These are words from the 3esl. DDT deacon deaconess dead deaden dead end dead heat deadline deadlock deadly deadpan deaf deafen deafening deafness deal dealer dealership dealing dealings dealt dean dean's list dear dearly dearth death deathbed death penalty death row death toll deathtrap debase debasement debatable debate debauchery debilitate debilitating debility debit debonair debrief debriefing debris debt debtor debug debunk debut debutante Dec.
February fecal feces Fed fed federal federalism federalist Federal Reserve System federate federation fed up fee feeble feeble-minded feed feedback feedbag feeding feel feeler feeling feelings feet feign feint feisty feline fell fellow fellowship felon felony felt felt-tip pen fem. This isn't the Harry Potter wiki, or a fansite where we can write in-universe, and a place where we only include whatever Rowling has said.
This is an enyclopaedia, where we are meant to give full and comprehensive coverage to everything on this subject. Which we are not doing. And it's creating damaging atttitudes thoroughly at odds with wikipedia, and actual misunderstandings of how it works.
For example: "Actually, Sandpiper, I explicitly said it was OR: " But, the information is still original research … Even though their work has been published, it constitutes original research by speculation. Original Research is, quite specifically, the Original thoughts, views or developments of the editor 'Original' means new or never before seen. Speculation - please understand - is perfectly acceptable - even welcomed - in wikipedia.
Provided it is sourced.
Actually look outside Harry Potter, or Dragonball Z, or the other pages where you can delude yourself that there is a fixed truth that can be nailed down. There is no such thing in history, or science, and we should accept that there is no such thing in literature, because people always have opinions and speculation on motives and plot, and always publish them.
And then we write it up. That is how we write an encyclopaedia article - a mixture of hard fact, cutting-edge theory and learned opinion. The fact that DH is coming out in 4 months is irrelevant.
It could be coming out tomorrow, and it wouldn't change our task, which is to make our articles as fully comprehensive about their subjects as possible. This article is on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Then we write about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - when it was written, how it was written, why it was written, reactions to it, opinions about it. That is how we write an encyclopaedia article. And if you can't grasp that, I suggest you take a crash course in writing for wikipedia, or go and work on the Harry Potter Wiki, or somewhere pleasantly 'in-universe', where you can rely solely on the regular morphine drips of information from Rowling.
That, however, is not how we write articles here. And if anyone can't grasp that, then I suggest you make the most of your time here - you will no doubt be jumping ship once DH has been published and written up here, and the in-universe gravy train comes to an end.
Sandpiper, Wikipedia is clear as to what is a reliable source. It's something that "is not self-published", that has a "fact-checking process", that doesn't "rely heavily on personal opinions". Simply, as far as theories are concerned, Lexicon isn't in this category. Because their theories rely on personal opinion, and are not fact-checked who could check the content of book 7?
There no concrete element, outside Lexicon's personal opinion, that Hallows are related to arthurian objects. And I've already said it: see the Lexicon as "experts" if you want. It won't change the fact that they're not in their field of expertise, as their theories on HP7 are as unreliable as for any other fan in the world. They have no expertise about book 7, which is not yet published. Lexicon has been praised for being a complete encyclopedia about already published material.
JKR never said that "their theories are always right".
Our Name Wasnt Written - A Malta Memoir (1936-1943)
It's not for theories they have been praised, but for their main content: a collection of references and facts from the books. I just want to say that while you guys obvious have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and obviously aren't new like me , you really need to stop. This has become nothing more than an argument between two people who are obviously both just a little nerdy, calling each other nerds. I cannot remember which pillar of wiki-ness this is breaking, but I'm pretty sure there is one that says not to insult each other. Stop whining and try to come to a consensus.
Anyways, just wanted to say that while a list of unresolved plot elements makes sense for a book that hasn't come out yet, there should be no theories in the article. Take out the stuff about the Weasleys' life debts to Harry, because it's not canonical , as an HP "nerd" would say. Also, Petunia is mentioned in the list way too much.
Again, sorry, I'm new and I know nothing, but still. The article needs editing. At least come to a consensus on that. Did anyone else notice Radcliffe being interviewed on Tv, and saying Rowling had told him the ending? Not helpfull, perhaps, but shows she is comitted to the films remaining tue to the books despite inevitable cuts.
Alan Beale's Core Vocabulary Compiled from 3 Small ESL Dictionaries (21877 Words)
Sandpiper , 24 March UTC. This is a dispute about whether or not to include in the article published theories concerning what the "deathly hallows" referred to in the title of the book are. One, the advisory statement at the top of the talk page reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion of unsourced or speculated potential content of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unless it relates directly to the article.
Any such messages will be deleted. This is a contradictory statement. Okay, back to sourced nonspeculated subjects. Petunia Dursley's possible role in Book Seven is mentioned at least twice in the article. Combine the two references. In fact, reorganize the entire section on the loose ends to be tied up in Book Seven. The bit about Ron, Arthur and Ginny having life debts to Harry is purely speculative. Thank you. I honestly couldn't resist the speculation, but I will remove it. However, the actual suggestions still stand. You caught my meaning exactly. He SAYS. He also says that he will not return to Hogwarts, but the article s relating to the topic all either say that he a will not return to Hogwarts, or b he will and go on to explain what he will do there NEWTs, career choices.
Those editing the article obviously not me, I'm not knowledgable enough about the books or the writing of articles in general need to pay more attention. Also, please, please do not fall into this seemingly universal habit of making snide references to people not being "experts" on the books. No one, except maybe Rowling, is an expert. Not until the last book comes out and all the obsessive HP fans have had a chance to read and reread it more than likely dozens of times will there be experts. I read the fifth book twice, and Book Six lost all its charm and mystery when those " x kills y " carolers ruined the ending for me.
Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 9 - Wikipedia
Sorry if I'm not enough of a Harry Potter zealot for all of you. Sorry, I didn't mean that, I'm just angry. Don't take any of my rudeness seriously, I truly respect the dedication to Wikipedia's high standards that you have all shown. Good luck.
- 2011-2012 KYMCO Downtown 200i/300i Service Manual.
- UNLIMITED BOOKS.
- Inside Druckers Brain.
- Stiller Zorn: Roman (Taschenbücher) (German Edition);
- Пуля для контролера (German Edition).
- File information.
- Das Wohlfühlbuch für Wohnungskatzen: Was Katzen sich wünschen (German Edition).
Right now, the article just reads like a random list of statements and rumours regarding Book Seven's contents. Mainly, I'm just confused as to how to improve the article while it is protected. I know the various reasons ' why' it is protected, but I'd like for the protection to be lifted, if only long enough for a brief but needed edit session.
I am entirely new to this debate, but even I am getting bored here. Is the article locked because of the Deathly Hallows Definition Debate, or for another reason? I ask because there are simple problems with the article that could be solved if the protection was removed.
- Gargantua. Pantagruel: Reclam Bibliothek (German Edition).
- The Legend Of Jumbo Barrett And His Amazing Home Run.
Mainly, the Petunia references should be consolidated. Also, quick question: Does it say anywhere in the books that the various Weasleys mentioned in the article owe life debts to Harry? I understand the Peter Pettigrew reference, but I honestly can't remember any specific references either in-book or by Rowling herself to the Weasleys' life debt s to Harry. Furthermore, "This article or section contains information regarding scheduled, forthcoming or expected future book s.
It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available. If I'm wrong, please tell me. There is nothing wrong with wiki carrying speculation It is only speculation by people actually writing wiki which is discouraged. I take it the tag exists precisely because any article about a future event will inevitably contain speculation, and this is to warn readers.
I agree, if it it does not mean that, then it is entirely pointless. The minor difficulties with the article are the sort of thing which happens all the time. People add stuff, others sort it out. We are just in the middle of a hiatus which it seems likely will persist until after publication. At least, that seems to be the preferred option of a number of editors. The objective seems to be to keep any 'breaking news' out of the article.
While I am inclined to agree that it might be best if only for legal reasons to keep any unauthorised early releases of the actual book out of the article, anything else written about it by third parties is fair game for inclusion. Sandpiper , 25 March UTC. Well, to address both your inquiries: John, since the unofficial boundary between casual observer and instigator is five comments , you are officially now an instigator; T-dot, the Tay is a river prominently featured in The Tay Bridge Disaster , a poem by William McGonagall that chronicled the events of December 28 , when a train with roughly 75 passengers collapsed during a windstorm into the Silvery Tay.
The poem, widely hailed as the worst poem by the worst poet in the English language, is hilarious despite its subject matter.
Related Series 3 - Foolproof Tarot Card Reading: Intermediate Water Spreads
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved