This always happens. I make a plan, it looks nice and neat, then I get to actually write the book and realise that Harry can't possibly do all that in just one chapter. So what I thought were going to be two chapters have now become four. I still don't think the book will be as long as 'Phoenix', but if that keeps happening... no, it won't. I'm looking at the plan, and it can't. Surely. Please. Discuss
I think that this might mean that this book will be as long a Pheniox! I wish it was longer than an unabrdiged dictionary of all languages including slang words (LOL). Chris Chaud 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the past, I'd heard that JK Rowling said that book 7 will be as long as Encyclopedia Britannica, and at other times, simply just "very long." I don't see how it could be shorter than OotP.
last word
- Er...isn't the last word supposively Scar, not Potter?
- True, that should be fixed
- According to Mugglenet on July 6, 2007: Scar is no longer the last word. It was for a while, but has since changed.
I think (I feel) that ‘the prophecy’ has long been fulfilled...
Voldemort was ‘vanquished’ years ago, on the night when Harry got that‘scar’...
...but neither can still live, when the other 'survives'...
saratchandrashenoi@yahoo.co.in
name of the book
i understand the name was given on JKR's site, but since i missed it, does anyone know if the flash game is still available somewhere? I'd very much like to see it with my own eyes... :D -- 86.121.160.187 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Time of release
I just wanted to clarify an edit I just made. The statement was that the release would be one minute after midnight local time for locations in the United States, and one minute after midnight BST in the UK "and other English-speaking countries". I work at a book store here in Canada, and I can say for certain that we're also observing the "local time" release. For example, folks in my previous home of Prince Edward Island will have access to the book a full 3 hours before our store is allowed to sell it here in Alberta. - 68.146.226.69 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"spoilers"
While I am not personally bothered if I find out key information about this final book before I get the chance to read it, and I don't have an objection to "spoilers" being contained in articles if they're well-labelled, I think that until the book is actually released, we should leave out any information that comes from "leaked" copies, since these are unverifiable and unreliable. Faked images claiming to be scans from "leaked" copies have surfaced, and I think that between now and Saturday, any spoilers from "leaked" copies should be deleted immediately. Verifiable (or mostly verifiable) spoilers, such as the translator who revealed the identity of R.A.B., are acceptable. Unconfirmed twaddle is not. - UglinessMan 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
House elf on cover
I just removed a bit of trivia stating that there is a house elf on the cover of the British children's edition holding Gryffindor's sword. I removed this for two reasons. First of all, I'm not convinced it's Gryffindor's sword. I have a poster which is a blow-up of the cover (we got a few dozen of these at the book store where I work), and it looks like a dagger of some sort, but it appears much too small to be the sword, and doesn't have any identifying markings which would indicate that it is indeed that specific artifact. Second, there are several objects on this cover that might be cause for speculation, such as two pieces of what appears to be a suit of armor, but without further information, simply mentioning these objects seems pointless. In fact, all of the covers which have been released could be the subject of discussion and speculation, but nothing encyclopedic. A trivia section is fairly worthless when it only contains one piece of information which may or may not be accurate. If this is to be restored, I humbly request that 1) there be some sort of citation or information provided to support the idea that it's Gryffindor's sword (aside from the fact that it looks like a long pointy thing), and 2) that other relevant trivia items be added, making it an actual trivia section rather than a single tidbit. - UglinessMan 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoilers 2
These are confirmed copies from a stolen book from an unnamed internet community I belong to. They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages.
They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.35.217 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2007.
- I don't know if I've ever seen such a complete piece of rubbish. It's almost too easy to pick apart every part of your assertion.
- These are confirmed copies from a stolen book
- Confirmed by who? By what source? Saying the word "confirmed" does not make for confirmation. This is an online encyclopedia, not a gossip club.
- from an unnamed internet community I belong to.
- As long as it remains unnamed, then it is a completely meaningless claim. Anyone could come here and add nonsense, and claim "it's from some community I belong to which I can't tell you the name of but I promise it's true!"
- They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages.
- Nonsense. First of all, there are countless people out there with twisted imaginations and lots of time on their hands. Second, the assertion is not that they are "photoshopped" (manipulated), but simply that there is no proof yet that the "leaked" copy is genuine. Someone wouldn't have to manipulated images, it's possible that someone obtained a fanfic, used a publishing program to give the same layout as the previous books, then printed it out and bound it to look like a book.
- They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place.
- And what would that "right place" be? Making an unsourced unreliable claim to support an unsourced unreliable claim is circular logic. It proves nothing, it means nothing. I work at a book store, I could claim that we got our copies early, and I have one right beside me, then proceed to give details about the storyline. And you would have no way to prove me wrong. And you wouldn't have to, either, because the onus would not be on you to prove a negative, the onus would be on me to prove my claim with something more than another claim.
- In summary, an unsourced unreliable claim cannot be proven by another unsourced unreliable claim, especially coming from someone using an anonymous IP and providing no details whatsoever. - UglinessMan 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoilers 3
Sorry, I was that IP, I didn't realise that Wikia Wiki logins carry over.
All of this is absolutely true, and when you get you're copy and read it for yourself you will realize that I was right. I do however realize I gave the leak information improperly. I apologize. But I can tell you that the images I have are absolutely real. The entire book has been photographed. The last word, however, was changed from scar, and is now a short sentence. "All was well." The community is LUElinks, but your not getting in without an account, which these days are about as likely to be found as being invited into Area 51... err... I think you should put them back up, though, they are real. Gossip? I think not. This is the real thing. Guess what? HEDWIG EXPLODES (PAGE 56 (I THINK)). Just you wait...