malfoy in tow) - as long as it is closely and inarguably supported by direct quotes or quality paraphrasing from the previous books. If a notion cannot be verified from the canon of the text, or from some authoritative interview of Rowling, or from her web site, - see WP:RS - then it must be disallowed - even if it is "true" or "widely believed" - see WP:V. If she didn't say it, then it is not encyclopedic, and constitutes original research or speculation - see WP:NOR. --T-dot 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- So this justifies deleting, for example, that Harry comes of age on his 17th birthday (seems factual), will be in his 7th year if he goes back to school (seems rather likely given that will be his age group), there will have to be a new DADA teacher (has been every year), they will be going after the horcruxes (Harry said he will), we will finally find out whatever is left to find out about Snape (well, obviously, if we don't find out in this book, we never will)....and so on. I cannot absolutely vouch for how every line has changed since I last checked them in detail, people love to rearrange things, but frankly all these points have been verified backwards sideways and upside down and also appear on lexicon, mugglenet, and Leaky. (which, last I looked, between them include rather more points)
- It may be the case that people here sometimes get too excited when they see words like 'may', or 'most fans believe' (which in fact I could not find in the text anywhere). I would say that the current version of this article, particularly the section 11987 deleted, is a lot more waffly than it used to be, when it was rather clearer that the comments referred to information extracted the text rather than being someones opinions. Sandpiper 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly agree in principle with including inevitable information about things that are known to be true about Book Seven, but they must be phrased in an encyclopedic manner. For example, we know that Book Six ends in mid-June, at the end of the school term with the death of Dumbledore and his funeral. Many plans and arrangements about the not-too-distant future were discussed in those final chapters by many characters - and those can certainly be outlined and discussed here. And, as an example, we can say that Harry's 17th birthday is a few weeks later - on July 31st; and that when wizards like Harry turn 17, then they are "of age" and can do certain things that they could not do before, like Apparition / Disapparition; and the ban on underage wizardry and magic use outside of the school is lifted. But there is a very subtle (and perhaps nitpicky in this case) yet still important difference in saying "Harry's 17th birthday is July 31st", and "Harry will turn 17 on July 31st". The first statement is factual and irrevocable, but the second is technically speculative: for all we know, it is conceivable, though of course rather unlikely, that Harry will die and get eaten by Nagini on July 30th, and that Neville will take over the role as Voldemort's assasin, after first using the Cruciatus liberally on those who tortured his parents into insanity, in order to discover the Dark Lord's new hideout. As another example, we know that Harry told Ginny that "We've got to stop seeing each other" and "We can't be together" and about how he's "got things to do alone now", but we cannot say whether Ginny will be assisting Harry in some way. Meanwhile, Ron and Hermione said "...we'll go with you wherever you're going", and "We're with you whatever happens"; and Harry appeared to agree to that. Now Ginny might end up being the 4th member of Harry's task force, or she might get kidnapped by Peter Pettigrew and held for ransom, or she may fall in love with Seamus, and elope and honeymoon with him in the Bahamas. So we really cannot say what the future holds for Ginny, and anything we do say is probably speculation. What we can do is quote and paraphrase the canonical book(s), and add pertinent notes from documented Rowling interviews, and refer to things she posted her web site, and then let the shippers, fans, and other readers decide for themselves what they want to believe or hope for from there (as long as they do not post their non-canonical opinions and editorials in the main article). --T-dot 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not hung up about the style in which things are included. If the essential content is factual then it should not be deleted just because it is phrased badly. This is a perfect example of how that goes. One person puts in a fact. A second converts it to a vaguer style which he feels reads better. A third deletes it again becaus he feels it reads like speculation. Wiki needs to get over being hung up about style. Sandpiper 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly agree in principle with including inevitable information about things that are known to be true about Book Seven, but they must be phrased in an encyclopedic manner. For example, we know that Book Six ends in mid-June, at the end of the school term with the death of Dumbledore and his funeral. Many plans and arrangements about the not-too-distant future were discussed in those final chapters by many characters - and those can certainly be outlined and discussed here. And, as an example, we can say that Harry's 17th birthday is a few weeks later - on July 31st; and that when wizards like Harry turn 17, then they are "of age" and can do certain things that they could not do before, like Apparition / Disapparition; and the ban on underage wizardry and magic use outside of the school is lifted. But there is a very subtle (and perhaps nitpicky in this case) yet still important difference in saying "Harry's 17th birthday is July 31st", and "Harry will turn 17 on July 31st". The first statement is factual and irrevocable, but the second is technically speculative: for all we know, it is conceivable, though of course rather unlikely, that Harry will die and get eaten by Nagini on July 30th, and that Neville will take over the role as Voldemort's assasin, after first using the Cruciatus liberally on those who tortured his parents into insanity, in order to discover the Dark Lord's new hideout. As another example, we know that Harry told Ginny that "We've got to stop seeing each other" and "We can't be together" and about how he's "got things to do alone now", but we cannot say whether Ginny will be assisting Harry in some way. Meanwhile, Ron and Hermione said "...we'll go with you wherever you're going", and "We're with you whatever happens"; and Harry appeared to agree to that. Now Ginny might end up being the 4th member of Harry's task force, or she might get kidnapped by Peter Pettigrew and held for ransom, or she may fall in love with Seamus, and elope and honeymoon with him in the Bahamas. So we really cannot say what the future holds for Ginny, and anything we do say is probably speculation. What we can do is quote and paraphrase the canonical book(s), and add pertinent notes from documented Rowling interviews, and refer to things she posted her web site, and then let the shippers, fans, and other readers decide for themselves what they want to believe or hope for from there (as long as they do not post their non-canonical opinions and editorials in the main article). --T-dot 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that i did my deletions hastily, it is also true that much is speculation. Speculation about the roles of characters should not be in the article, and rumored release dates do not belong either. (11987 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
- Then please explain here which bits you think are speculation and we can discuss it. Why do rumoured release dates not belong? that is straight reporting of facts: the existence of a rumour is a fact in itself. We aim to inform, here. I would also suggest that while this article has a remarkably long list of references, it should not be treated in the same rigorous way as, say, the article on the airline bomb plot. A certain ligheartedness is called for here. No one expects everything on this page to happen just exactly as it says, it only gives an idea of what to expect. Short of kidnapping JKR, that is all anyone is going to get for now.Sandpiper 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Grr, someone replaced "* There could be some changes at Hogwarts due to the fact that Dumbledore is dead and there will be a new Headmaster/Headmistress (probably Professor McGonagall)." with a less accurate version saying simply McGonagall would be the new headmistress. The accurate version is that she will probably be new headmistress. That is the most likely outcome, though even more accurate would be something more longwinded explaining that she will either have to be confirmed as headmistress permanently, or someone else be appointed. Sandpiper 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Snape dies
I heard that Harry kills Snape from someone that goes to my school he has claimed to have gotten a rough draft of the seventh book from the black market but I don't believe him. -- 70.171.190.17 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's lying. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
One word; L-I-A-R. The book isnt even completed yet. (11987 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
- To be fair, when last asked at the radio city charity reading, JKR said something like it was largely completed but she had surprised herself how many things she still had to get in. However, i really doubt it is a copy of anything written by JKR. But anyway, I want nothing to do with any copies of it until it is finished to her satisfaction. Sandpiper 20:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
umbridge
Hi there. On the Information from JKR section, a line reads:
And on Dolores Umbridge, "It's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish
and a link goes to citation 15, ([3]). Now, I've not read the whole thing, but I searched for "dolores" and "umbridge", and she mentions her only when questioned about characters' personalities and her own. I've also searched specifically for the word torture and it is not there.
So, whoever added that line might have either linked it to the wrong reference, or just invented those lines. VdSV9•♫ 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
question
What is the primary school for wizards?
- There isn't one. Magical children raised as wizards are discouraged by the ministry of magic from being sent to primary school, to avoid the problems faced by Harry, and the risks of culture clash and of the magical children spilling secrets about the wizarding world. Instead, these children are privately tutored, or taught by their parents. Only muggle-borns, and those few half-bloods or pure-bloods such as Harry and Voldemort, who are brought up in the muggle world, attend (muggle) primary school, where, according to Rowling, the MoM keeps an eye out to deal with spontaneous eruptions of magic, such as (to give some of Harry's examples) turning a teacher's wig blue, or accidentally apparating onto a roof. Harry may well have had such a watch on his school, to stop the teachers wondering about all of these examples in great detail. In any case, Hogwarts is the only British educational institution - there are neither universities nor primary schools.Michaelsanders 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Do not move. Either title would be only temporary anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Oppose Why bother - it'll have to move again once the title is known. -- Beardo 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is the accepted yet seemingly unwritten Wikipedia style that numbers under 10 or so (sometimes 13 or even 100) are to be written out; it is also general writing style used nearly everywhere. ~ clearthought 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Requesting a change from 7 to seven seems like an uneccesary splitting of hairs.Elfich 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would submit that this is a valid style within the context of normal prose: e.g., "I was chased by seven wolves", not "I was chased by 7 wolves". I do not think this applies to things such as the volume number of a series of books, movies, or whatnot; although normally read and written as cardinal numbers ("Harry Potter 7") they are treated like the ordinals used in other cases ("Queen Elizabeth II", not "~ the Second"), but for the purposes of enumerating the volumes. One would no more spell out the volume number merely because it is lower than, say, 13, than one would for a year number ("born in Five CE"). For that matter, chapter numbers may start at "Chapter One" and end at "Chapter Fifty", or start at "Chapter 1" and end at "Chapter 50", but I sincerely doubt that you'd find any book that started out spelling out the chapter numbers and then switching to numerals at the thirteenth.
--SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) >>Therefore, I...
- ...Oppose. --SigPig 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are special rules for dates, monarchs/names, and things like chapters and volumes... but "Harry Potter 7" is in essence 'Harry Potter: year seven' or whatnot, each book is a year of Harry's life. If we are not to change the title, than may I insist that we not go rewriting all style laws and change all the "seven"s and "seventh"s in the article? ~ clearthought 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary. The final title will probably be announced in a few months anyway, so it would be just a temporary measure. Marc Shepherd 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary and inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Inappropriate", that's a new one! ~ clearthought 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - the page was only just moved from Harry Potter book seven to Harry Potter Seven (Book). Moving it again would mean editing all the links again because I don't think you can redirect a redirect or it doesn't work (correct me on that one if I'm wrong). Thanks, 0L1 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Why has the title been changed from 'Harry Potter book 7'. I don't see what was wrong with that, nor where the dabate for moving it might be. Sandpiper 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was because someone ultimately wanted to lay the groundwork for a separate article: "Harry Potter 7 (film)" - such as it is (or would be) - in order to parallel the corresponding articles used for the previous HP books and films. Some folks just cannot sleep well at night with unsymmetrical universes. --T-dot 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- So a new editor came along and just moved it? Since there is not even a book, never mind a film, having (book) in brackets is daft. I propose putting it back where it started. Sandpiper 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It was moved by a user called Bravedog who claimed that "Previous title is aginst wikipedia policy". SNS 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose moving it back to the old title, for the same reason I oppose the move presently under discussion. There is no perfect article name for a book that hasn't been named by its author. Let the current title stand. Marc Shepherd 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Rowling has two possible titles for Book Seven
According to a Washington Post article[4] she was set with one title until she thought up of another one that would be just as appropriate.
“ | I was quite happy with one of them until the other one struck me while I was taking a shower in New York [. . .] They would both be appropriate, so I think I'll have to wait until I'm further into the book to decide which one works best. | ” |
I don't know if it's suitable for the article. Throw 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just noticed it's already added in the article. I'll add the Washington Post article as another reference since it's from a more credible source. The one on there now is from a fan site. Throw 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Post-move comments
Well i have just un-archived it. Yes, I did see that someone had deleted the entire end of this talk page, though i was not able to put it back. The editor was doing some very odd things and refusing to produce pages from the history list. was anyone mucking about with it? I have still to receive an explanation why this page was moved in the first place, and why it should not go back where it came from . I know the explanation given was that the original title was against some policy, but i'm damned if i know what policy. No one has explained this. it was moved by someone with very few edits, then the whole discussion here deleted by someone with no edits. What is goihg on? Sandpiper 16:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)