Wikipedia

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mamamia2 (talk | contribs)
21 edits
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,854,755 edits
Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2025-07-21. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
 
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{notaforum|unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the improvement of the article}}
{{skiptotoctalkBritish English}}
{{Article history
{{talkheader}}
|action1=AFD
{{oldafdfull|date=[[23 July]][[2005]]|result=keep|votepage=Harry Potter: Book Seven}}
|action1date=18:45, 31 July 2005
{{WPHP|class=B|importance=Top}}
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven
{{NovelsWikiProject|class=B|importance=Top}}
|action1result=keep
__TOC__
|action1oldid=19985411
{{/Archivebox}}
 
|action2=GAN
== sneak peak of the first chapter of the deathly hallows ==
|action2date=2007-08-15, 00:41:36
In order to read the first chapter go to [http://pottersecrets.googlepages.com/home] it is a great refernce and a big surprise I think it is seriously the real chapter
|action2link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 27#GA Passed
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=151246008
 
|action3=FAC
== Archives ==
|action3date=18:12, 25 August 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive1
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=153581846
 
|action4=GAR
*[[/Archive 1]]: original research complaints; unfounded theories
|action4date=06:39, 14 September 2007
*[[/Archive 2]]: speculated release date; plot speculation; questions to be answered by the book
|action4link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 28#Most definitely NOT a good article yet.
*[[/Archive 3]]: references; fake titles; more speculation; '''failed requested move'''
|action4result=delisted
*[[/Archive 4]]: '''real title'''; questions about "hallows"; trimming of speculation
|action4oldid=157696040
*[[/Archive 5]]: cited fan speculation; '''real release date'''; '''the meaning of "hallows"''',
*[[/Archive 6]]: long debate on inclusion of ''speculation on the meaning of "hallows"'''
*[[/Archive 7]]: article length, some {{tl|editprotected}} requests; continuation of above '''debate on "hallows"'''
*[[/Archive 8]]: continuation of above '''debate'''; minor article questions
*[[/Archive 9]]: continuation of [[Hallows]] '''debate'''
*[[/Archive 10]]: end of [[Hallows]] '''debate''', release of the covers
*[[/Archive 11]]: more talk of the covers, image questions
 
|action5=GAN
== [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)]] ==
|action5date=04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=198558188
 
|action6=GAN
I think some discussion on the matter of the films article being redirected to this page is needed. There is info about the film from reputable sources (See [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6491047.stm] & [http://www.worstpreviews.com/movienews.php?id=726]). --[[User:RockerballAustralia|RockerballAustralia]] 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|action6date=14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
|action6result=not promoted
|action6oldid=225024411
 
|action7=PR
:At this point, the extrapolated date for the release of a hypothetical film version of ''DH'' is Summer 2010, unless [[Warner Bros.]] chooses to accelerate the HP production schedule. Similarly ''HBP'' is anticipated to be late November 2008. Any speculation outside of what Warner Bros. has officially announced would be highly suspect, and probably disallowed - WB has not said much about ''HBP'' yet, much less ''DH''. We are not required to report on the ramblings of folks at low-credibility news ragsheets who know less about the subject than most of the semi-respectable information gathering depots - like the Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron. I expect that when there is sufficient notable information available at the usual sites, and WB has at least acknowledged the intent to produce the film, then we can start an article on it. Until then - probably not. Thanks for asking though. --[[User:T-dot|T-dot]] ([[User talk:T-dot|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/T-dot|contribs]]) 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|action7date=09:57, 30 July 2008
|action7link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive1
|action7result=reviewed
|action7oldid=228526976
 
|action8=GAN
::I don't doubt that this will be made a film; in fact, it's been confirmed that the actors will return. But see [[WP:NOT#CBALL]]. With information only that those three actors will return, and David Heyman back as producer, it's such little information for something so far in the future that it just doesn't meet the guidelines for the existence of an article. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Fbv65edel|del]]'' / [[User_talk:Fbv65edel|☑t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Fbv65edel|☛c]] || 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|action8date=20:28, 4 August 2009
:::It is in apropriate to redirect films article being redirected to the Book, because anyone who wants information about the book would not type (film) in their search for the article. So, if they get to films article, it is obvious that they want information about the film and it's production, not information about the book. Even though there is little known at this point, there is more than nothing, and the artlicle should reflect the known details. -[[User:12.218.155.57|12.218.155.57]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|action8link=Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/GA2
::::I'm not disputing that if someone types ''…Deathly Hallows (film)'' they're looking for the film and not the book, but the film is too far in the future for it to be an article now. Consider that pre-production is only just beginning on ''Half-Blood Prince''. By redirecting the film article to here, we're saying that they're such little information about this for it to be a real article. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Fbv65edel|del]]'' / [[User_talk:Fbv65edel|☑t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Fbv65edel|☛c]] || 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|action8result=listed
::::: Personally I think there is enough to have an article, but even if there isn't, a better redirect would be to the article [[Harry Potter (films)]]; and whatever is known about the seventh film should be included in that article. -[[User:12.218.155.57|12.218.155.57]] 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|action8oldid=305954896
:::I dont think it should be a redirect. It should better be deleted, for now. --<span style="background-color: #Fda;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<font color="#ff6633">soum</font>]]'' [[User talk:Soumyasch|(0_o)]]</span> 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 
|action9=PR
:In any case, probably the best place to post the bits and pieces of info on the hypothetical ''DH'' film might be at [[Harry Potter (films)|Harry Potter Films]], until it can grow well beyond a 2-sentence stub on when it might be targeted for release, and who might be returning as actors and crew. Perhaps the redirect should be sent there. --[[User:T-dot|T-dot]] ([[User talk:T-dot|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/T-dot|contribs]]) 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
|action9date=17:55, 11 February 2011
|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive2
|action9result=reviewed
|action9oldid=413198419
 
|action10=FAC
::I agree that the redirect should be sent to [[Harry Potter (films)|Harry Potter Films]]. After both the release of the book and the availability of more information about the film, then a separate article should be created. [[User:Tuyvan|Tuyvan]] 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
|action10date=13:31, 15 February 2011
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive2
|action10result=not promoted
|action10oldid=413996738
 
|action11=PR
I have to say I think the DH film qualifies as a verifiable, widely interesting, noteable, almost certain to take place (money has already changed hands), preparation already in progress, not a member of a recurring sequence (eg 2012, 2016, 2020 election) and is entitled to an article under the terms outlined in not-a-crystal-ball. It may not be a very big article, but since everyone out there knows perfectly well there is going to be a film, inevitably people will keep trying to create it. Even if it is little more than a redirect referring people here for likely plot inclusions, it seems to me a lot simpler just to create it as an article. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
|action11date=02:35, 11 March 2011
|action11link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive3
|action11result=reviewed
|action11oldid=418224230
 
|action12=GTC
== Scholastic interview - further HP books ==
|action12date=20:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
|action12result=promoted
|action12link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Harry Potter novels/archive1
 
|ftname=Harry Potter novels
I'm sure that most people would agree with me that the phrase "she doesn't plan on further ''Harry Potter'' books" refers to Rowling's ''current'' plans. This can only be justified using an interview from 7 years ago if you also provide evidence that her plans have not changed since then. Lack of evidence against something is not evidence for it. The quote says it all:
 
|topic=Langlit
<blockquote>'''At the moment''' I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book. (emphasis added)</blockquote>
|currentstatus=GA
|otd1date=2012-07-21|otd1oldid=503359262
|otd2date=2017-07-21|otd2oldid=791607174
|otd3date=2025-07-21|otd3oldid=1300312362
}}
 
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
I have already edited the article in the past over this issue and been reverted. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=High|fantasy-task-force=yes|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=High}}
}}
{{caution|Before commenting on spoilers in the article, make sure you have read [[Wikipedia:Spoiler|the guideline on when to use spoiler warnings]] and [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|the content disclaimer]].}}
{{Press
| year = 2007
| title = Final 'Potter' book already sets records
| author = Judith Egerton
| date = 16 July 2007
| url = http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/FEATURES06/707160322
| org = ''[[The Courier-Journal]]'' (Louisville)
| year2 = 2007
| title2 = Riddles & Secrets
| author2 = Catherine Reese Newton
| date2 = 15 July 2007
| month = July
| url2 = http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6376635?source=rss
| org2 = ''[[The Salt Lake Tribune]]''}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 30
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(100d)
|archive = Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2007 Top 50 Report|2007]]}}
 
== Thoughts ==
I strongly agree with your point. Certainly she is free to change her mind, and may do so (if the money ever runs out) or not. But using definitives like '''never''' would not be a true statement. --[[User:BillWSmithJr|Bill W. Smith, Jr.]] <small>([[User_talk:BillWSmithJr|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/BillWSmithJr|contribs]])</small> 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:You're joking, right? She has said it ''many'' times that this book is the last one. On her own personal website, she stated "I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be. Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years."[http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/] That's from the author herself. How you can argue with that or speculate about it on an encyclopedia is beyond me. Anyway, you cannot add speculation to this article, we can only report what we can verify. For now, what we can say is that JK Rowling has no plans to write anything after the series except for, perhaps, "an encyclopedia in which I could have fun with the minor characters and I could give the definitive biography of all the characters." [http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml] [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not disputing that she plans for this book to be the last. I am disputing the use of interviews from so long ago to justify such statements. We should at least add a better (more current) reference alongside the Scholastic interview. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I just gave you two. The most recent one is the blog entry she posted on her website. We'll use that. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I've added the blog entry as a reference. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Erm, that's nice, but her comment from her website is already quoted in its entirety as the last entry in that section. Has been throughout this discussion. Does no one read the articles? [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us from referring to it! However, I am happy with the current state of that section. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Suggestions for this article:<br>
== Edit wars ==
 
-Cite the part about the book being translated into 120+ languages.<br>
There has recently been a good deal of edit warring on this article, including at least one violation of [[WP:3RR|the three-revert-rule]]. Note that the rule prohibits any one editor from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, no matter how the reverts are spaced out within the 24 hours. Not also that any change that effectively restores a prior state of the article, or re-inserts or re-removes disputed text counts as a revert, even if done in conjunction with other edits. Note also that edit warring is a very bad idea even if the 3RR is not technically broken. Please try to come to agreement by some means other than edit warring. I have closed a report on [[WP:AN/3|the 3RR noticeboard]] with a strong warning, because the reverts involved stopped 2 days ago. But further violations of the 3RR are likely to result in a block for any and all editors violating the rule. Thank you and happy editing. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 
-Cite where you found the information on the awards this book has one.<br>
== Censorship? ==
 
-It seems that the record for this book being the fastest selling book ever may be out of date as it's quoted "as of 2012". Is this record still true?<br>
There is zero mention of the british tabloid press leak (widely reprinted worldwide in newspapers) which says in HP7 namesake hero Harry Potter will have to give up his magical powers in order to stop Voldemort and save his friends from "eternal darkness", whatever that means. This is highly significant info. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/81.0.68.145|81.0.68.145]] ([[User talk:81.0.68.145|talk]]) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:A tabloid is probably not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. By the way, how exactly is it censorship if no one has even heard of this supposed article? Give a link and we'll consider it. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::''Hem Hem Hem''. We should not even consider this (key word: Tabloid!). If you can provide a ''reliable'' source, then we can consider it.[[User:Quatreryukami|Quatreryukami]] 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::I'll admit that newspapers aren't the most reliable of sources but I think you're underestimating the quality of the british tabloids. The Times, the most respected newspaper in England (Unless you're a Telegraph person) now comes in tabloid form and if you ignore the sensationalist overly-conservative anti-labour propogands in the Daily Mail that's not a bad paper either. Of course the Sun, Star, Sport and anything with topless chicks on page 3 is not to be trusted. On another note, the information may not be correct but if it's in a newspaper then it might gain widespread recognition, even though it's false, it's good to know about it in advance incase it does become worthy of note- noting that innacurate rumours were being spread in the newspapers as 'fact'.
:::Sign your post man. Anyway, I don't know much about the british papers, I'm an american, so sorry bout that. [[User:Quatreryukami|Quatreryukami]] 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Tabloids can be accurate sources - sometimes. Occasionally. Rarely, even. Show us a link! Our local paper usually picks up on absurd British stories, but I haven't heard of this one over here in AU. [[User:Daggoth S|Daggoth S]] 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
-There seems to be many direct quotes. Perhaps try to paraphrase more of these?<br>
Why the hurry to put such info even if it is true? The book will be out in a few months. Let people enjoy reading the book and finding out for themselves what will happen. [[User:Berserkerz Crit|Berserkerz Crit]] 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
-Overall, very neutral in tone and decent sources considering that there will be very few scientific sources for this topic.<br>
Please don't assume this is censorship. None of the top fan sites, usually quick to report any information, had any story about this. None of the three papers in New York (I just searched) had anything about "eternal darkness" recently. If you tell us where you found this, we '''''may''''' decide to put it into the article, but it sounds highly unlikely -- not for censorship, but because Wikipedia does not carry rumors. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Fbv65edel|del]]'' / [[User_talk:Fbv65edel|☑t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Fbv65edel|☛c]] || 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Lauraware4|Lauraware4]] ([[User talk:Lauraware4|talk]]) 01:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I did notice, however, that at least one website was adopting a spoiler policy of not posting anything unless it was from a cast-iron source, and officially released. This might not include newspaper reports. I would suggest that Harry is likely to lose at least one magical power if he kills Voldemort....his link to Voldemorts mind. (well, I hope so anyway. Haunted by Voldemort?). That may sound like a daft quip, but it is not necessarily: I don't know where this report is supposed to come from, but a quip like mine might get blown up into a story, 'Harry loses powers'. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 
== External links modified ==
== Pagenumbers of UK version based on wrong rumours ==
 
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Although the number of 608 pages for the UK version of DH can be found all over the Internet, it is based on wrong information. Bloomsbury have never confirmed the number of pages. The source of this rumour is probably an erroneous entry on amazon.co.uk which has been copied by numerous other sites. The number 608 should be removed from the article and it is perhaps worth mentioning that this unconfirmed information is based on a mistake. [[User:AberforthD|AberforthD]] 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well, Leaky and Mugglenet reported when the covers were released, that they confirmed the 608 page count with Bloomsbury somehow. That's good enough for me. [[User:Daggoth S|Daggoth S]] 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Leaky reported that 608 first turned up on a bookseller's website[http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/?articleID=9632], and the number was then confirmed with Bloomsbury on the day of the cover release.[http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/index.php?articleID=9653] There's no link to a Bloomsbury announcement or anything , but I don't see how we can remove the info from the article when there's nothing in the media (that I can see anyway) saying "Amazon ''probably'' got the number wrong". [[User:Daggoth S|Daggoth S]] 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I still think the statement of 608 pages is too strong given the weak basis of our sources. I don't want to cast any doubt on Mugglenet's or Leaky's sources, but I can hardly see how a statement on their site that they checked with Bloomsbury can be taken for an authorative confirmation. In my opinion there is still no official confirmation of the UK pagecount and the article should reflect that. I propose to formulate it as follows: "The book will be 784 pages in the US edition and is expected to be 608 pages in the British edition". [[User:AberforthD|AberforthD]] 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I have just modified one external link on [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802646534 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Horcruxes ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022103656/http://arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=130 to http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=130
<!-- This part is relevant due to the fact that information about Horcruxes is on the article page, it is used to make sure that the info is correct-->
There were seven pieces but two got destroyed, weren't there? [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:His soul was split into seven pieces. Six were used to create horcruxes. The 7th piece was the one which never left Voldemort's body. We assume this one "was destroyed" (at least as far as we of this plane are concerned) in the incident in which Harry received his scar. At least, if I am interpreting this all correctly (haven't re-read HBP since it came out). I also assume that one horcrux was "used" at tis point to bring Voldemort back in diminished form. We are also led to believe that Tom Riddle's diary was a horcrux, and was destroyed in Chamber of Secrets. Then there is the ring that Dumbledore found and destroyed. So, 3 horcruxes down, 3 left (which, including the soul piece that is Voldemort's current incarnation, still makes 7). We know one of them is an amulet. That leaves two unknown, one of which may be that giant snake (but we don't know for sure). So, there you go. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Actually, that's wrong... That's the same thing I thought at first, but after re-reading it, it states that Horcruxes act like anchors, they keep the soul here. So Voldies soul wasn't destroyed in the incident at the beginning of the series. That piece can't be destroyed until every other piece is destroyed. So the correct count is, two down, 4 to go (The soul in Voldies body isn't a Horcrux). [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I believe that's right. Harry has to find the horcrux's and destroy them before he can attempt to take out the seventh and last piece of his soul, which is in his body. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah, thanks for clearing that up you two. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
OK BUT IF U THINK ABOUT IT HE SENT A SPELL TO KILL HARRY IT WAS REDIRECTED BACK AT HIM SO IT KILLED HIM AND WHO KNOWS WHAT HE DID TO SPLIT HIS SOUL INTO SEVEN PIECES IT COULD IF INVOLVED HIS OWN DEATH IN ORDER TO SPLIT HIS SOULWHEN HE DIED AFTER ATACKING HARRY I WAS PROBABLY LIKE (SUPER MARIO) WHERE HE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A NEW SOUL PIECE AND AUTO MATICALLY DESTROYING A HORCRUX
 
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== Leak? ==
{{seealso|Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Leaked_Table_of_Contents}}
There have been leaks of the book apearing on torrent websites. Are they real?[[User:71.206.136.69|71.206.136.69]] 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 14:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
:This is not a forum for discussing the book. If there was any evidence to suggest that the leaks were real, you'd see it on the fansites and the news pretty quickly. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 08:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::No, the "leaks" are not real. Like [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] said, if they were real, you'd hear about it on the news or at fansites such as MuggleNet. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::While I agree that the ToC (as well as a "leaked" version of the book) is clearly faked, fan sites like MuggleNet and HPANA have very strict anti-spoiler rules, so leaks that are real but not "authorized" would not get reported there :(
 
== ''Cursed Child'' ==
== Time of release for the US is incorrect ==
The article states that the US version will be released at 00:01 local time. This is incorrect. The reference to Rowling's site only states British Standard Time for the UK and other English speaking countries in the world. It does not specify the time for the USA. This might be a simple omission but in any case the release time cannot unambiguously be derived from that source. However, Bloomsbury's site does state that "Sale of the book in all time zones is embargoed until 00:01 BST (British Summer Time) on Saturday 21st July 2007." [http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/default.asp?sec=6] (Click on "News" then "Publication announcement" and scroll to the bottom). This means that the book is released at the exact same moment all over the world, including the USA. [[User:AberforthD|AberforthD]] 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:The info comes from Rowlings own website. It says ''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be published on Saturday 21st July 2007 at 00:01 BST in the UK and at 00:01 in the USA. It will also be released at 00:01 BST on Saturday 21st July in other English speaking countries around the world.'' I agree this is perhaps not as clear as it might be, but it says in the USA it will be released at 00.01. I take it this means local time, since it takes the trouble to say that elsewhere it will be released at 00.:01 UK time. I don't know quite what that means for Canada? [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::But have you checked out the reference I gave above to Bloomsbury's site? It is as clear as it can be.[[User:AberforthD|AberforthD]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I checked the reference. This may just be referring to the Bloomsbury edition of the book, which is not published in America. I can't imagine that they'll break the tradition of a '''midnight''' party just for the last book, where people in Los Angeles would be lining up to get the book at 5pm and people in New York at 8 pm. [[Harry Potter fandom|The last three books]] have had midnight parties, seems weird to change it for this one. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Fbv65edel|del]]'' / [[User_talk:Fbv65edel|☑t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Fbv65edel|☛c]] || 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, it will definitely be released at midnight here in America. I checked [http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6320000/newsid_6320600/6320653.stm here] and on several other reputable websites. All sources say that Deathly Hallows will released one minute after midnight in America and all english-speaking countries. [[User:Arwen undomiel|<span style="color:turquoise;">'''Arwen undomiel'''</span>]] 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I was forgetting that the USA is so big. Yes, multiple time zones woiuld account for the slightly odd way the US entry is phrased by Rowling. I agree that Bloomsbury are not likely to talk about when a different company is publishuing a book. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm guessing that JKR doesn't want to release the book before it's been released in England anywhere, meaning places like Australia. But after it's been released there, I assume that it will be released at 12:01 everywhere else. Just a guess. [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well you have to admit that it would be a tad unfair if her own home country didn't get the final book first. I would imagine that the books will be released at midnight all over the world, so some countrys will get it before others (just like the previous releases). [[User:Wild ste|Wild ste]] 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Do we mention anywhere in the article that while ''Deathly Hallows'' is the final ''HP'' novel, the storyline continues in ''[[Harry Potter and the Cursed Child|Cursed Child]]'', like ''[[The Matrix Revolutions|Revolutions]]'' being the final ''[[The Matrix (franchise)|Matrix]]'' film while the storyline continues in ''[[The Matrix Online]]''? Is ''Cursed Child'' even [[Canon (fiction)|canon]]? If it is, I think we should do this. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Kailash29792|<b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b>]] [[User talk:Kailash29792|<span style="color: black;">(talk)</span>]] </span> 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
==Most Oft-Made Edits, and What We Can Do About It==
:No, because there are so many discrepancies in the Cursed Child (Snape?!) that it isn't a continuation, to such a degree that it is stated to be an alternate timeline. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This is to those who have been watching this page for a while. We've all seen a few edits come up a few times too many, to be corrected yet again by whichever of those standing vigil catches it first. The example that comes to mind right now is the horcrux issue - every so often, someone comes along and wants to change it to 7 instead of 6. But there are more. To this end, I ask you: would it be helpful to create a brief list of these commonly modified facts? Something we can point to, or that might catch a new editor's eye before they make that change. Maybe something we can add to the top of this talk page. We could even include non-rendered comments in the article near these facts, pointing to the list.
 
== Slight clarification to avoid ambiguity ==
Secondly, if it is worthwhile to make such a list for this page, what should we put on it? What bit of info have you had to revert back to correctness one too many times? Or maybe just seen reverted time and time again?
 
Harry also learns that he is an unintentional Horcrux, unbeknownst to Voldemort ...
Just throwing this out... --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:I've lost count of the number of times that someone has helpfully tried to change the cover graphic at the top of the page to the U.S. version, although that has been slowing down recently. The info/debate on that subject has been moved into archive, and I've been toying with the idea of restoring the beginning of it to here, for much the same reasons that you describe. (I also inserted a hidden comment next to the graphic refering to the talk page on the article - it's still in there.)
:Other than that, and the 6/7 horcrux thing ... I haven't seen anything that really sticks out as being constantly inserted/reverted. Just general speculation and vandalism. [[User:Daggoth S|Daggoth S]] 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::I think for now there is no need to create a list, maybe when there is more traffic as we get closer to D-day, we should reconsider it or even protect the page. [[User:Lizrael|Lizrael]] 14:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 
To avoid ambiguity, where it seems to refer to Snape, correct to
== Other registered titles ==
 
Harry also learns that he himself is an unintentional Horcrux, unbeknownst to Voldemort [[Special:Contributions/87.114.44.165|87.114.44.165]] ([[User talk:87.114.44.165|talk]]) 17:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is for debating including other titles trademarked in ways relating to Deathly Hallows. Please keep commentary to the commentary post, and include a signed very brief comment to the survey section. Thanks! [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:True, but the books have most information [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3032:315:3326:81AE:EAE0:48F7:4DB4|2A02:3032:315:3326:81AE:EAE0:48F7:4DB4]] ([[User talk:2A02:3032:315:3326:81AE:EAE0:48F7:4DB4|talk]]) 11:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
===Commentary===
 
Okay, this seems to be the current editing war, let's talk about it. I've seen it posted/removed at least a half dozen times, and I'm not really looking. Should we include the other titles that were trademarked, or not? Let's just settle the discussion here, and that way we avoid an edit war. [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:We should not, unless we report what representatives of JKR said about it: that they were "never contenders for book 7" and just "a few spares to keep the fans guessing" (things that, strangely, certain editors are trying to hide from the readers).
:Also, why would we cite only 2 titles ? Dozens of titles have been registered, it is POV to cite only 2 of them (implying they are the right ones).
:But anyway, since the 2 other titles for book 7 were never revealed, and since JKR said she wouldn't reveal them before publication, I think it's perfectly useless to have any selective mention of other titles, since it would only bring POV conflicts (why mention some titles and not others, who are some editors to decide that certain titles are relevant and likely to be the ones, etc). Since we don't know, we don't know and that's all, we don't try to push our POV on the subject, since there really is nothing substanciated to include...We ''don't know'''...[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Folken, what ''on earth'' are you talking about? The text you object to, under the section (''Meaning of Hallows'') discussing the use of the title, is as follows: "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: ''Hallows of Hogwarts'' and ''Hogwarts Hallows''Two additional titles were registered at the same time as the actual title, but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives." All of that is sourced. It is relevant to state that two titles similar to the genuine title were registered, particularly if sourced. It is relevant to state that the titles registered at the same time as HPDH were ''not'' the possible titles to which she alluded as existing, particularly if sourced. There is also no problem with using web-based sources as ''additional'' sources, provided that they merely support the main source on which a contention in the text is based, rather than acting as the main source themselves. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::What exactly does the source says about it ? [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Anyway, it is clear now, from Sandpiper's recent revert, that it is not a contents problem, but merely a personal problem. He's obviously disturbing the articles just to express his hatred for me.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Of course. Moving swiftly along, since copyright information is publically known and traceable, there is no need to refer in the text body to who precisely stated the titles were copyrighted and when, since there is no need to emphasise that they are the assertions of a particular writer - it is a piece of sourced public ___domain knowledge. So a simple reference is just fine - no need to state specifically who said what if the matter is not controversial (which this isn't). [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Incidentally, I don't know where this 'we sometimes register a few spares' comes from. But I suspect it is [[WP:SYNTH]]: an editor mixing two published sources (a published list of titles and a published quote about creating spares) to create the novel and original position that the referenced titles were 'a few spares' never intended to be used. Unless it is specifically stated, or suggested, in sources, that the relevant titles were 'spares', or whatever, the quote cannot be used there, since it implies a POV. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::So you're wrong, because this matter is particularly controversial. Remember that JKR "declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication", and that representatives of JKR specifically intervened on websites to say that certain titles "were never contenders for book 7".
::In this context were dozens of titles, each stranger than the other, have been registered since 2002, and where the author specifically refuses to give the other 2 possible titles, any assertion that some titles "are likely to be the ones", just by looking at a list on the net and without further argumentation, is of course a controversial statement, and needs to be properly attributed to its author.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It isn't controversial to say, 'The Meaning of Hallows: meaning is unknown; Rowling registered two similar titles in 2003-2004'. I mean, really. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It is controversial to say "these are the titles JKR was going to use", when earlier, there is a quote from her saying she won't reveal the titles before publication.
::::Besides, dozens of titles were registered (and not by Rowling), not only "hallows of hogwarts". [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::You seem to remember this particular policy only when it's convenient for you, I don't rememeber you respecting it on the R.A.B. article. Thus, just in order to avoid pointing out to your heratic behavior too severly and humiliating you in front of many people, I'm going to close my eyes on what you just said, and we're going to forget you ever dared to mention [[WP:SYNTH]] here.
::::In the RAB article, the assertions were attributed to the published author (the man responsible for the synthesis, and thus out of wikipedia's interest). Here, you are making your own case that the titles were not intended to be used - POV, Synth, and unnecessary. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::In the RAB article, the assertions were not attributed to anyone and were mainly the speculations of one editor.
:::::I am not saying anything, the representative of JKR said it. Where in his quote did he say that "hallows of hogwarts" etc was not included in the registered titles ? [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Besides, the quote is specifically "often registered a few spares to keep people guessing", which is exactly the case for "Hogwarts hallows" etc, because even if you personally think these are the right titles, they were just registered by a company, nothing more, and they are no more different than any other titles registered. [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::::No, Folken, it isn't controversial to say "two titles similar to this title were registered by Rowling a few years ago." It is controversial for you to venture your personal opinion that they are 'spares' to 'keep readers guessing'. All we are saying in the article about this is that 'two similar titles were registered in 2003-2004'. No-one is venturing any further than that without visibly sourcing it. What is it that you are failing to understand here? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes michael it is controversial to say that these titles are the ones.
::::::It is not my personal opinion, it's what the representatives for JKR said.
::::::You are venturing further than that without visibly sourcing it.
::::::Why are you trying to add comments made by representatives for JKR on these titles ? [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:Okay, I think there's been enough of this debate going on. Why don't we try taking a compromise, of simply removing all references to other things that have been trademarked, except for the reference that JKR had chosen two other possible titles? Then there's no debate, and no controversy. Studying the issue further just simply let me know that there isn't enough publicly available information to really say anything on the matter. I'm going to go ahead and remove the statements myself. If a compromise can be met, in the mean while, then we can change it, but please be [[WP:CIVIL | polite]]. [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with you, there's simply not enough info yet to allow such suppositions.
::The the best way is not to mention this at all. The subject is very controversial anyway (dozens of titles have been registered since 2002, including "Peverell Quest", "Wand of Gryffindor", "Ring of Destiny", "Elder Wand" ...Hallows, even if it's a rare word, wasn't created just for HP7 and the people at Warner could have thought about it by themselves in 2003. After all, some scholars have noted arthurian influences in HP, and hallows had as much chance to appear in HP than a "Wand" or a "Ring") and we ''know'' that for the majority of these titles, they're just spares...So you see, there's just too many flaws in the argumentation.
 
::It's simply too POV to present such controversial info if we have no more details on it.
::And thus, such controversial material will inevitably bring POV issues, as we've seen here. In my opinion, if an issue is too controversial and has not enough different (and reliable) external sources, it really shouldn't be mentionned. We have simply not enough insight concerning the various registered titles.
 
::As I have said to Tuvas, the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I have no difficulty with the possibility that Warner invented the 2003 titles purely as spares, and I do not think that interpretation is inconsistent with the article as I left it. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It is simply [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:SYNTH]] to specifically say that they were spares without sourced claims that such is the case. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Read what I write. I'm saying representatives for JKR said they registered spare titles. It doesn't mean hallows of hogwarts is necessarily a spare title, but it doesn't say it is necessarily an authentic title. However, hiding the fact that hallows of hogwarts is found among a long list of obviously spare titles, and hiding the fact that WB have admitted they often registered spare titles, is POV because it hides the possibility that hallows of hogwarts ''could'' be spare. [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::The information is relevant, is sourced, is interesting, is an aspect of behind-the scenes real world information about the books, and deserves to be in the article. It is regrettable that Folken has recently sought to remove a number of points in a number of articles which have for a long time not been considered controversial. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no idea what representatives said about the titles. All I know is that there exists a mugglenet news item which states that three titles were registered at the same time, one of them Deathly Hallows, and goes on to say that 'a representative of Jo' has denied the two other titles were ever real possiblities. The item then mentions a number of other titles which have been registered. The point though, is that the article does not say that the representative also denied all the other titles registered recently. More yet, nor that the rep denied others registered in the past. I have no doubt that many of them are dummies simply intended to confuse, but I have no way of knowing whether they all are. Nor does anyone else here, unless they have found a better source. There are other online sources which also discuss alternate titles which have been registered. All Langford does is also include in his book another list of titles, this time from 2003-2004. His book was published before the real title was announced, so it makes no comment on the similarity of the final title to two old ones. Amongst the list are the two I included in the article. They are included because they contain the same unusual word, Hallows. Whether they were real possibilities or not, I have no idea, but they certainly existed. Langford reports that they were registered by Seabottom productions, a company having the same address as a british agency normally used by Warner Brothers for registering trademarks. I take it that an enquiry at the trademark registration office would confirm that they had been registered. I see absolutely no reason why the article should feature Langford's name in the text more prominently than any other reference is mentioned. While I would regard his book as a competent coverage of the more widely held views about the last book, I see no reason to advertise it for him smack in the centre of an article getting 10000 hits a day. (though maybe that's just us all reading it). I have already explained most of this to Folken on his page.[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
I put the text back. It is ridiculous to remove a sourced reference to Rowling having registered similar titles in the past. If you think it doesn't 'flow well', rewrite so that it does, but don't remove the text because one editor is indulging in absurd little crusades. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:Tuvas, it is not OR to note that similar titles have been registered before, particularly when the titles are as distinctively similar as are these. It is not OR that they are similar. I am not attempting to imply that these are ''the'' alternative titles, but their existence is a fact. But in response to Folken's contention, it is indeed OR to definitely state that they were not possible titles. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::It is indeed OR.
::Sooner or later, you'll have to actually read what I write. I've never said these titles were not the ones, just that we have no mean to now and that's very weak for inclusion on WP. [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
It is '''not''' Point of View to say, "This is the title. Rowling registered a few more just like it a few years back." I suggest you ''read the text'', Folken. No one is supposing anything, or making any controversial statements. The article simply says, under the section labelled "Meaning of Hallows", that the unusual word was used before. The only person who thinks it at all contentious to say, "'Deathly Hallows' wasn't the first time Rowling used the word" is you, Folken. Stop being so ridiculous.
 
"...the book is out in only 3 months, in no time we'll have all the answers we're looking for, so it really isn't worth it to fight for weeks on such uncertain details." What marvellous logic. Shall we put the articles on evolution up for deletion, on the basis that "it really isn't worth it to fight...on such uncertain details"? After all, the answers to that will be revealed eventually, right? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
Sandpiper, there's absolutely nothing interesting and "behind-the scenes real world " about all this. It's merely fan speculations. We don't know what the 2 titles are. No. We really don't.</br> Warner have registered a number of titles since 2002 and they have admitted most of them are spares. I see nothing "behind-the scenes real world" in this.</br> This is merely a pretext for some editors to include their opinion and speculations.
 
Michaelsanders, you have to understand that just saying "it's not me" is not good sourcing. This is an over-controversial matter with not enough sources, and moreover you're removing info which would provide a more neutral view to the matter. This really speculation for the sake of speculation. It brings too much fights and POV and OR concerns for too little benefits.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
 
Folken, how many times do you have to be told, '''you''' are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Quite frankly, you're talking unadulterated codswallop. It is not controversial to say that two titles similar to the chosen title exist, and it is not OR if there is a source. It is simply a point of interest which adds to the article. Are you following so far?
 
The number of titles that Warner or Rowling or whoever has registered is irrelevant. Most of those don't contain the word 'Hallows', and so unless there is specific reason to mention them (e.g. the two fakes registered at the same time as DH), it is irrelevant (and possibly POV) to mention them in an article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. Following?
 
It is not 'fan-speculation' to say that two titles containing the word Hallow were registered. That is a matter of public record, which will probably be available to the public by means of the Freedom of Information Act. Understand?
 
It does not matter if the 'Hallow' titles are spares or not. First of all, there is no specific source claiming that they are or are not. Second of all, the article is not claiming anything of the sort. It is simply pointing out that, in fact, two similar titles to HPDH had been registered previously. A simple point of interest, more worthwhile to this article than guessing games about the Order of the Phoenix picking up Harry from Privet Drive. So stop being so ridiculous, actually read the text you are whining about, and go and do something constructive - since, for the past week or so, all you have been doing is reverting these few articles and whinging about everything. Stop it, go and do something useful, stop complaining that everyone hates you and demonstrate that you are at all useful to wikipedia. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:No, '''you''' are the only person suggesting that the two 'hallow' titles are the 'alternate' titles to the book. Otherwise you wouldn't mention it.
:there is specific source claiming that they are or are not spares.
:The article is claiming they are the 2 titles. By "forgetting" to say WB do register spare titles sometimes, you are forcing the POV that the titles are necessarily the one and that there's no way they could be mere spares.
 
:for the rest, it's you who are doing nothing but reverting these few articles and whinging about everything.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
First of all ''CALM DOWN!!!''. That's referring to just about everyone whose posting on this subject! Please refrain from [[WP:NPA|Personal Attacks]] and [[WP:APR|Avoid Personal Remarks]]. Secondly, here's a quick view of the views I'm seeing forming from here.
#Including phrases that were trademarked at the same time
#Include titles that have some similarities with the real title.
#Simply ignore anything that there is to do with this subject.
#Include every possible topic there could be.
 
Okay, and I'll admit this is my opinion, but I'm trying to stand in here as a third party. Here's what is known:
# The two "titles" that were registered at the same time were actually only trademarks, none of them had any reference to "Harry Potter and...". That includes Deathly Hallows, BTW, it's only the phrase Deathly Hallows that is trademarked, and not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[http://www.hp-lexicon.org/comments/?m=200612] (About half-way down). In fact, re-reading this bit, it seems like there's quite a few more things that were trademarked at the same time, more than just the two "fake" titles that we've assumed.
#There really were two titles of Hallows of Hogwarts and Hogwarts Hallows that were trademarked. However, while it can be reasonably assumed that these have connections to the title Deathly Hallows, it would be OR to assume such a thing. Even if there was a source for this claim, making it is nothing more than speculation, which really doesn't belong here.
 
Also, please read [[WP:DR]] for information on handling a dispute. Given the large number of disputes coming from this page, I think it could do everyone a lot of good who edits this article frequently (I'm including myself in on this one) [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 
===Survey===
Okay, just to make sure we are all clear who has what position, let's all just put in a quick survey. This is not the final decider, but is meant as a tool. Please keep your comments very short, save anything else for the comments section above
 
====Include Hallows Titles====
Opinions on including references to titles registered containing the word Hallow
#[[User:Daggoth_S|Daggoth]] | [[User talk:Daggoth_S|Talk]] 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Don't see a problem with existing text stating two similar titles. Other titles should not be included.
#[[User:Berserkerz Crit|Berserkerz Crit]] 07:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Relevant, related and sourced.
#[[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) It might be a point of thoroughness to include the titles registered at the same time, but I don't consider it massively relevant. On the other hand, it is sheer madness to ''not'' reference an author's previous use of an uncommon term, particularly if it is a matter of public record. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': how do you ''know'' it's really the ''author'' who previously used the term ? [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 
====Include other titles registered at the same time====
Specifically, Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil.
#
 
====Include other titles and Hallows titles====
Voting for both of the above.
# I know I'm in the minority, but if the titles can be properly sourced, and relevance proven then go ahead and add them. But only then. [[User:Quatreryukami|Quatreryukami]] 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
# [[User:Arwen undomiel|<span style="color:turquoise;">'''Arwen undomiel'''</span>]] 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) If the titles can be properly sourced, I don't see a real problem including them in the article; it is interesting and somewhat informative. However, if it were a choice between the two, it would be better to have just the Hallows titles.
 
====Include none of the above====
Don't mention any other titles by name
#[[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be evidence enough to support anything else.
#[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)No evidence enough (we don't even know which titles are spares and which are not), besides saying two similar titles were registered, when talking about the 2 other mysterious titles JKR thought about, is OR (more particularly a synthesis to advance a position). All this is too speculative.
#[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless a definitive source comes up and reveals what the alternate titles that were actually considered are. Otherwise, this is really just telling us a few of the book titles we won't be buying in July.
#[[User:Dposse|dposse]] 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - Unless there are more reliable sources that state this to be true, per [[WP:SPS]], the infomation should be left out of this article. I understand the desire for speculation for something like this, but an encyclopedia is not the place for it.
#[[User:Simondrake|Simondrake]] 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) - It's just silly, the page is full of fully referencable but utterly irrelavent junk anyway, like long rambling analyses of the different dust cover colour schemes. This is going too far, there's been discussions about the title for years and frankly, no one cares anymore.
 
:Can I please point out that the only person claiming that these are 'possible titles' is Folken de Fanel. As it stands in the article, all that is being said is that there were two titles registered a few years ago containing the little-used word 'Hallows' - which is relevant to this article. That is not remotely speculative. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::If the registered titles are mentioned right after the mention of JKR's 2 other titles, it's obvious the aim is to imply the registered titles are the ones. So please stop with your bad-faith and your false accusations. [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 
====Other====
Please explain other possible courses of action.
#'''Comment''': After trying to stay out of yet another FolkenSanders war, I have some thoughts for the subject of alternate titles. I think it would be encyclopedic, interesting, and useful to have a short section entitled '''Evolution of title''', with two paragraphs. If we can find proper sources, the first paragraph would state that because ''Book 7'' was one of the most anticipated serial books in modern times (cannot think of anything similar off hand), for youth and adults alike, there was widespread speculation on the title. I think the Mugglenet, HPANA, Leaky Cauldron, etc. might be a reliable source for fan-speculated titles, and we can mention perhaps 3 or 4 of them. We do not need a comprehensive list, just a very few notable and interesting ones. We might even be able to find some in the massive archives for this talk page, with sources even. If we have any quotes from Rowling denying this or that title, that would be a great finish to that paragraph, otherwise state that there was "no comment from Rowling". The second paragraph can document the alternate titles that were registered at the copyrights and trademarks offices in the UK and/or US at roughly the same time as ''Deathly Hallows'', most especially if the ''Deathly Hallows'' title was co-registered with the "alternates". We would need a bulletproof source for these alternate registrations. If there were other alternate titles registered before the "final group of three" or whatever, then it might also be interesting to include those less notable alternatives. Finally, if Rowling ever owns-up to the last 2 or 3 titles she "kicked around in the shower" before settling on ''Deathly Hallows'', then those can be listed with a link back to her website or interview or wherever it showed up. She might not be willing to reveal those alternates until she goes on the "''Deathly Hallows'' Book Release Publicity Tour" or whatever in mid-July. That information might warrant a third paragraph if she comments at length on those titles she actually had planned to use at some point. --[[User:T-dot|T-dot]] ([[User talk:T-dot|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/T-dot|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
: I do agree that it would be highly interesting, however, there isn't any evidence to support an evolution of the title section... We simply don't have any information, except for the fact that two other titles were considered, and the possible phrases that have been trademarked. [[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 
Funny how these things happen, isn't it. I first inserted the two titles heart of ravenclaw and whatever it is because Folken was grousing about incomplete information and wanting to cite mugglenet. I don't mind not mentioning the specific titles, but I think we should mention that three titles were registered at the time 'deathly hallows' was, and also that someone said the other two were dummies. It is an interesting point about how these things are done and a teeny bit of real world history. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:Can't see your point, titles were just created to "keep people guessing"...I see no interest in this, nor "real world history".[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Have you failed to notice the numerous rules against 'in-universe' writing, or the demands that articles include more than plot-summaries? A history pertinent to the publication of a notable book is relevant in a non in-universe encyclopaedia. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::But there is nothing pertinent to the publication of book 7 with fake titles, besides, others have already noted it would be of no use to mention them...[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::No others have noted it would be no use to mention them. What Reverend Loki and dposse say is a problem about finding a source that says that the two other titles were alternatives to Deathly Hallows, which is not what the point of including the two titles would push. Including the other two registered titles with the word Hallows by Warner Bros. is only to show that in the real world, Warner Bros. registered other book titles with the word Hallows at the same time as Deathly Hallows. That's it. Geez. [[User:Berserkerz Crit|Berserkerz Crit]] 13:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It is just the sort of real world incidental information that 'officially' we are supposed to include. [[User:Sandpiper]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
One possible alternative is to simply state that several other titles were registered, and simply leave it to the user to decide if they were possible titles. We could reference several of the fan sites and such that have done this kind of research. That way we aren't posting speculation on WP, but at the same time, we are posting stuff that's true. It's simply crazy to consider posting every title that's been possible on this page, but there's nothing that's wrong with linking it to an outside source. Also, I very much thing we should change the name of the section, to relate it to the title, and just cover everything there is to know about the title. Right now the section is a horrible mess... How about something like this? (Note that when writing this, I didn't have time to fill in every detail, but just wanted to get something out there)
::Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=93] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. (Might consider including information about the Equinox, that's something that's interesting that's not included) The name of the The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[12]. In addition to this title, there have been several others which have been trademarked.
[[User:Tuvas|Tuvas]] 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:::But again, I repeat, the point is not that the other Hallows titles may or may not have been considered possible titles (unless we have a source saying such, it is speculation) - it is that it is relevant to 'the meaning of Hallows' that Rowling, or those who work with her, are on record as having previously used the otherwise little used word 'Hallows'. I suggest this:
 
::::''Shortly before the release of the title, JK Rowling had considered two different titles for the book. [http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=93] The title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" was released to the public from her web site, on Dec 21, 2006. The title itself was registered on [whenever it was registered]. {? - possibly include? - At the same time, two other titles, [whatever they were] were registered; however, [whoever] stated that they had never been potential titles of the book [source].}''
 
::::''The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings. When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, "Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."[12]. However, the word 'Hallows' formed part of two titles - [whatever they were] - registered by Warner Bros. in 2003 [source].''
 
:::Where's the problem there? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 
==Section==
Just in case nobody is actually reading the passage in question:
 
===The meaning of "Deathly Hallows"===
''When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, ''"Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=114|accessdate=2007-02-06|title=J.K.Rowling Official Site|work=FAQ section}}</ref>. She also declined to say what her two other shortlisted titles had been, at least until after publication. Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: ''Hallows of Hogwarts'' and ''Hogwarts Hallows''.<ref> {{cite book| last=Langford|first=David| title=The End of Harry Potter?|publisher=Gollanz|date=2006 |isbn=0575078758}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hp-lexicon.org/comments/?m=200612|date=2006|accessdate=18 April 2007|title=December 2006 News Archive, research into the title|publisher=HP-Lexicon}}</ref> The actual title was registered in December 2006 together with two more, ''Heart of Ravenclaw'' and ''Deadly Veil'',
but it was later denied that these had ever been possible alternatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/555| accessdate=2007-4-10|title=Titles registered alopngside Deathly Hallows|publisher=Mugglenet}}</ref>. The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100790.html|date=2006|accessdate=2007-04-03|title=Final 'Potter' Title Announced|publisher=Washington Post}}</ref>
 
[[Hallow]] is a word usually used as a verb, meaning "to make holy or sacred, to sanctify or consecrate, to venerate".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallow|date=2007-01-15|accessdate=2007-01-23|title=Dictionary.com|publisher=Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.}}</ref> However, in ''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'', the word ''hallows'' appears as a noun. In modern English, the word is used as a noun in "[[All Hallows]]' Day" or "[[All Saints' Day]]," which is the day after [[Halloween]] or "All Hallows' Eve". Hallows can refer to [[saint]]s, the relics of saints, the relics of [[deity|god]]s, or shrines in which the relics are kept.<ref name=Fisher_king>{{cite web|url=http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/grail/fisher/|date=April 1999|accessdate=2007-01-23|title=The Fisher King|publisher=University of Idaho}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Oxford English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> Since the essence of these saints or gods were often considered present at their shrines and in their relics, hallows came to refer to the saints or gods themselves, rather than just their relics or shrines. Hallow is not to be confused with [[hollow]], such as in [[Godric's Hollow]]. Hallows can also be interperted as a "sanctuary."''. ''
 
<references/>
 
The passage doesn't speculate anything - it simply states, in response to, "When asked "What does 'Deathly Hallows' mean?" J.K. Rowling responded, ''"Any clarification of the meaning of 'Hallows' would give away too much of the story - well, it would, wouldn't it? Being the title and all. So I'm afraid I'm not answering."'', that "Two similar titles had been registered as trademarks by representatives of Warner bros in 2003-2004, amongst a number of others: ''Hallows of Hogwarts'' and ''Hogwarts Hallows''." I.e. that, in relation to the meaning of the term, and its use in relation to the subject at hand, the term had prior usage. That is not controversial; since it has a decent source, it is certainly relevant of inclusion in the article on 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. {{unsigned|Michaelsanders}}
:'''Comment:''' regarding my vote above, I'd like to see the paragraph truncated to these two sentences only. That way there cannot be speculation that they were the so-called alternate titles that JKR had in mind prior to revealing the actual title. I just think - given that we have a section trying to describe what Hallows means, and that it's an unusual word - that it's noteworthy that someone (the author, publisher, Warner Bros, whoever) used the same word elsewhere in the process. [[User:Daggoth_S|Daggoth]] | [[User talk:Daggoth_S|Talk]] 06:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::Currently my opinion is still that this issue should be completely left out of the article. Now should the "inclusion" opinion be stronger, a better way to include this note would be in a separated paragraph at the end of the section (something like "on a side note, the same word can be found in registered titles in 2003"), thus it would not imply that the registered titles are the 2 mysterious titles (because with the actual formulation, with the mention of JKR's 2 other titles just before the mention of the registered title, it's obvious the aim of the article is to imply the registered titles are the ones). Because the thing here is not to speculate about what were the other titles, but just to note the word had been used elsewhere. Also we would have to include the "spares" quote, to be trictly NPOV.
::But anyway I'm still against the inclusion. [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I notice that the section above has 'lost' the references from lexicon etc where it is seen that people are debating the meaning of the title and simple been replaced with one from the post saying that people are debating it, and nothing more. This is not adequate explanation. The section really ought to include more illustration of how the word 'hallows' has previously been used in literature right here. We should be repeating some of the stuff from Lexicon etc, but it wholly unacceptable not to show people what the debate is about at least in a link they can follow. Dagoth, including the two dummies (or at least mention of them), clearly shows people that Warner are in the habit of registering dummies. I am not sure which two sentences you mean, but I remain a firm believer in explaining everything to the greatest extent possible. Usuallly ambiguity goes away if you so that. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows"