Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
This article should contain information from the actual book, with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball) archiving knowledge of it prior to July 16th 2005.
Release Date
When will this book be released in the US & UK? --Gafaddict 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
- So the British release is five hours before the first release in North America--is that correct?
- Due to time zones, I believe so, yes. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Is the thing he said about *** and *** true?
- I want to make this perfectly clear: Whatever vandals try to add, no one knows what is in this book, and no one will know until Saturday! (The few people who have read it, aren't going to spoil it for us.) Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the release times be in 24-hour format? I was going to change it if I knew what 12:01 am is. Is it in the morning or night? I'm sure all non-US people are equally confused. User:EliasMartenson
- Feel free to change it. FYI, AM is before noon (12:00 AM is midnight, 1 AM is the next hour). PM is noon (12:00 PM) and after (1 PM is the next hour). See 12-hour clock. — 131.230.133.185 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Richard Stallman - Internet Book Critic
I'm as thankful for Emacs as the next guy, but I don't see how the paragraph on Stallman has any real relevance to the discussion here. If people actually take him seriously and start boycotting the book I would agree that it should go back in. But until that happens, it seems to me that he is just another blowhard with a blog, and unless we're about to start including minireviews from every one of the thousands of people that have an opinion on the book and/or the Canadian case, I'd leave it out.
Thoughts?
- I'm one of the first people to revert the edit, and I reverted it as a "subtle spamlink". Let me explain: the URL quite correctly had Stallman's name, but when I first clicked it, it went through a couple of redirects before landing me on a web directory containing nothing but a bunch of external links. Hence, I concluded the link was just to increase the Google/Alexa rating of that site. However, even assuming that the double-redirect problem has been fixed, after some thought I would still revert because I don't find this that relevant or encyclopedic, though I might no longer consider it to be a spamlink. --Deathphoenix 11:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- If Stallman has no place here neither does Greenpeace and for many of the same reasons. — 131.230.133.185 16:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Greenpeace isn't mentioned in the body of the text, but just in 'external links' at the end.Nandesuka 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think it was at one point. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Greenpeace isn't mentioned in the body of the text, but just in 'external links' at the end.Nandesuka 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Greenpeace paragraph was removed on this edit [1]. I have to disagree with User:131.230.133.185's choice to take it out. The paragraph is very relevant. It speaks about an ongoing campaign by two very notable environmental groups, Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation. The campaigns have been reported on by national media outlets, the link I provided references the CBC. Moreover the campaigns are ongoing, and will continue after the book's publication. Please also see Greenpeace's "Save Muggle Forests" website here. Greenpeace reports that over 13,000 people have taken actions they suggest on that page. The information contained in the deleted paragraph is relevant, notable, is easily verified, and presents all facts from a neutral point of view. It is entirely fit for inclusion in this article. For those that wish it to stay omitted please provide detailed explanations for your position. Kurieeto 20:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with a pargraph about it. It is certainly relevant. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. The information about Stallman's opinion is as relevant, notable, and easily verified. Just as Greenpeace is noted for its environmental stands and recommends against certain purchases, Stallman is noted for his stands on copyright and recommends against certain purchases. Both opinions can be presented in a neutral point of view. The question was whether either is relevant to this article. I believe a case can be made either way. — 131.230.133.185 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I returned the Greenpeace/National Wildlife Federation paragraph to the article, but moved it to the "Editions" section. It's since been moved back to the "Release dates and times" section with no explanation by User:131.230.133.185. Half of the current paragraph describes the recycled paper content of two of the editions. I ask the user who moved the paragraph, why is it more appropriate to have this paragraph in the "Release dates and times" section instead of the "Editions" section? The "Editions" section is far more appropriate, as the primary point of the paragraph is to inform the reader of the % of recycled paper in each edition, while the secondary point is to state which organizations brought the issue to prominence. Kurieeto 03:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Please keep the Stallman material in. At the least it shows just what a juggernaut the Harry Potter industry is, and what problems it can cause. Plus, you get very few dissenting voices criticizing Potter in the media, unless they're fundamentalists objecting to "witchcraft." --Simon.Pole 09:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I returned the Greenpeace/National Wildlife Federation paragraph to the article, but moved it to the "Editions" section. It's since been moved back to the "Release dates and times" section with no explanation by User:131.230.133.185. Half of the current paragraph describes the recycled paper content of two of the editions. I ask the user who moved the paragraph, why is it more appropriate to have this paragraph in the "Release dates and times" section instead of the "Editions" section? The "Editions" section is far more appropriate, as the primary point of the paragraph is to inform the reader of the % of recycled paper in each edition, while the secondary point is to state which organizations brought the issue to prominence. Kurieeto 03:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The Greenpeace paragraph was removed on this edit [1]. I have to disagree with User:131.230.133.185's choice to take it out. The paragraph is very relevant. It speaks about an ongoing campaign by two very notable environmental groups, Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation. The campaigns have been reported on by national media outlets, the link I provided references the CBC. Moreover the campaigns are ongoing, and will continue after the book's publication. Please also see Greenpeace's "Save Muggle Forests" website here. Greenpeace reports that over 13,000 people have taken actions they suggest on that page. The information contained in the deleted paragraph is relevant, notable, is easily verified, and presents all facts from a neutral point of view. It is entirely fit for inclusion in this article. For those that wish it to stay omitted please provide detailed explanations for your position. Kurieeto 20:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Chapter titles?
Can anyone verify these? I'm currently about fourteen hours away from getting my copy, because I'm getting it from the library and the library doesn't open until 10:00 am tomorrow morning and… [/gripe] Anyway, these just don't quite sound right, so if anyone up at midnight in the UK right now could verify this (not expecting it, but maybe…). Hermione1980 00:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Should we really begin to summarize the book's content in this article? I find that bad, somehow... --Keimzelle 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What, you mean because it's so early? That's why I'm taking everything new related to Harry Potter I see tonight with a grain of salt. I'm half-tempted to blanket-revert it all, especially after the note I received on my talk page after I reverted one thing, but I don't know. "A Sluggism Memory"? Come on, people. And I found the Mystic Kettle of Nackledirk the other day, too. Summarising is fine, in my opinion, but can we just wait until maybe someone has actually had time to finish the book? It's only been out for about forty-five minutes in the UK. Whatever you think about deleting the "summaries", I'll go with at this point. When I finish the book, I will be hunting down factual errors like the dogs they are… Hermione1980 00:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Should we really have the chapter titles as the section titles? That's a spolier, and the section head comes before the spoiler warning, especially since the book isn't even out yet in most of the world.Jeff8765 00:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I've currently removed the table of contents. After a few days, when we no longer need the chapter titles as section heads (to expedite adding new plot details), I'll (or someone else will) reorganize the sections and reinsert the table of contents.
I just commented out the whole lot of them. I'm currently siding with the "No spoilers!" crowd, and the titles just sound fishy to me. Hermione1980 00:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd say wait to revert until you get a copy of the book (except for blatant vandalism). The editing quality isn't that bad, and if it's legitimate, we save a lot of time. If it's not legitimate, deletion of the offensive material will be quick. If the table of contents blaring out chapter titles is a problem, I will fix that. Also, while none of the other books have chapter titles, this is still a good format for now. It lets editors quickly place where they should insert new information. We can remove those "training wheels" in a day or two. — 131.230.133.185 00:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The book has been released in Australia, and I am up to chapter four, Horace Slughorn. It was released about two hours ago, and I am reading it, and I can assure you all the information is correct and true. CronoDroid 11:03, 16 July 2005 (GMT +10)
Chapter Summaries
I added the chapter summaries and are still adding more (I'm up to Ch.11) and will add them as I read them. Please, fill in any blanks I have missed and hyperlink any text that needs it. Thank you.
CronoDroid July 16th 2005, 15:54 (GMT +10, with Daylight Savings)
- CronoDroid, on behalf of (undoubtedly) countless other users, thank you for doing these summaries. I don't have a copy of the book, so I'm looking forward to reading each installment as I clean up. Steven Luo 07:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Release times
It seems to me that the rule for the release time is: all releases are at midnight UK time, except in time zones earlier (East) than UK, where it was released at midnight. Is this correct? --Taejo 08:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to me that it's time zones west of GMT (e.g. the Americas) that see releases at midnight local time, while time zones east of GMT (e.g. Asia and Australia) see releases at midnight GMT. Steven Luo 08:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, it was midnight BST, not GMT.David Newton 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Protection from spoilers?
Five minutes ago somebody had pasted, in huge red text, which of the characters was the HBP and who dies, right at the top of the article. Spoiler warnings are all well and good, but that suggests to me that the page needs protection. There are bound to be plenty of hyped-up kids with nothing better to do than spoil the book for everyone else during the first day or so.
Clarification of Prefects' rights and powers
I am under the impression that prefects cannot give or take points - Draco does so in Book 5 by being a part of the Inquisitor's Squad or somesuch... The chapter summary makes reference to a question as to whether a Captain of a Quidditch team can take points the way a prefect can...