Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Book Plot vs. Movie Plot

Can we please take down the current plot listed on the page? It's nothing but the plot of the book from beginning to the point where it was announced the split will be. There have been more than enough differences in the six previous movies from the books, and there will undoubtedly be differences this time as well.

Until someone can provide the plot of the MOVIE and not the book, I suggest taking down everything in that section except the link to the page for the book. Bramton1 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The plot of the book is definitive for the story, and really we don't help matters if on a wiki we produce duplicate renditions of the same material or coverage.

When reports on the movie plot appear they're likely to focus on its departures from the plot of the book, and perhaps on the plot choices associated with the decision to divide the story into two films. Our plot section should probably focus on that too, but that's a point for a discussion that cannot really be held yet. --TS 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The plot section is supposed to give an outline of the film plot, not an overview of the source material. We don't use the book stories for the plot outlines on the Bond articles, same principle applies. It should be treated as a different entity. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• If I can offer a word of advice: when writing the plot, pretend that the book doesn't exist. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I note that we already have a separate article on the soundtrack. In the circumstances, do we really need a full track listing in the body of this article? It isn't particularly enlightening: tracks have predictable names like "Snape to Malfoy Manor", "Ministry of Magic" and "The Elder Wand". Surely this is excessive detail for this particular article. --TS 03:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to duplicate the information. Either the track listings should be pulled from this article, or the soundtrack article should be merged into this one. If editors decide to restore the track listings to this article they should also nominate the soundtrack article for merging WP:MERGE. Betty Logan (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The scriptwriter Steve Kloves quotebox

There was a massive floaty thing on the page under "development." Possibly it was even worse: a massive green floaty thing, but as I'm color blind I'll give it the benefit of the doubt I think it unnecessarily reifies a relatively minor production decision: whether to render this infamously fat piece of fiction as a single small, dense, incomprehensible film, or to spread it over two films (and frankly once Rowling delivered the manuscript there was never any serious doubt). It's just not necessary to have somebody on the film production bloviating about the question. It's a fat book, lots of things happen and there's a particularly obvious break point. So I removed the floaty thing. =-TS 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments below regarding your edit. Jusdafax 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the quotebox featuring scriptwriter Steve Kloves comments regarding the need to split the last book into two films. The quotebox was a longstanding feature of the article and in my view adds insight into a major fact regarding this article - the split into two films. This improves the article in my opinion. Quoteboxes are standard in numerous high-profile Wikipedia articles, so removing it on the grounds that it is a "floaty thing" are hard to take seriously. Jusdafax 13:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE.

In particular:

• Wikipedia contains spoilers.

By the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles guideline:

In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every page on Wikipedia. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted.

I've removed some recently added section headers from the Plot section that were intended to act as spoiler warnings. --TS 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Crappy sourcing

Some of the references are not up to scratch. The references should be consistent and contain the relevant bibliographical information. Here are the main two templates with the relevant parameters. Cutting and pasting will be ok, and you don't need to fill in all the parameters so try to use them when adding sources.

For authored articles (leave out url and accessdate if referencing a print copy, or leave out the page number if referencing an online version):
<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |title= |publisher= |date= |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref>

For websites such as Box Office Mojo etc:
<ref>{{cite web |work= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref>

Betty Logan (talk)

Would Reflinks help fill in references in this case? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on it, but I realized that the article is getting so much stuff added recently that I'm going to wait untile it dies down a little bit. --Glimmer721 ^talk 00:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

...which is likely to be weeks away. See the section above. Jusdafax 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no hurry. As far as I can tell from the above the objection isn't "crappy sourcing" per se, rather some problems with the niceties of formatting That's fairly minor stuff. --TS 19:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast formatting

Should we stick with the tabular formatting of the cast list or follow the convention from previous film article in this series,to use a list? I converted to list format last week but now the tables are back. I don't see any great advantage in either format, but list format is much easier to maintain. --TS 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We should go with the list format and include a brief description of each character like on the Half Blood Prince article. As it stands now we may as well just provide a link to IMDB and ditch the table. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection at WP:RPP

Not granted. Please use WP:RFPP for these requests. --TS 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for two months due to IP vandals here. Jusdafax 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC) UPDATE:  Not done It was declined. I don't agree with the admin's reasoning, personally. I'd be curious to see if a consensus to protect is evident, so I will start a !vote. Semi-Protect - "Losing" a few IP editors is trivial compared to the degree of IP vandalism this article has faced, and will face in the coming weeks. Jusdafax 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC) comment More than half of IP edits appear to be constructive. In any case asking for two months is too long, as the article has not been semi-protected before and articles are not semi-protected pre-emptively. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Semi-protect — three days. There were 17 reverts yesterday, 14 today and counting, but there is such a mass of edits I bet loads of things are slipping through. Hopefully things will calm down once we get past the opening weekend, but it will be hard to do anything constructive in the current frenzy. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Comment - Agree that this opening weekend, at the very least, should be semi-protected. Fear of losing a few IP editors should not trump established editing on an article that will have a major amount of traffic. This is the core reason RPP exists, as I see it. Jusdafax 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I declined the request: it's important that new editors not be driven off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Exactly. The guideline on not biting the newcomers clearly states that new editors (IP or registered user), except for those who vandalize articles, are to be welcomed, not driven off. That reason does make sense after all. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC) What about driving off established editors? Any concerns there for legit, longtime contributors who find the flood of IP vandals distracting at best and a real turn-off at worst? I ask not to be sarcastic but from deep-seated concerns on that score. Jusdafax 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Well, you could always unwatch it for two months, and let it be someone else's problem. I've used that technique myself once or twice.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I refer not to myself but other named editors who may want to work on the article. So now we have gone from me asking for protection from IP vandals for two months, to you appearing to suggest I go away for two months. Noted, but I must say, I wonder at it. Jusdafax 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Hey, it's a big encyclopedia. If you want to go through the list of articles I created looking for stupid mistakes, I won't be offended. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I think you misunderstand me, perhaps to an amazing degree. I don't doubt you have created more articles, even many more than I have. Nor am I at all interested in "looking for stupid mistakes" by you, or anyone else, for reasons either punitive or otherwise. What I am interested in here is a constructive discussion regarding IP vandals on this page. Your last two posts appear to be saying "go away, I'm better than you" - though indeed I may be misunderstanding you. If so, my apologies. However, your posts can easily be taken as offensive to an established editor. In my view, it is this type of seemingly careless admin behavior that has some rank-and-file editors discouraged with Wikipedia. Again, my apologies if I am reading you wrongly, but my sense at the moment is that you are "playing the edge". Jusdafax 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, definitely not trying to one-up you on how many articles you've created--I haven't even looked. I'm just saying that if you think I'm trying to chase you away from here, I won't be bothered if you decide to "stalk" my edits to let off steam. I'm really not trying to make you go away, though -- I'm just saying that if you are being unduly affected by IP edits here, there are lots of other places to look.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Again, my core question is this: If we are concerned that some IP editors may become discouraged if they can't edit the article, what of the effect of the ongoing IP vandalism here on editors with an account, who may find working on the article highly distracting under the circumstances? You are saying that all who find this unprotected article difficult should go to "other places"? Further, what of the effect of the ongoing IP vandalism on readers, many of whom come to Wikipedia for information on a brand-new film? Does our concern for the rights of a few IP editors (who, if they want to edit a semi-protected article, need merely to register an account) trump concerns for mainstream editors and readers? If your answer to this, as I understand it, is yes, then it is my view that something is a bit off. That is why I'm asking for other views here, though it seems this sideshow is now eating the wind out of the main points I am trying to raise. I am asking you as an admin to reconsider and I ask for fresh eyes to review this issue and comment. Jusdafax 00:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not willing to reconsider at this time: the level seems manageable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Important scene

I would like to request that the scene in which Harry and Hermione dance be kept in the summary, rather than ignored. This is because the scene is relatively important in relation to the film's themes. Also, as it is not in the book, I think it ought to be referenced somewhere. Grieferhate (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the Diffs b/w movie and films section. You might want to expand on it there and remove it from the plot summary, which needs to be as concise as possible. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 13:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Who says this?

"With the story's expansion into two films, Deathly Hallows has been said to be the most faithful adaptation to its source. However..." [1]

Well who has said that? I think somebody might have, otherwise I'd just delete it. So, rarely, I've tagged it instead. Please fix it soon, or else remove the statement. --TS 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of the reviews I cited in the section said something similar, however, I don't consider two reviews to be the Final Word, hence the weasel wording until we can get more sources or more authoritative sources (i.e. from the author). It is now sourced to both reviews and each statement in the paragraph is properly attributed. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A sample plot rewrite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This proposal was put into action last week and the plot summary has been through several revisions since then. --TS 20:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

This is a paraphrase of the ridiculous mess that has emerged so far in the plot section. At present it only goes as far as "apparate to a forest" which is halfway through the fifth paragraph.

I want to make it plain that the plot section at present is okay, it's not a problem at the moment. But it's ridiculously detailed and far too big. So what I'm trying to do here is compress the content and concentrate on the stuff that matters.

Please edit in place or do whatever else you think is needed to make a decent plot summary for the film:

Harry Potter and his friends, the Order of the Phoenix, know that their only hope is to find and destroy the Horcruxes before their enemy Voldermort restores his full powers by killing Harry. By a magical subterfuge they smuggle Harry to The Burrow, the home of the Weasleys, which is secure from magical attack.

At the same time Harry's former schoolmaster Severus Snape, who killed the headmaster Albus Dumbledore, addresses his fellow "death eaters". He was a double agent within Hogwarts and is welcomed by Voldemort and the death eaters.

The true identity of RAB is revealed to the Order: Regulus Black. He tells Harry and his friends that the true locket is in the Ministry of Magic. They break into the Ministry, retrieve the locket, and "apparate" magically to a forest.

Thanks. I think I've trimmed the level of detail from a stupidly large 550 words to a merely gross 140 words. But of course that's only a very small way into the film and we're aiming for 400-700 words. So please be brutal. --TS 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of replacing the content to the point of "apparate to a forest" with the material above.[2] --TS 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've substantially trimmed the plot, but I'm not really the kind of person who reads novels or watches films to find out what happens (it's usually just some stuff somebody made up anyway) so I'd appreciate corrections from anybody who has actually watched the film and understood what is happening in terms of the Harry Potter universe. Meanwhile I hope this is at least better than what we had before. --TS 02:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the plot right now does not accurately depict what is seen onscreen. It shows events in the wrong order and leaves out major set pieces. Once everything settles down, hopefully this will improve from user edits. But what is there as of this writing is very unhelpful.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is the cast list organized?

Or is it? Because it's not alphabetical or order of importance, or screen time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.164.191 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect names were just added as they were confirmed and that order has remained, but ideally it should follow the credit order to maintain a neutral point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but what about characters that aren't in Part I and we therefore don't know the credit order? I mean, it's easy enough to alphabetically add in Maggie Smith or Gary Oldman to the adults, but what about way supporting players that aren't in it until Part 2? And I think that Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman should remain up top with the trio just because they are so central to the story. 184.58.164.191 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd list the cast in credited order for part 1, and then any actors that only appear in part 2 I'd present alphabetically. Chances are by the time part 2 comes out the article will be split anyway so it's probably best to structure it around part 1. If you want to do it differently I personally don't mind as long as there is an element of logic to it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there's already a separate article for cast lists, I think this section and list are getting a little too long. I mean, seriously, do we need Dudley listed in the main article? He got all of 10 seconds of screen time in Part 1. We should attempt to keep this list brief and rely on the separate article for higher detail levels. DP76764 (Talk) 20:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to just list the main adult cast for both movies. If the credits were rolling, that'd mean Dan Radcliffe through David Thewlis. I'd add in Julie Walters and Warwick Davis because they are listed in the secondary section in the ending credits but are listed on the poster. Then I'd add in Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, and Jim Broadbent because we know that they will play big roles in Part 2. Then I'd write a short paragraph concerning Peter Mullan, Nick Moran, newbies to the film, etc. The rest I'd say "go look at the big cast article." Sound good? 184.58.164.191 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I organized it exactly like this on the page, except I haven't written the short paragraph about newbies to the film yet. Any objections? 184.58.164.191 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks ok. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I say we include everyone from the secondary section of the part 1 credits. For example, it is unfair to list Julie Walters and not Bonnie Wright when they are both in the secondary section of the cast list. Just because Walters is well-known, it does not mean she should get a spot and not Wright. I am adding in everyone from the secondary section as well as the actors confirmed for part 2.The order should be the trio, and then the rest of the cast in alphabetical order since trying to order from importance will cause an unnecessary debate. Smartjoe299 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.216.123 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I put up Julie Walters because she is listed with the rest of the cast in the poster. This is too many people. I am deleting them. 68.117.29.110 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Another comment/query on the organization of the cast list. As written, the list is uneven, as for some characters they get a description of their plot as well as their basic role in the movie. WP:MOSFILM states that we should "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary." Should we perhaps simply shorten it to actor/role, or actor/role/title? Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do actor/role/title. To all conversing, I apologize, I think I am most of the anons on this page, I plan to get an account soon just so people know who I am and that they are talking to the same person. I will try to shorten the info. 68.117.29.110 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I did this. I deleted everything to do with plot, like Mad-Eye's death. The only things I kept where a short part about the deaths/abductions of Dumbledore, Sirius, and Ollivander, as these occured in previous films. 68.117.29.110 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Starring

Radcliffe, Grint, Watson and Fiennes were enough for the "Starring" list. Others don't have a lot of lines, especially Michael Gambon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.89.198 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gambon will play a central role in Part 2. And Bonham Carter and Rickman are/will be huge in both parts. 68.117.29.110 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are the "stars." Everyone else is supporting cast. Bramton1 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

On other HP film articles it lists five additional supporting cast members... These for these two films would be Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman. I added in Michael Gambon because he has a big role in Part 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.29.110 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times has Radcliffe, Grint, Watson and Fiennes listed as the primary cast, so personally I'd just go with that: [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Gambon will only have one memory scene and one paradise scene in DH2. That doesn't make his role "central". Well, the character is central, but it's like putting Ralph Fiennes in the same list for Half-Blood Prince even though he didn't appear at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.89.198 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree about Gambon, I guess, but Bonham Carter has more screen time than Fiennes in DH:1 and will likely have similar screen time to him in Part 2. Rickman will have similar screentime to Fiennes in both parts, so shall I just delete Michael Gambon? 68.117.29.110 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Costumes?

What's up with the costumes section? (Particularly the 5 or so refs at the end). It's not really about the costumes; it's more about the wedding dress problem. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'wedding dress' was a costume used in the set, even if you believe it to be a real wedding dress. The 'problem' of plagarism relates to the 'wedding dress' costume, which would not have been created if not for the film. Hence its relevance.Reqluce (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant, but the level of detail in that section seems to me that it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE and/or WP:RECENT, especially the staggering reference overload. This is a sizable article that already includes 136 references, do we really need a wordy section on an incredibly minor controversy over one costume design? Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 3 real references are required to cover that section. The rest were added as proof that the plagarism was widely covered in the press.Reqluce (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The very claim that it was widely covered is exactly the sort of undue detail that is totally unnecessary for inclusion in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a section on costume which was entirely devoted to some unsupported allegations against the costume designer. I've trimmed it back somewhat and removed a lot of the more gossipy sources, some of which are simply tongue-waggers repeating one another's speculations. I've retained the observation of a close similarity and removed all the unsupported claims. --TS 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally posted the last comment timed 14:29 GMT on 12 November 2010 to a different section, and only now found this older, though recent, section. I've moved my comment here for completeness.

Please all commenters here recognise that the concerns you express come under the BLP so the correct thing to do would have been to remove the content immediately, and only then. discuss if necessary. --TS 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the costume section I notice that somebody resolved it in situ by pointing at a credit from Gucci. So this is a non-issue, and there were only ever a few gossip articles about it. Therefore I've removed the references to the similarity. --TS 02:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

SHouldnt this article be split into part 1 and 2

I say split the deadly hallows film article into two pieces part 1 and 2 because next year its going to get REALLY big. BelRein12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No. No need for two articles as it is one film split into two parts. Confirmed by David Heyman. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree they should be split; it is one story split into two films. It has a shared production, but the separate parts will have different plots, separate releases, separate grosses, separate reviews, separate awards if any—all of which will have to be documented separately—and the real tester is you will have to buy two separate tickets to watch them. Too many distinct entities just squashed into the same article will get confusing and get the article bogged down. It would be much cleaner to have a separate article for each part and perhaps make this article a small umbrella article that just documents the production, since that is the only bit which is homogeneous. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with them. This should be split into two articles. Evil Genius77 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is 1 film split into 2 parts. The narrative flows as one. Besides, there is only 1 article for the soundtrack and 1 for the game. Splitting this would only cause inconsistences between all the articles. It should stay as one. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Same director, same composer, same producers, same cast, same editor, same cinematographer, same screenwriter, same costume designer, same set designer etc... As I say, it just 1 film split into 2 parts. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the same situation as Kill Bill, which is one article. Millahnna (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is really how you structure the article. Are you just going to have a selection of reviews for both parts or are you going to have review sections for each film. Are you going to merge the plot into one big plot and lose the distinction between the two parts? Are you going to add the grosses together and just have the one gross? If part 1 wins awards and part 2 doesn't how are you going to deal with that? In effect the two parts are going to have independent releases so are you really going to split each section of the article to cover the two parts? The fact that the Kill Bill article has to have two infoboxes says it all really, it's really two articles shoved into one space. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan. It is difficult to distinguish which cast members are in which part, which is something people will want to know. I agree with the awards/reception/gross. Regardless of how the plot flows, they are two distinct films released separately. I have a guess that they won't be released on DVD together. As for the same crew, most of the series has the exact same primary crew. That doesn't mean we have just the film series page and no other articles. Evil Genius77 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't even noticed the double infoboxes on Kill Bill Betty; thanks for pointing that out for me. I think all your points are valid and that flexibility is needed. It may be that the film is best split into two articles when the second part is released. I pointed out what I thought was a valid example (although I think Kill Bill's article could be made into one smooth article) to show that it is also possible that a single article may work. I guess ultimately my point is that we don't really know yet which situation is going to be ideal. Millahnna (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but we do. When I first saw the article, I was very disappointed. Two parts, two articles, two sets of information. Evil Genius77 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See original discussion here: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_(film)#Part_I_and_II Oldag07 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast additions

I propose we add Kreacher, Mundungus Fletcher, Dobby, Luna Lovegood, Gregorovitch, Bathilda Bagshot and Gellert Grindelwald, and their respective (voice) actors to the "Cast" section because these characters play a 'notable' role in the first part of the film—they are mentioned in the "Plot" section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends who plays them really. They may be notable characters (which can be listed at List of Harry Potter cast members) but not necessarily notable cast members. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Put it in an Other cast subsection. And leave out Grindelwald - he's only on screen in flashback type things and for less than a 5 min total.Angry Mustelid (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We agreed above that as there are far too many actors to list for both film parts we would list only those listed in the primary cast on either the theatrical poster or in the credits before it goes to the secondary cast, where two names are listed. 184.58.164.191 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wiki articles as references

Some editors have been using other Wikipedia articles as sources in the Box Office section. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources so we can not reference with them. By all means wikilink to these articles, but most of this stuff is easy to source through Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Presuming information is sourced in the other articles, the appropriate reference can be brought into this article, which is standard practice. Obviously, if it's not referenced in the other article, that's a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the reference or the appropriate passage as well - it's unclear. The reference alone would be fine but the article can have errors and is not deemed reliable (then again, most of the crap out there on the net is unreliable).Angry Mustelid (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He means just the reference. Basically if the top 10 films of 2010 article has a source for Harry Potter's chart position, we can just port the same source into this article if we want to source Harry Potter's chart position in our article. The problem is that some editors may think it's ok to cite these other articles as "sources" if the articles in question have sources for the same claims, so I'm just trying to correct that misunderstanding. The other article may change over time and lose the source, or our article could then be used again as a source for the same information setting up a "chain", so the original source for the claim should be directly accessible from our own article and every article that uses the information. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the Manual of Style, shall we

Firstly, the Cast section currently contains tables. WP:FILMCAST states "Cast lists should not use table formats, unless absolutely necessary when dealing with a foreign language work." There have previously been four lengthy discussions about this. Please remove the tables; replace them with prose or a list.

Secondly, the Differences between the films and the novel subsection currently exists. MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material states "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." I understand that the article in still in early stages of development, but eventually the section must be removed. We must then, try to add "details from secondary sources about such changes, such as why they took place, how they affected production, and how outside parties reacted to them, can be included in the respective sections of the article body."

Thirdly, the phrases "Part 1", "Part 2", "Part I" and "Part II" are/were present in the article. WP:ORDINAL states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." I recommend we change these phrases to "Part one", "Part two", "Part one" and "Part two", respectively.

Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points! MoS should definitely be followed. One thing to note, however, if you look at the articles for the other films in this series (much more established articles), there are plenty of 'differences from the book' sections. So, if removing that is gonna be applied to this article, I suggest that someone will need to apply it to the other articles in the series as well. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There has a been a casual disregard for various style guidelines by certain editors of this article, especially in relation to plot size. It's one thing being unaware of the guidelines, but when it is pointed out and editors still persist it borders on vandalism. All the MOS guidelines should be enforced, and if an editor believes it would not be in the interests of the article to follow a guideine then they should make their case on the talkpage and see if anyone else agrees. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As the editor largely responsible for the creation of the "differences" section, I apologise for not reading the appropriate MOS. Articles on the previous Harry Potter films all contain sections on "Differences from the film" so I assumed it was the normal thing to do. Stylistically, though, the substance of the sections in prior articles are compliant with the MOS as they relate it back to real-world constraints. None of the sources for this article presently available do so. Should we leave the section as is for now or obliviate it whilst waiting for better sources to come along? I agree that it's a bit indiscriminate at this point.... Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no guideline against having such information, just a dedicated section. If you think some of it can be integrated into rest of the article then keep it for the time being because we don't want to lose the information. I've restored the old cast list, so if any of these differences relate just to a cast members transfer the information to the little cast summaries. With major changes, they can perhaps be integrated into the production section if they can be cited to the director or writer with an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

re. pt.i. In the English (British) language the usage of roman capitals is an accepted standard within prose when referring to a numerical sequence of parts or sections. Angry Mustelid (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooting Schedule

According to the article, the shooting schedule was planned for around 250 days. However, the article states that it went to almost 478 days. That is clearly impossible; any film going over 220 days is going to be shut down. Now, there is no source for the information. By doing some basic math, I came up with around 256 days of shooting. We should probably look into that.

19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Hunter Bishop
I don't know the exact figures but as a closing film, it could've overshot by at least 3 years and still made it (although some people may have not been paid). It'd kinda be like following the Ashes all the way through to be told that the final game was cancelled and it ends up as a draw (which, being cricket, isn't suprising) because the last game has been cancelled because there's been rain for three days in a row. TBH nobody would care about the cricket but the fanbase of HP might make it a bit of an issue. (BTW I'm British and I hate cricket but like HP)Angry Mustelid (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio plot

Please stop re-adding the massive copyright violation that is the quoted plot. Copying an entire plot does not fall under fair use, even when shown as a quotation. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A note was added to the plot section giving a website address with an official synopsis. If this is official why cant it be used? Dylan (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

because it's a copyright violation, copy pasting info from anywhere is a copyright violation unless it specifically says it is free to use for all purposes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But my reasoning is that it is the official synopsis for the movie. Would it be OK to paraphrase the piece of text or does it have to be originally written? I am not familiar with many of Wiki's rules and regulations so I'm hesitant to argue with you about this. I'll leave it for someone else to do. Dylan (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can use it for information but not copy-paste it, writing your own version of the plot is perfectly acceptable, copying it is not. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Studios do not mind the use of copy-paste when citing their products. As far as they're concerned, they're getting free advertisement so they don't complain (I got this directly from the Disney - well known for being stingy - PR dept). The people who do mind are critics and journos who (especially in the first case) can be extremely small minded about such things.

Basic rule of thumb - If it's an official press release from an official source (studio website, press package, etc), use it. If not, don't.Angry Mustelid (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 Orchestrator?

I think that Conrad Pope's name should be removed from the list of main contributors at the top, but kept at the bottom in the paragraph about the score/soundtrack. Pope's job is as important as Desplat's, but every page should have the same layout as the other pages which do not list orchestrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.196.153 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pope is the supervising orchestrator. He and Desplat produced the soundtrack and they are the main people. And in other articles Pope's name is featured in the list, so this should not be different. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Source for Thompson, Oldman, Smith and Broadbent

They're listed here on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/fullcredits#cast. I have no idea how to source them, could someone else please? Thanks, Evil Genius77 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/fullcredits#cast|title=Full Cast and Crew|publisher=IMDB|accessdate=13 December 2010}}</ref>? That's what I would do. Please note that IMDB is not considered a reliable source. This can probably be changed later. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. I have other sources from the Harry Potter Wiki:

• Broadbent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8149697.stm (see the last paragraph)
• Oldman: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1616386/20090716/story.jhtml (fifth paragraph)
• Smith: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6860533.ece (fourth paragraph: didn't appear in Part 1, character appears in Part 2, so appears in Part 2... Either way she's in the film.)
• Thompson: http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/3356

Could someone else please source that? Sorry, the jargon confuses me. Also, I'm removing Ralph Fiennes from the second section with the Part 2 only actors... He's in Part 1 Evil Genius77 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New York Times has cast lists for each film:
Part 1 – http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/393092/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-1/cast
Part 2 – http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/453605/Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-Part-2/cast
Betty Logan (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll cite them. --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Got them all except Smith; her link was broken. --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Got a link for Smith and fixed Broadbent's link; I think you forgot the cite web| at the beginning. :) Thanks for helping, all! Also, I alphabetized Kelly Macdonald in. We don't know if she'll be listed in the primary or supporting cast, but I'm thinking she'll be supporting. However, this is just a guess and she is a fairly renowned actress, so we'll list her until July tells us differently. Evil Genius77 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Composer Collaboration

I am seeing numerous edits to Deathly Hallows related articles (sometimes this one) which are unsourced. They seem to state that John Williams and Alexandre Desplat will collaborate for Part 2; however this has not been confirmed. They claim that the information was confirmed at the UK premiere, while at the press junket Heyman and Yates stated that Williams will not return because of their conflicting schedules. Please be on the look out for these edits and revert them straight away. Thanks. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot length

Will someone trim the plot please? It currently stands at 1300+ words and WP:FILMPLOT states Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Ideally it would be better if someone who has seen the film could do this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Too much detail on it and that was just part one. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary for the novel is brilliantly short. Perhaps the basic summary techniques used there could be imported for the relevant parts of this film. --TS 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also. It's supposed to be a plot summary; it has now become almost a word-for-word copy of the script. There's "too many spoilers" now. i.m.o. the version which was there earlier today (11/20) is much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 1300 is way too long, but I just made some modifications that increased the word length some. In the process of trimming things down, someone erased some small, but meaningful details. The movie is almost 2.5 hours long. Perhaps WP:FILMPLOT should be altered to allow different lengths of content depending on movie length, because I feel like there is still some more detail that is missing that could enrich the description without being superfluous. --MSF (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

People get overinthusiastic about Plot listings. I consider 400 words to be overreaching as it tends to give away far too much of the plot. For instance - Plot: Harry, Ron & Hermione decide to go after the Horcruxes instead of returning to Hogswart's. The ministry of Magic is overrun by Death Eaters who proceed to persecute all non-purebloods. Ron has a crisis of faith and leaves Harry & Hermione, only to return. Having destroyed a number of Horcruxes, Harry is determined to see it through to the end, unknowing that Voldemort's power has grown. - pretty much sums it up (~63 words) without revealing any major details.

Things like Dobby's death, Voldemort acquiring the Wand from Dumbledore and the attack on the Lovegood residence being included tend to spoil the film (for people who haven't read the book). Like above (which I will accept, needs expanding), the Plot section should stick to generalities and try to avoid anything that may be considered a spoiler.Angry Mustelid (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary guidelines do already note that there are exceptions to the length (they give an example on the longer end though certainly some films require shorter summaries). That said 1300 is way too long for this particular film. Kendroche is right that the main storyline is what should be detailed though not because of WP:SPOILER problems so much as the fact that the smaller side plots do not need to be exhaustively detailed to understand the broad storyline. Based on what I'm reading, this one can easily be done in around 800 words. Millahnna (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The current version stands at around 700 words which I think is fine for this type of film. The plot summary does its job, it is only supposed to tell readers what the film is about, not what happens. Obviously if part 2 is also documented here then you'll have a good reason to invoke the exception to the rule i.e. it would be unreasonable to cover both parts in the same limit. There is a lower limit I believe to discourage just copying out the blurb on the DVD box. Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for speaking too soon... I hadn't even noticed it was so much shorter. And upon reading it I agree with you, completely. Millahnna (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Even shorter now. The plot, as listed, contained too much extraneous info - the first paragraph was irrelevant and a lot of the rest was spoilers (especially syaing who dies and when).Angry Mustelid (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

An important aspect of the plot deserves to be added

I need some help to incorporate in the plot an important aspect of the film, as it is difficult to write it without making it look like original research, but nevertheless worth adding to the plot summary: When the Death Eaters infiltrate the Ministry of Magic, they transform it into a fascist bureaucracy that persecutes the Muggle Blood people. In the Magic Ministry, the Death Eaters install Inquisition-style courts to prosecute wizards who are suspected of being Muggle blooded, and there is a new police force whose officers wear arm bands and combat boots. The thugs who are harassing and hunting the Muggle Blood people are also part of this new fascism.

Here is the article:

http://cinespect.com/scary-potter-and-the-fascist-bureaucracy/

TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. It's too much detail and is absolutely unnecessary. The plot is fine as it is. By all means, improve it but do NOT add any more details because it increases the word count (as I have said about 100 times already). Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And as I pointed out in the edit summary, interpretations do not belong in a plot summary. If we are to refer to something as "fascist" in the plot summary then it must be referred to in that manner in the film. The plot summary just relays the facts and events; anything else that constitutes a viewpoint or an opinion has to find a home in another section of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

At some point the use of fascistic imagery may emerge as a theme commented upon by critics or academics. Then we might put a sentence or two into the reception section. I agree with Betty Logan and Hallows Horcruxes that this kind of material doesn't really belong in the plot summary. --TS 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify there - it doesn't belong in the article at all until it is also identified and commented upon by reliable sources. It doesn't have to be refered to as fascist in the film at all, but if a reliable source - Roger Ebert for example - were to draw the analogy in his review, then we could comment on it. a_man_alone (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on various themes would come under reception—it's just another form of critical analysis. Generally isolated interpretations by individual critics don't really merit a mention, but if fascism emerges as a topic of discussion in several reviews then it's an aspect that can be incorporated into the critical reception section (even if it isn't explicitly touched upon by the storyline). Indeed, in the case of Avatar (2009 film) there is a whole article dedicated to "Themes in Avatar". Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using the word "fascist" does not belong in the plot summary, but maybe we should at least write in the plot that the Death Eaters took over the government to crack down and persecute Muggle Blood people. The persecution and hunting of Muggle Blood people makes Harry Potter 7 different from the previous episodes. It is already written in the plot that the Death Eaters infiltrated the Magic Ministry, adding just a few words to that sentence will be enough. Regards, TotalMemory. TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is an important detail that should not be left out. Agree with TotalMemory above; the persecution is a clear theme and it is treated plainly in the film with a montage of trials and propaganda and hatred for half-bloods and Muggle-born. This is the prime thing that makes Death Eaters bad. Someone may ask the question, "why are they evil? why should we fight them?" and this is the answer. I'm also not sure if it was treated at all in the film, but the Death Eaters were also bent on persecuting other magical creatures, such as House-elves, centaurs and giants. Elizium23 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for approving that the persecution theme deserves to be mentioned in the plot summary. Let me make a suggestion for modifying a paragraph without significantly increasing the word count, without using politically descriptive words like "fascist system" etc. I would suggest modifying the paragraph that starts with the wedding disrupted by the Death Eaters as follows: "The wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour is disrupted by Death Eaters, who are trying to find and kill Harry. The trio then disapparate to London and eventually find sanctuary at No. 12 Grimmauld Place, where they discover that the "R.A.B." from the false Horcrux locket is Regulus Arcturus Black. From Kreacher, they learn that Mundungus Fletcher has stolen the real locket. Kreacher and Dobby apprehend Fletcher, who reveals that the locket is in the possession of Dolores Umbridge. Under the guise of Polyjuice Potion, the trio make their way to the Ministry where they successfully retrieve the locket and escape to a forest. Meanwhile, Death Eaters have infiltrated and taken over the Ministry of Magic, for the purpose of persecuting all Muggle Blood people; in particular, Harry Potter is officially declared an undesirable and he becomes a fugitive." But I do not want to change the plot summary before building a consensus among the readers here. If you find it appropriate, please feel free to make a similar brief modification to the plot summary, to emphasize the persecution aspect, which seems to be a central theme in this episode of Harry Potter. Best Regards, TotalMemory.TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. It has not been noted apart from by a few editors, who do not constitute a reliable source. Until that happens, we cannot comment. This has been explained above. I suggest everybody takes a refresher on reliable sources and original research. a_man_alone (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, let me make it clearer, I suggest adding this sentence to the plot:"Meanwhile, Death Eaters infiltrate and take over the Ministry of Magic, and they use the government to persecute all Muggle Blood people; in particular, they print papers officially declaring Harry Potter an undesirable, and he becomes a fugitive." Please note that this persecution theme is not a philosophical discussion, but an obvious combination of events, similar to "Valdemort borrowed a new wand" etc. And it is clear from seeing the film that the Death Eaters who gained control of the Ministry are printing pamphlets to declare Harry Potter an undesirable, and their thugs hunt Harry and Muggle Blood people all over the country. Writing the plot summary of the movie is not the job of authoritative sources you are talking about, since they only write commentaries and discussions. Noting that these events take place in the film is not the job of "reliable sources", its the job of ordinary people too. Regards, TotalMemory.TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it still is the job of reliable sources - pointing out that "Valdemort (sic) borrowed a new wand" is not the same as drawing political and organisational comparisons, especially ones that are not specifically stated at some point in the film. If Voldemort held a board meeting, stood in front of a flip-chart, and said "Today we begin the fascist persecution of muggle-blood wizards", then you'd have no problem, because it's not an inference or implication. I tell you what - my problem is with the word fascist - which can be broad in meaning itself. I personally would have no issues and would back off if the text was modified to comment on the persecution of muggle-bloods without the fascist comparison. By labelling the Death Eaters ministry as fascist you're at the thin end of the wedge, and invite comparisons - is Voldemort a Mussolini for the younger generation? Lucius Mussolini - and so on. I apologise for the rambling nature of this post, but it's been a long night with little sleep. a_man_alone (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Writing the plot summary of the movie is not the job of authoritative sources you are talking about, since they only write commentaries and discussions. Noting that these events take place in the film is not the job of "reliable sources", its the job of ordinary people too." I never said that. I said that until the specific situation - ie the ministry has become a fascist organisation - is commented upon by reliable sources, we cannot infer it ourselves. We write the plot summary, but we only do so based on reliable sources. We ordinary people are not reliable sources, as we lack the reputation afforded to those such as Roger Ebert, as mentioned before - who despite being an individual is extremely influential in the movie world. a_man_alone (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the last paragraph I wrote above. In complete agreement, I had already removed the political word "fascist" and merely focused on the events. Once again, here is the only sentence I suggest we should add to the plot summary, and as you can see, it is only based on facts: "Meanwhile, Death Eaters infiltrate and take over the Ministry of Magic, and they use the government to persecute all Muggle Blood people; in particular, they print papers officially declaring Harry Potter an undesirable, and he becomes a fugitive." This persecution aspect is central to the movie as it reveals one of the main goals of the Death Eaters and the new direction of this movie which makes it different from other episodes. Regards, TotalMemory TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with that. Sorry - as I said, it's been a long night. a_man_alone (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for approving this version of the sentence that I would like to add to the plot summary (highlighted in the last paragraph I wrote above). But so far there are only 2 readers who agree, and before I add this to the article, I would like to build a consensus: are there more readers who approve this sentence above? If so, please let me know, or feel free to add that sentence (or a similar one that covers the subject of persecution.) Regards, TotalMemory

I would tweak your wording a bit: Meanwhile, Death Eaters infiltrate and take over the Ministry of Magic, using its authority to persecute Muggle-born wizards. I would drop the bit about targetting Harry, as it's pretty obvious from the rest of the summary that he has to go into hiding. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! So the latest version of my suggestion will be as you wrote. For reference, I am highlighting your latest version: "Meanwhile, Death Eaters infiltrate and take over the Ministry of Magic, using its authority to persecute Muggle-born wizards.". And we now have THREE (3) readers who agree that the persecution of the Muggle Blood people is a central theme in this episode of Harry Potter. It now appears that we are building a consensus, and I hope that someone will add such a sentence to the plot summary. Are there more readers who agree? Regards, TotalMemory TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the sentence to the summary, but no more details are needed as it increases the word total. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

<insert> That's not strictly true - valid and consensual details (such as this one) are ok, even if it bumps up the word count. The plot summary guide is just that - a guide - and although we should be doing our best to adhere to it (which I think we are now,) so long as we aren't adding mindless fancruft, this is a good addition that we shouldn't fret over.

(PS - TotalMemory, can you remember to sign your posts please? Should anybody want to quickly get in touch, the sig makes it much easier to do so. Cheers.)

a_man_alone (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

<insert> Yes, I added the details in. However, no more extended details on this particular subject should be added as it is classed, as you said, as fancruft. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, that's pretty much exactly along the lines of what I was thinking after reading through the text and looking for a good place to insert it. And only added 9 words to the tally! Sailsbystars (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! At last, we have finally resolved the issue democratically... Next year we shall see how the latest episode of the film covers the fascism theme. By then there might be sufficiently many authoritative articles, so that we can then create a special section dedicated to this analogy about Nazism, which is strongly implied in many places. TotalMemory (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. However, one editor seems that this is not enough and is adding MORE details to the article bringing up the total word count. This matter has been resolved, so should that editor change the section for the worse again, I shall contact an admin and revert the edits. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Admins won't care about this - it is primarily a content dispute between editors, and we should work it out between ourselves. (Not all) admins can be cranky when asked to oversee what could be construed as playground bickering, and they're as likely to ban the lot of us for 24 hours as a blanket edit war ban. Primary contributors - of whom there are now a few - are aware of the word count recommendation, and should work with that in mind - newer contributors may not be so aware, and so will add as they see fit. It's up to everybody else to either remove unnecessary additions, or to trim them to be non-excessive, but more importantly, to do it all with good grace. If we can't do that, then Wiki isn't the place for us. a_man_alone (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hallows Horcruxes, For the record, I am not the one who was adding more details beyond your contribution that mentions the persecution of the Muggle-born wizards. But on that occasion, perhaps you should also emphasize that when the Death Eaters took over the Magic Ministry, they transformed it into a police state, that rules by fear. I agree that using the political word "fascist" is too strong, but I am sure you might still mention the police force wearing combat boots and their undercover agents wearing arm bands and black leather coats. Let's recall that on the forearm of Hermione they even put a bleeding inscription that says "Mudblood", which resembles a concentration camp tattoo. Thus even without using the word "fascist" there are plenty of reasons to mention how the Death Eaters want to rule the world. TotalMemory (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a small detail without increasing the word count significantly. Please let me know if you agree that it is worth enlarging this sentence in the 4th paragraph: "The wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour is disrupted by Death Eaters, who have now infiltrated the Ministry and are using its authority to persecute Muggle-born witches and wizards " by this version: "The wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour is disrupted by Death Eaters, who have now infiltrated the Ministry, transforming it into an oppressive police state that rules by fear, and are using its authority to persecute Muggle-born witches and wizards. " This is because in the current version of the plot, there is no indication that the Death Eaters transformed the Magic Ministry into an oppressive police state. Note that this sentence does NOT use the political word "fascist", but it conveys the meaning in the movie. If we can obtain a consensus from the other readers here, we can perhaps replace the current sentence with words similar to what I suggested. Please let me know what you think. TotalMemory (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I think we're in danger of emphasizing this situation unduly. Just stating that the ministry is misusing it's authority to persecute muggles is adequate - by adding the police state commentary we're effectively just repeating what has already been stated, but using different words to do so. My tuppence. a_man_alone (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not have used the word but various definitions of it are "oppresive police state" - good try. I also agree with ^, while I can see your point, it just isn't needed.Angry Mustelid (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the words "oppressive police state" have a much more generalized definition than "fascist state". For instance, both the communist Soviet Union, the ultra-capitalist Pinochet regime in Chile, and the European fascist states such as Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany, were all oppressive police states, but in the latter 4 examples, the Soviet Union and Pinochet's Chile are not fascist states even though they are oppressive police states. Thus my choice of words are more general than "fascism". On the other hand, please note that only saying that "the Muggle-born people were persecuted by the Death Eaters who are using the Ministry's authority", is a rather vague way of conveying the meaning of the scenes in the movie, because there are many forms and intensities of persecution. Some forms of persecution are more benign than others. In the movie the Death Eaters are not only using the Ministry's authority, but they have also transformed the Ministry so that the authority is very much amplified: the officers of the new police force of the Ministry wears combat boots, the undercover agents of the Ministry wear red arm bands and black leather coats, and the derogatory term "Mudblood" that is written on the forearm of Hermione is obviously a reference to concentration camp tattoos. For these reasons, it seems that it is appropriate to think that, the words "oppressive police state" deserve to be added to the plot summary. TotalMemory (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, I really do, but being aware of the word count I don't think it needs to be added. In this context the term "persecute muggles" is sufficient to show that things are taking a dark turn at the Ministry. That was what I was getting at when I said we are repeating ourselves. Also, technically, black leather coats and red arm bands are more of a Nazi fashion theme who have socialist roots, not fascist - but now we're just splitting hairs. a_man_alone (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that even rival political systems can have some overlapping features, and although Nazism was originally formed according to leftist philosophies, in the end Nazism became a branch of Fascism, as explained in the Wikipedia article about Nazism which states that "Nazism is a politically syncretic variety of fascism, which incorporates policies, tactics and philosophic tenets from left and right-wing politics. " Anyway, note that so far our Plot Summary is still not above limit of 700 words, and it is worth enlarging this sentence in the 4th paragraph by only a few words: The sentence "The wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour is disrupted by Death Eaters, who have now infiltrated the Ministry and are using its authority to persecute Muggle-born witches and wizards " can be replaced by this version: "The wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour is disrupted by Death Eaters, who have now infiltrated and transformed the Ministry into an oppressive police state, and are using it to persecute Muggle-born witches and wizards. " . This modification of the sentence increases the word count only by 7 words. TotalMemory (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not needed as it is a POV interpretation. The plot is fine as it is. Alandeus (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But they're 7 unnecessary words. The persecution is already clearly stated and seen - there's no need to amplify it further. a_man_alone (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)