Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Heading change?

Shouldn't the heading technically be 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (films)? The current heading only implies that it is one film, whereas it is actually two films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - We have discussed this many times. It is one film split into two parts. --Glimmer721 talk 21:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – Two copyrights, two films, if we go by the legal definition. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed, and clarifies better. Nobody views this as one film. They might view it as one story in two parts, but not one film in two parts. Evil Genius77 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Glimmer721 is right, we've discussed this heaps. Warner Bros. marketed Deathly Hallows in a trailer (for both parts) as being "presented in 2 parts". link Also, Deathly Hallows is an adaption of a single-volume novel, and so I propose that it's one two-part film and not two films. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - But not to films. For now, keep things as is but when the second part nears release (weeks / days) then I recommend splitting into 2 articles - part1 & part2 - rename this to part 1 and move all part 2 related stuff to the new article. This page's title can be a disamb. with a brief introduction citing the book, a little behind the decision to film in 2 parts and then links to the two pages. (I maintain that the two films are separate films - they were always intended to be 2 films - much like LOTR (6 books, 3 vol., 1 story). - Kill Bill was originally intended to be one film but was split).Angry Mustelid (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • no change for now I'm in agreement with Angry Mustelid's point. While it may be one film in two parts, trying to distinguish between the two in a single article will be a mess, especially for a film this popular. However, at this point most of the info on the second film is pure speculation. So we should leave things as is for now, then split at some point in the vicinity of the release of the second part. Rather than disambig., my stylistic suggestion is that this title should link to part one, and part 1 should have a hatnote explaining the film in two parts, with a link to part two when the time comes to split this page. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is classed as one motion picture split into two parts. Simple. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as previously mentioned rationale: One film with a hugely long intermission between parts. a_man_alone (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It is two different films, since it is released as such. I doubt they'll be sold together for the price of just one film either. You got to buy two different movie tickets to see them. Dream Focus 10:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As previously explained and supported with examples, it is actually one movie split into two parts. Jonny7003 (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but change to '...the Deathly Hallows Part I (film)' as it is displayed on its posters, etc. Part 2 will then be called '...the Deathly Hallows Part II (film)' when the time comes. Alandeus (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons others have mentioned. PhotoShoot19 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of 'Part' Significance in Article?

Should it be mentioned that this film is one of the first films to actually having 'Part 1, Part 2,' in the title? I don't mean the article heading, I mean, mentioning it as sort of trivia. I think the last film to do that was Back to the Future, longer if you take into account the fact that Back to the Future never had 'Part 1' in it's title. This is the first time in a long time where 'Part 1' has been used to signify the first part of a film.

Point is, it has been a while since a film has used 'Part' in the title two indicate a different film, rather than simply using a subtitle or a number.

In case you don't quite understand what I'm saying, think of how the Star Wars films use 'Episodes', and how many films don't use that as a separational reference (if that is even grammatically correct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Back to the Future: Part II? (Even though that's a different case). If ther was a reliable source it would be okay in the article, otherwise it would be considered trivia --Glimmer721 talk 23:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
However, there is no other title they could've used. The title of the book is Deathly Hallows. Part I and Part II just seem natural. Do the plots flow? Yes. But so do the plots of the entire series. Is it one book? Yes. Is it two films? Yes, and two films require two articles. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Cast List

Perhaps we should change it... It's more informative if it lists the entire CREDITS from the film. That would just mean that Warwick Davis (already included due to appearance on theatrical poster), Tom Felton, Toby Jones, Dave Legeno, Simon McBurney, Helen McCrory, Nick Moran, Peter Mullan, David O'Hara, Clémence Poésy, Natalia Tena, Julie Walters (already included due to appearance on theatrical poster), Mark Williams, and Bonnie Wright would be credited. This would be far more informative and benefit the article greatly, in my opinion. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary

I got the plot section down to 680 words. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And guess what? Others are still editing it, increasing the amount of words. Dear me, all that effort gone to waste. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, any unnecessary addditions should just be pulled now. It doesn't really need another sentence here, another sentence there. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What annoyed me was the proliferation of very small sentences, where an editor has obviously just thought "Oh, I'll add this terribly important bit in here. And here. And here, etc..." It's very poor English. Took me ages to eradicate most of those. But hey - 680 words, not bad. Better than my effort of 729. a_man_alone (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I managed to get 649 words. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


These people are really getting on my nerves. They are increasing the word total with unnecessary details. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I cannot believe it! Some ignorant little twerps have rewritten the summary! All that effort gone to waste! Now it's full of unnecessary details and over the bloody word count. Ignorant blast ended skanks. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, go to past revisions and bring your work back. The plot only needs important parts. But the sences with Riddle-Harry and Riddle-Hermioine kissing or the scene where Neville encounters Death Eaters on the Hogwarts Exprres aren't that important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.182.93 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot for Part 1

Again, unnecessary details are being placed in the article, bumping the word total. 700 words max. I'm sick of it. Obviously people won't (or can't) read the guidelines or see the discussion of the plot above before adding more of their info. There should be no focus on such trivial details. If there are grammatical errors or spelling mistakes, then improve it but do NOT add any more unnecessary sentences. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just accept it. As I mentioned above there will always be editors who think that a certain detail is important, and add it to the plot. Whether the rest of the community agrees can only be decided after they add it. As also mentioned before many IP editors are in a drive-by style, and will not bother to read the talk page. Generally they will also scroll past the hidden comment straight to the section that they think needs changing. That leaves it to the core editors to keep pruning as and where necessary.
A good example is the now completed fascist conversation. It wasn't there, then an editor wanted it put in, so did. It was removed, then added again, after considerable discussion and tweaking by the community. Now it's part of the article. That's how it goes. We have to assume good faith in all but the most obvious cases, and nobody owns the article - but we can take a certain amount of pride in keeping it lean, factual and accurate. a_man_alone (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This happens on lots of film articles—someone recently bloated the Rocky 3 plot summary up to 1900 words and that's a 30 year old film! The plot summary works as it is, so all you can do is revert bloat. The revert is backed by consensus, and if it grossly contravenes the 700 word limit (i.e. 1000+ words) then you could argue it is technically vandalism and 3RR doesn't even apply to the revert. Most of the bloat is carried out by IPs, so if it destabilises the article semi-protection would be the best option. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It happened about an hour ago. +600 words added, with no real improvement to the plot. Nothing detrimental, but nothing to justify another 600 words either. Just undo it, and wait for the next one. I'm dubious about it being considered vandalism though - I can't see the article ever being (semi) protected on those grounds, especially as they're in good faith. a_man_alone (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Instead of just having one infobox on the article, we make one infobox on Part 1 and anther on Part 2 like Kill Bill? That would make more sense than splitting everything up on the infobox like we are now. Opinions? Guy546(Talk) 21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I would prefer to wait until we have more confirmed information about the infobox-type data for the second part. BOVINEBOY2008 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with above. At least until a poster comes, etc. Glimmer721 talk 21:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Against — The question on whether it should be split into two articles hasn't been settled yet, there seems to be an even divide for and against. That issue won't be resolved until the next film is released, and the infobox issue should be decided as part of that discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Against - as Betty Logan - you're discussing something that not only hasn't even been released, but the format of the article hasn't been decided yet. a_man_alone (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Questions

"Gross, gross, gross, gross."

In the introduction I do not think all those records are really necessary, this isn't box office mojo. After the first few it reads very poorly, and isn't particularly insightful, let alone worthy of being in the introduction of the article. I understand the relevance when a smaller film gains one or two such notable box office "records", but all this info is completely disposable and out of date in 6 months anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.231.55 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Box office gross

On the this website it states it has now grossed more than $609.6 million worlwide and $220.4 million in North America.

[1]

Look this is getting a bit silly. Somebody just vandalized the revenue figure to some $800 million. I've fixed the ridiculously specific figure (precise to the dollar, which is bloody stupid) to around $600 million. Please nobody update that figure until it hits the next $100 million mark, which probably won't be long. --TS 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
If people want to update the gross every 15 minutes... let them - it improves the accuracy of the article and harms no-one as long as the source is good (which it is) and isn't changed.Angry Mustelid (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

if you got to box office mojo more specifically this site which concerns with the foreign total of HP7 if you add all the numbers it actually goes more than the proposed foreign total which they have said to be 655 million apprx., when i added them up i got this 664 282 829(foreign total) + 293 989 138(domestic total) = 958 271 967 (worldwide total) Can someone back me up here or am i just wrong??????????? the source is calculating wrong. dont show me this Note: Overall foreign totals are updated weekly for most currently playing movies. The country breakdowns are updated less frequently and do not necessarily add up to the foreign totals. if it is updated less frequently then why is it more than the proposed foreign total?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.96.21 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

Shouldn't it have two infoboxes, one for each part, something similar to Kill Bill article? I know it's a two-part film but it's still two films, with two different release dates, two different running times, two different gross revenues and two different posters (in the next months we will have the poster for the second part). What do you guys think? Decodet (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See above. Glimmer721 talk 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that there was already a discussion above. Thanks :) Decodet (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cast Listing

I think it would be logical to list the cast like the Kill Bill article used to, e.g.:

Actor Role Part. 1 Part. 2
Daniel Radcliffe Harry Potter • •

DanielDPeterson (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I forget where it said this, I'm bad with sourcing into Wikipedia's policies, but we aren't supposed to use tables. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST backs you up in this regard. No tables for such lists. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, good to know. Maybe we could try something like:
Un1 Deux Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, the film's main protagonist.

DanielDPeterson (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

For Part 2

Don't forget Harry Potter's parents Lily and James Potter! 76.229.126.247 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast list

I removed some of the details about Snape in the Cast list, because it gives too much away. Those who have read the books know these details, but at this point in the movies it is still critical that those details remain secret.

174.52.101.146 (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

About a week ago the cast list got ridiculous and I removed a lot of it, not only because of the excessive volume of content but because of the tabular format which was always going to be hard to maintain, and didn't jive with the format used in other articles about the Harry Potter films.

It's creeping back. Well at least the old cast list was full of references but the stuff that is coming back is completely unreferenced, and it's often just a whole sheaf of bit-part actors.

But I know the recent truncation did remove a lot of legitimate content about the casting of fairly major characters. So for the purpose of improving this article I will reproduce the content I removed at /Old cast list with references. The main problem with that is that it's excessive, but a subsidary problem is that it's in a stupid tabular format. The more recent additions are still stupidly excessive. Please somebody who has seen the film remove the bit part actors. Please anybody else help to restore references for the significant actors in the more readable and maintainable list format currently in use. --TS 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The citations are a holdover from when users were adding cast members as they were confirmed in media reports. Now that the film has been released, and there is an official cast reference at IMDB, it's absurd to have individual citations for every member of the cast list. Any objections to removing these citations? Trumpetrep (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no objections. I am going to start stripping the cast list of all references. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that at the least, the Dursleys be removed from the cast list be removed, simply because they're such minor characters in the film. Vernon has one line and about five seconds of screen time. Petunia has one shot and no lines. Bramton1 (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the three Ministry of Magic employees that were impersonated had a great deal of on-screen time, making their roles significant enough for inclusion. They have been included and reverted several times. Please reach a consensus here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree... I am creating a Cast List here, just with names, of those I believe to be important. It's in alpha-order. I include all those who are on the page save Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Richard Griffiths, and Fiona Shaw, who each appear in the film for less than 10 seconds each. I give reasons for each new inclusion below. Here's my list:

  • Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
  • Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley
  • Emma Watson as Hermione Granger
  • Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange
  • Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid
  • Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy (character is so important he has his own WIkipedia article!)
  • Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort
  • Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody
  • Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood
  • Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy
  • Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood (plays an important role in the Malfoy Manor sequence and to the plot.)
  • Bill Nighy as Rufus Scrimgeour
  • Alan Rickman as Severus Snape
  • Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew, aka Wormtail
  • Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge
  • David Thewlis as Remus Lupin
  • Julie Walters as Molly Weasley
  • Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley (how can we credit one Weasley parent and not the other?)
  • Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley (Harry's romantic interest deserves credit.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Genius77 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Part II Premiere/Showing Venues

Resolved
 – Removed the extraneous information that was not included in the source. You don't need to raise these issues on the talk page, if it's not in the source then pull it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems it's going to be shown in Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square at the same day from what it says in the article... The stars and crew going to Leicester and everyone else in Trafalgar. I hope I'm wrong since the article it references says the opposite of what's in the article. Eagle Pilot (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trailer music

The article is not correct stating that the music used in Part I trailer is by Brand X Music. Actually the source is wrong and this is a relatively spread and wrong information. The correct cues used are: Glacial Supremacy and Absolute Antropoid by Pfeifer Music Broz This is from Vienna CFH (2007) and they are notorious for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace trailer music.

I cannot say yet about the Part II trailer though but I strongly suspect it to be from a Immediate Music composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.119.82 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that say these things? The problem is that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If a source says something incorrect but is otherwise reliable, then we have to go by what the source says, except where it can be proved wrong by more accurate sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can give links pointing to Youtube: (Copyright violation removed) (glacial supremacy) (Copyright violation removed) (absolute anthropoid) 81.220.119.82 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't fully understand why my previous answer was considered as a copyright violation, you can trust the wikipedia article about Pfeifer Music Broz on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeifer_Broz._Music 81.220.119.82 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Article split?

Thrre is a straw poll on whether to split the article so parts 1 and 2 are covered by separate articles. If you haven't voted yet you can do so at #Head count. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is clear, the article must be split but its almost the beginning of June and there hasn't been a split. For those who oppose the split, I am rounding up everyone's ideas to present our reason for this split rather than using a vote. The vote was simply to see how many people are on each side- Clearly the side of splitting had more supporters. But nevertheless, each of them were interesting and had rationales. Moreover, comparing it to other articles is highly irrelevant. Each article has its own case and story. I would say the main reason for the split is the crowdedness of all the information and how unfeasible it is to have so much information-It is very hard to easily access the information. The whole reason of Wikipedia is to easily access comprehensive and "explicit" information,and by keeping the two articles merged it would ruin the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Other reason are that they have different soundtrack, cast and when both are out there will be different reviews, set of nominations and accolades, domestic and over-seas gross revenue. Conversely, the other side says that the book itself is one book thus the two-part film should be one. Another reason is the fact that the plot is under the same narrative. But, the director and screenplay writer purposely left a cliff-hanger to the end of the first film in order to make them two different films with different tones. I think thats about it this article should be split-- its been going on for too long. The movie is going to be released in about a month and a week. Early reviews are going to appear and we must separate it by then.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What steps should we take? Should we move this article to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I or a similar title, then create the "Part II" article and migrate second-part content from the first article to the new article? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the simplest approach would be just to copy this article completely to "Part 1" and and "Part 2" articles. Editors can then delete the part 1/part 2 sub-sections as appropriate and re-write the ledes. I think it would be faster than constructing a patchwork second article. As far as I can see the only two common sections are "Development" and "Filming". Since they are not large sections, I don't think it matters if they remain duplicated to begin with (I'm not sure there is enough common material to justify a separate "production artcle"), although we can consider that at a later point if we end up with too much common material. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to consider the page history, though. We could move this article to Part I, create a new article for Part II, paste the current revision there, and edit both parts' articles as necessary. Might be worth reviewing Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves to make sure we take the right steps and attribute correctly (especially when copying two-part content to the Part II article). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the Split/Merge protocols, so if you think that is the best way to do it fair enough. So I guess the procedure is this: straight article move to "part 1", and then we copy the article text fully to "part 2" with the relevant license attribution in the edit summaries, and then the articles can be edited at will. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Replying to Erik, it should be titled "Part 2", not "Part II" because it is being marketed as "Part 2". Guy546(Talk) 21:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think thats good. But there are going to be big changes under each one. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that matters provided the split is done properly. You just have to be able to trace the edit history of the new article, which means the split has be marked in both articles' histories. What that effectively does is make it clear that the edit history on the part 1 article up to the 'split' is also the edit history for the part 2 article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The first thing we need to do is get the article "moved" to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Do you think consensus is strong enough to press ahead with the first stage? Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't move the page anyway since it was move-protected last month. I contacted the admin who protected the page and informed him about the split discussions. It may help us determine the best course of action. I'm hoping we don't need to go through another discussion (a request to move) to make progress. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking through the procedures, I think this is the correct course of action:
  1. Move the article to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1.
  2. Create Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 with a full text copy, and with the edit summary "Copied content from [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1]] to here. See [[Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1#Part I and II]]."
  3. Mark the article split in the edit summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 with "Copied content to [[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2]]. See [[Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1#Part I and II]]."
  4. Tag the talk pages of both articles using the {{Copied}} template, filled in with the relevant details.
  5. Edit at will. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say to make the pages Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. This is how they are listed on all other sites and on official press releases. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the film? How does the copyright notice format it at the end? I've seen a few variations: ": Part 1 " "– Part 1" ", Part 1" Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The copyright notice at the bottom of the Blu-ray case states the title as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1". Hallows Horcruxes 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I told you last year that we should have split the article into two! Belrien12(talk) 17:56, 2 june 2011(UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) → Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 – Editors have decided to split the article into part 1 and part 2 articles. The head count following the discussion shows a consensus. As suggested here, since this is primarily a part 1 article, we would like to move the article to the part 1 name space and then perform the article split so we only have to split the article once. Suggest Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 as the actual copyrighted title. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that before. Even though I did split I didn't care about how I was doing it. There are some restrictions on cutting and pasting to move but this one I could only notice one way of doing it because it was different information being divided. And now that the part one stuff is in it's own place maybe we can figure out how to move the right way. I couldn't think of any at the time though. Jhenderson 777 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to have come out ok. The problem with cut and paste jobs is that it leaves the edit summary histories behind, so I've added a few "move" notices to the edit summaries so it's clear where the content has come from and gone to. I think it will be ok now. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok good idea. :) Jhenderson 777 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess there is no reason to keep this request now but the bot has already started to process it, so when an admin comes along to review it they might as well close the request. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that red link title may be of use though. Perhaps as a redirection or as a main name of the part one movie. Jhenderson 777 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 article has suddenly gone to being a redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)! Hallows Horcruxes 06:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did it. Pages ARE MOVED not copypasted. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
So what now? Hallows Horcruxes 06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Done, reverted before the copyvio split. Search consensus, get an admin who performs history merges and that's all. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's need in placing this notice in the controversial section, as consensus has been reached and we want to split the article ASAP. We could be here forever waiting for someone to come along and move the article, so I'm putting the request in the current requests section instead to see if the article can be moved quickly. Hallows Horcruxes 07:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I know the page is closed but thanks Tbhotch for the better idea. That's why I was thinking Betty Logan's request would still be useful. Jhenderson 777 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

As a result of the consensus and move, this article is named Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 as stated within the copyright text of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 Blu-ray case. Please do not move this article. Hallows Horcruxes 08:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DASH, it should be at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. The title with the hyphen can redirect to the title with the dash. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it should have a dash, but I would recommend against moving it as there is currently an ArbCom injunction in force against moving pages to/from a hyphen/dash. Probably best to wait until the injunction has been lifted, as I'm fairly sure people are indef blocked for violating ArbCom injunctions. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Theleftorium (talk · contribs) for consistency with Part 2 (non-admin housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 → Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 –

  • Due to WP:DASH and the recent moving of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 by User:Headbomb, we need the Part 1 article inline with the title of the Part 2 article. Hallows Horcruxes 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Isn't this included in the arbcon ban on changing between the various dashes and hyphens? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and do speedily regardless of ArbCom; this isn't controversial. --Kotniski (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. We need the title inline with the Part 2 title. The Part 2 article has been moved and so should this one. Also, the same has been done with both soundtrack articles (here and here) and both video game articles (here and here). It is not controversial.Hallows Horcruxes 11:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cast Listing

I've changed the cast list to this:

I understand that this could cause angst and people could dislike it. I've reordered it according to prominence in the film - as Wikipedia operates by such in all other cases, not by billing. The first eight names are listed in the order in which they are in the infobox/introduciton, and I follow them with those who have pivotal roles in the plot (taking approximate screen time into consideration) in descending order. I deleted John Hurt, Michael Gambon, Fiona Shaw, and Richard Griffiths, as all appear in the film for less than 10 seconds, and Gambon and Shaw don't even have any lines. This allowed me to add Mark Williams, as we can't justify listing one Weasley parent without listing the other - they're equally important - and Bonnie Wright, who has an important role as the main character's love interest. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "agnst". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we cannot list cast based on one fans' impression of who is more prominent. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia must be objective and neutral. Daniel, Rupert and Emma are listed always first since it they are featured first in every film-related media for obvious reasons. But who says Xenophilius was more notable than Umbridge? Your criteria is biased and I reverted it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The order should be sourced from somewhere if you don't use the billing order. If the list is going to be ordered by "prominence" then that is to all intents and purposes a claim and needs to come from a secondary source, otherwise if it comes from a Wikipedia editor it is just WP:Original Research. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there perhaps any data for screentime? Because it is rather frustating that the film's primary antagonist, Ralph Fiennes, is half-way down the list, and characters like Fiona Shaw with a second or two of screen time, or on the list. 184.58.177.157 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed cast members like Felton, Nighy or Ifans since they are not credited as "starring" neither in official posters like this one nor in the DVD. The cast list is based in a neutral, objective criteria which is alphabetical order. Screentime does not equal importance to the overall plot of the film. A character may appear quite frequently (like Lupin) but does not affect the plot that much as other characters that appear less like Ollivander. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I am re-adding Ifans and Nighy. Both appear in the main cast listing in the credits of the DVD, which we had previously decided was what we were going off of. I am also removing Warwick Davis, Julie Walters, and Mark Williams as they do not appear in the main credits (when actors are listed alone, without another actor.) Evil_Genius77 here, forgot to login. Evil Genius77 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you tell us in which DVD Julie Walters does not appear as main cast member and Ifans and Nighy do? In this poster which is the official one, neither of them appear as main cast, but Walters do. I'll remove them until someone provides a reliable proof that they are in the main cast. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Look in Deathly Hallows:Part 1. After the scene with the scene with Voldemort and the lightning from the Elder Wand, we have the ending credits. We had previously agreed to only use the names of those actors whose names are listed alone, not with another name. These actors do include Ifans and Nighy, who for some reason are not included on the posters. These actors do not include Davis or Walters, who are listed in the section where there are two names listed (what we refer to as the secondary cast, as opposed to the primary cast.) Davis and Walters are added to the posters due to their notability. I am changing the cast list back. Evil Genius77 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        • So why is it that even the DVD cover features Davis and Walters, but not Ifans and Nighy? Walters and Davis have been featured as main cast in every single film they appear on, including this one. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Did you look in the actual credits, not the marketing poster? Neither appear in any movie with the main cast in the true credits save in Chamber of Secrets, they appear in the secondary cast! Both are always added to the posters due to their fame and draw. The cast listing on the posters is the same on the DVD box, they just copy and paste it. As they appear in one version of the primary cast, you can keep them in the list if you want, but please don't delete Ifans and Nighy again! They are in the primary cast in the credits! I have no idea why they aren't included in the posters, but since DH:P1 they have stopped listing new cast members in the poster credits. (Ciaran Hinds is in the cast listing for Part 2 on the site, but doesn't appear in the "hover for credits" at the bottom of the screen.) PLEASE do not remove Ifans and Nighy. Apart from being credited, they also have significance to the plot and a large amount of screen time. Evil Genius77 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Part I and II

When we have enough details on both films I and II, will we be splitting this article into two separate articles to represent each film? Jonny7003 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily... look at Kill Bill. It also depends at how WB presents the movies. Is it 2 movies, or one too long movies that have been split? Can someone skip part 1 and watch part 2 and understand? It all depends on the presentation on the movies. I do believe, though, that the 2 parts will simply get along too well for us to create 2 articles. The article can very well describe the plot of part 1 and part 2, separated or not : the rest of the article can be mixed. I also think that separating the article would bring confusion to new editors and also to readers : after all, it's only 1 big movie that is split (if this is really what happens). What do you think about it? --Stroppolotalk 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's probably a question best left until at least after the first film has been released. I can see it going either way. There was a lot of discussion about whether to split Kill Bill into two articles, and it seems like opinions there were about 50-50. Right now, if I had to express a personal opinion, I'd probably go with keeping a single article and treating them as two parts of the same film, but it may become clearer in the future that public sentiment will be to treat them as separate films. (Incidentally, I noticed that this article currently features a pull-quote from Steve Kloves in which he talks about the decision to make "two films"... and then the citation for the quote refers to the decision to create "a two-part film.") Propaniac (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The precedent set during discussion of Kill Bill stands. I propose the following standard, as two-part films become increasingly more common:
A two-part film warrants one article (Che, Kill Bill, and Little Dorrit). Two films warrant two articles (Father of the Bride and Father of the Bride Part II, and The Descent and The Descent Part 2, and Fright Night and Fright Night II, etc.). Moreover, if the second release is any type of sequel to the first, then it is two films, and thus warrants two articles. Otherwise, it is a two-part film, as characterized by short duration between releases, the film's internal structure, and the history of its development, and thus warrants one article.
By this rational, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a two-part film. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're overstating the impact of the Kill Bill discussion with your talk that "the precedent stands." It was one discussion of one circumstance, that is worth examining in regard to other decisions, but it's not remotely binding. If you want to set an overall guideline for how to treat 2-part films or otherwise, the Talk page for a single film (or pair of films) is not the place to do it.
I do generally agree with what you proposed, but I'm not sure it goes very far to clarify situations like this one. The comparison that keeps coming to my mind is the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which would seem to be one three-part film by these standards, or by almost any standard I can think of that applies to Deathly Hallows. But of course each LOTR installment has its own article and they are generally considered separate films. Propaniac (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I probably went a bit far. Regardless, you raise a very valid point about LOTR, truth is, I really don't know. All I know is that we need to define what a "multi-part film" constitutes. And reach consensus on whether a "multi-part film" warrants one or more articles. It's a tricky discussion, but I think it's necessary. Perhaps whatever high-quality reliable sources call it. I'm really unsure. Alex Douglas (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My proposition still stands for movies based on single-volume book. Perhaps a case-by-case thing for multi-volume books; there aren't too many of those that get adapted, are there? I'll raise it with WikiProject Film after my supposed wikibreak is over on 22 June. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is such a big debate. I'm inclined to say 2 articles, for some actors only appear in 1 half of the film, there will be other promotions (trailers etc) for the second film, in terms of the World Wide Gross there will be 2 gross's. But should we not wait for any information on the DVD release, should the 2 films be released on 1 DVD set we can assume WB wanted a technical simaltanious release, but 2 DVD's would lead me to believe that 2 articles are needed. I'm all in favour of 2 articles, it makes them easier to read and edit. User:dylancraigboyes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC).
I would be pretty surprised if we didn't get a DVD release of Deathly Hallows, Part 1 prior to the theatrical release of Part 2, but I think it says more about practical considerations than anything else -- the studio will make a lot of money selling the Part 1 DVD, and then the Part 2 DVD and the 2-Part set (not to mention the 7- or 8-movie set). Volume 1 of Kill Bill was also released separately on DVD right before Volume 2 came into theatres. Propaniac (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the two-part video game has two articles - surely the same principle occurs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.124.238 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is the size of the article. We have to take into account how big the production, reception, and related details are. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The most recent trailer [1] markets it as 'one film in two parts' so that is ideally how we should do it. However, if it gets too long then we could split, but right now we should just keep it as one. Gran2 12:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it's one film. However, if the production, reception, and related info is both lengthy and unique enough from their respective other parts, then a split would be in order. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Like it was said before its a part 1 & 2 film but its still the same film so it should be kept in one article. At least thats what I think Ghost07 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be all three. One article that encompasses both parts (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)) and another two that are each separate one: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II. Of course, they would all (along with the book and videogames) be listed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (disambiguation). How does that sound for minimum confusion? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Comprises don't(or shouldn't) work like that. That actually further complicates things. I think splitting it up is a good idea. Just imagine reading the synopsis, it would be very messy splitting it into two parts, yet leaving it together would be messy as well. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's now November, and the film has definitely been marketed as one film in two parts. There's no real precedent for a two-part film and WP:NF doesn't have any rules for this either. So, I believe we should treat the situation with common sense. I personally believe that one film warrants one article. I also believe that for the interests of the encyclopedia, one film warrants one article; however, I cannot explicitly state why. The best I can do is this: I think it would be weird for a reader to access an article about "half a film". It's also worth noting that FA Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a long article, and I think with careful wording, we can effectively lower the word count (esp after part two is released on home media), without getting rid of content. Has any else got thoughts on this? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If this article gets a little crammed which I am predicting could happen. Then it might be best to split. But for right now let's just go with User:Alex Douglas said about treating it with common sense. − Jhenderson 777 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How is splitting not a good idea? It will be two independent releases, with two different plots, two separate release schedules, two different sets of box office figures, two different sets of reviews, and probably if they're lucky two different sets of oscars. All they really have is a shared production history. The Kill Bill article is a mish mash and shouldn't serve as a precedent for this article. If you have to buy another ticket then it's another film. Gone With the Wind was split into two parts, but counts as one film because you only had to buy one ticket. GWTW even had a policy where you could watch one half one day, and come back and see the other half. Try doing that with your Deathly Hallows ticket and the theater owner will be rolling on the floor laughing.Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, the closest precedent is actually Back to the Future parts 2 & 3. It was originally intended as just one sequel, but the script was so long they decided to release it in two parts, a similar scenario to this one. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Originally I was on the split this article into two parts camp. Now I am on the fence. I am not sure what we should do when the second part is released, but right now (2010-11-27) a second article would be very short, and most of the information about it would be on this page regardless. Oldag07 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As I say. It is ONE film split into TWO PARTS as confirmed by David Heyman. If it is stated by the producer then we should go along with that confirmation. And DO NOT move the page unless a valid conclusion has been made. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Betty Logan and her reasoning on the fact that the page should be split. Technically, there is no such film as 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' due its split (both films are branded with Part 1 and 2) and therefore this leaves us with two different films with different release dates, reviews and likely, DVDs. In response to Hallows Horcruxes, I think that Heyman might of been referring to the films production, i.e. that it was filmed as one but split into two. It was, however, marketed and released as two films and also for that reason I think we should split. I also agree with Hallows Horcruxes on the basis that the page should not be moved until a conclusion has been made, a certainly, if there is a split, it should not happen just yet as there is unsufficient information for the page. Jennie--x (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason for not splitting it is that it is based on one story in one book. However, the film IS two films, with different casts, sets, music, etc. and should be treated as such. Following the logic of one book, one page - the Lord of the rings film articles should either be split into six different articles or merged into one uber-article (see Lord of the Rings for more info).Angry Mustelid (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are going to be two articles for both parts sometime in the future, we would have to call them "Deathly Hallows Part 1" and "Deathly Hallows Part 2", not "Part I" and "Part II", as the former is how the film(s) are marketed and officially named as by the logo and website. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubies0210 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC) ithink that there should be 2 articles cuz' there is no proper deathly hallows film it's in 2 parts so therefor it should be to films/articles. Stubies0210 (talk) 20:49

Then what do you say about Kill Bill? BOVINEBOY2008 20:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Who cares about Kill Bill? This is a different situation, as Betty Logan pointed out, the production is the only thing both films share, they have different soundtrack, cast and when both are out there will be different reviews, set of nominations and accolades, domestic and over-sea gross revenue and (probably, when the second part is out) a new record for ticket sales. I think the article should be split. It is true that you can't go to the cinema and watch part 2 (when its out) without having seen part 1, but you can't watch part 1 without having seen Half-Blood Prince, can you? I think part 2 should be treated as a sequel, and therefore another article is needed.

--StephenG (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Split - It's two different films, two different release dates, two different DVDs, two different sets of reviews. Plus it would be nigh impossible to adequately fit in the sheer depth of information of both films into one article. Comparisons to Kill Bill are ridiculous, lets face it, Harry Potter is a far bigger franchise; so inevitably there will be far more to put into the article. I say Split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.35.110 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should split it, it is already beginning to look messy with different sections of the article containing Part 2 information. We need a separate article for the new information, runtime, gross, cast, awards, reception, music, production, it will be smarter to have two articles and not one long messed up one, that this one is already becoming! B.Davis2003 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia editor and don't have a sig or know how to properly add to discussion. I just wanted to say that I came looking for an article on part 2 and found this mess. I really don't see the argument for combining them unless this was an article on the plots of the movies alone. But it is not. For now its fine, but once the movie is released why keep them combined? It's less organized and less helpful for the average user such as myself. I can see drawbacks to combining but I've yet to hear what the drawbacks to separate pages are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.31.161 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree! Lets split the articles for all things concerning part 1 and part 2. The game article is a mess, and the music one is soon becoming, lets start separating them now! B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus has been determined that Part 1 and Part 2 are to be split into two separate articles. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Head count

We've had the debate, it's getting to the stage where we need to make a decision on this, so we really need to see where everyone stands. I was going to tot up the votes but some of the views expressed are pretty old, so we really need a fresh straw poll. If the debate is still split then we can discuss it further or post an RFC for extra opinions, but if there is strong consesnus either way then we can get on with it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For splitting
  1. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Decodet (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  3. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  4. Princess Lirin (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  5. Evil Genius77 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  6. Eddyghazaley (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC) When is the splitting going to happen?--Eddyghazaley (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    If it goes ahead I'd like to see it happen at the start of June, so that gives editors a full month to prepare the articles.Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  7. Alandeus (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  8. — Bill william comptonTalk 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  9. User:Darkwarriorblake I came here to say no but we have separate articles for Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions though they're essentially one story and these ARE separate films, even if they are a cash grab. Definitely a split.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  10. --JOJ Hutton 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Duh!!! Their are two films. Two admissions, and two release dates. One book, but the article(s) is not about the book.--JOJ Hutton 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  11. I support splitting because I think that it will be easier to present how each film was individually received. Having one article for both films makes it difficult to report the box office performance and the critical reception; these sections would basically be side-by-side. I think that the shared production is a valid reason not to split, but I think that the best way to handle that is to have a "Production" sub-article with each film article having a summary section of the sub-article as it applies to the given film. I do not find Kill Bill to be a good example for opposing splitting because it has underwhelming coverage about the box office performance (just two sentences) and the critical reception (just one sentence with no sampled reviews). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    If you worry about reception that much I am sure we can find some way to fix it, even if we might have to wait until July. We might have to eliminate the "Part 1" and "Part 2" subsections and put all of them together, or maybe (even better in my opinion) put "Critical reception" and the rest of the reception sub-subsections and make them into subsections and make "Part 1" and "Part 2" into sub-subsections and put that into each of the subsections. But maybe we can discuss that more? Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 18:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    That's what I mean by "side-by-side". It's not a real compilation; it's two articles stacked atop one another to try to create one. The sets of responses to either film are going to be separate. The films are separate releases, and audiences and critics are not withholding judgment about the first film and waiting to see the second one. I do not think we can have in-depth coverage of the box office performance and critical reception for both films in one article. I would also advise against shortening responses to either film to fit everything in; we should not have to do that when each film can be and has been treated as "stand-alone" in terms of coverage from secondary sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Even the shared production has limited overlap; the post-production on each part was done separately, and the costumes and sets can be discussed in relation to the part in which they occur. The only two aspects that are inextricably intertwined are the development and filming. We are effectively glueing two article togther because they have two third-level sections in common. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  12. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  13. Just split the darn thing! It's obvious that there are more people who want the article split into two. I used to be against the split, but I suppose it would make locating information much easier. Hallows Horcruxes 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  14. --KH1MOVIE (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC).It would just make things easier. There is too much info.
  15. Should be split because no one considers the two movies as one and the whole page will seem clustered anyway(Saimcheeda (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).
  16. They are two different movies. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  17. Article is becoming a mess, Split it now! B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  18. I'm not overly fond of the making-books-into-movies concept and so I would normally point out that hey, this is one book, but this is by all rights two movies, released at very different dates, and I think the box office comments are fair. As long as you still mention something about the second movie in this article, release dates et cetera, seeing as that's what people will be checking at this time, I'm for the splitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.71.150 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  19. 2601andrew (talk) This has been long overdue. The community needs time before the release of Part 2 to decide what from which article goes where. 13:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  20. Crystal Clear x3 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  21. Dillster22 09:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  22. DisneyFriends (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Even though it is one film, I say split it to make it much easier to work with. In the Harry Potter infobox, it should be under "Deathly Hallows" but the pages should be separate.
  23. SilverserenC 22:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Against splitting
  1. Against a person pointed above earlier, Kill Bill in fact did have seperate reviews and DVD releases. Also, several "Part" media articles are within each other, such as The Hobbit, Kill Bill, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, and even "Who Shot Mr. Burns?". For the cramping of the article, that can be fixed by severe trimming, and I suggest the "Marketing" section (a lot of unneeded material) to be first. As for the user above, The Matrix: Reloaded was not of the same production, as it was released 4 years after the original. There is a difference between same production and the same story. I may be in a minority but I believe a split is unneccesary. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    CommentI said Reloaded and Revolutions, not The Matrix and Reloaded. Reloaded and Revolutions were the same film split over two, released the same year. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I read it wrong. Guy546(Talk) 17:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. First let me start by saying polling is not a substitute for discussion. By all accounts I have read this is a single film, with a single narrative and a single production. If certain sections become long enough per WP:SPLIT to form its own article then so be let it have its own article like "Production of Watchmen" or perhaps "Marketing of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". But as of now I do not any reason split any sections and I think a separate article for Part 2 is unnecessary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    We know a vote is not a substitute for discussion, which is why we had a discussion which went on for months, and now we're trying to determine what the decision is based on the arguments made for and against. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of the preceding discussion but if there is no consensus then there is no consensus. I just don't want see voting alone becoming a determination of consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Lord of the Rings is s single narrative. Should that have a single article for all three movies? Back to the Future Parts 2 and 3 are a single narrative as well. I could go on. Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, and others.--JOJ Hutton 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that despite being a single narrative, it is simply two movies. Nobody considers movies to come in parts. They may be filmed together, marketed together, and released within a year of each other, but they are still two separate theater outings. For that reason, I think Wikipedia's policy on films with multiple parts isn't good, and clogs up pages like this. How are we to denote which cast members appear in which film? How are we to write about things like reception and box office without creating separate articles simply for that section? Simply - we split the film. (This is Evil_Genius77 here, forgot to sign in, sorry!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.177.157 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2011 (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.
preview review

Alright the favor seems to be a yay and the consensus has seemed to gone on a while. Forgive me if it hasn't. So you were asking for it. I gave it a shot for you to see what it looks and what we should do about it. Now there might be healthier alternatives in the future but I think this might work. I happened to be a editor that was neutral about the split but with all my testing that I did. It looks like it could be a good idea after all. This was hard for me to figure out right away, it took time for me to think of the possibilities as I am sure it would have for everybody else and I hope my work has paid off. P.S. This has given a lot of editors a chance for a lot of edits because there is no telling how many good faith mistakes I have done. So happy editing to all the editors out there if you approve of how this is done. :) Jhenderson 777 20:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am totally against it. It looks like shit with these dashes. When I first looked here, I said to myself "Oh my God, they can't be doing it?!" But, you did it. So....I don't know. I guess when you eat shit, however much you eat, it tastes the same way. It is one movie and it is treated by the film-makers as one production. So, you got it. I hate it, but you got it. Once more time, this is shitty looking article. You got, you tasted it.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move III

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The point that IMDB uses a colon is interesting, but there isn't really a case here that the overwhelming established usage in reliable sources is different than the current title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 → Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 – Either this or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Look, the dashes are unnecessary because nobody can get to the article unless they have a link because you can only use a redirect when you look for it. Another reason is because there are no dashes in the title and they are unnecessary. Same thing for Part 2. Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 22:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for the latter reason (IMDb uses a colon) but not the former (redirects aren't a big deal). Let's make sure we move Part 2 at the same time though. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto. Glimmer721 talk 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hallows Horcruxes said this about the dash being in the copyrighted title. In addition, saying "nobody can get to the article" without a redirect is not a reason to move. There are people who have names that most people can't type, such as the Featured Article Thích Quảng Đức. Can we please get confirmation about the copyrighted title? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you google there seems to be no clear version. The first three results are "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" on IMDB, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1" on Amazon, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" on the Warner Bros site, and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" also pops up further down too. It's by no means clear that the colon version is the common name. I understand the concern though, the weird endash format makes it difficult for editors to link to the article. There is also the soundtrack and game articles to consider, as well as the part 2 counterparts. I think the formatting needs to be consistent across the six articles whatever is decided. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • All the arguments about it being hard to get to or link to the article are nonsense (just create redirects from whatever you think people would type), but from an aesthetic point of view, I agree that other punctuation (colon, or nothing) would be preferable to the dash, provided there are sources to back it up. And that all the articles should stay consistent.--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree that both should be moved. Kbr1656 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it should use the comma. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there is no apparent common name for the film titles. I reviewed Google News Search for how secondary sources wrote the first part's title, and there is no consistency. Some sources use the dash, some the colon, some the comma, and some with nothing at all. It comes down to preference of aesthetics, and the have-to-redirect argument does not hold water. I still would like to get confirmation on the copyrighted title, because it will show that it is both officially and commonly used, which is better than just commonly used. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    The credit blurb on the back cover doesn't seem to use any punctuation: [2]. The BBFC on the otherhand certified it using the hyphenated format: [3] (the BBFC always issue the certificate under the title it was submitted under, but titles do get altered last minute so it's feasible they dropped the hyphen). What we really need is for someone with the film to check the copyright notice that comes right at the end of the film after the credits, which will be the real copyrighted title. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    Betty, I checked the film and the title does not come after the credits. The only title that I can see which is official is on the copyright notice on the back of the UK Blu-ray/DVD case. Hallows Horcruxes 09:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No established usage. This seems to just be change for the sake of change. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – enough with the page moves, if you think 'nobody' is going to find this article when they're looking for it then create redirects for all the pages you think users might try to go to. Next we'll have requests for a move to all the separators, -/–/—/,/; … and if we've moved the a half dozen times all the those variations but with "One" instead of "1", pretty sure we can keep going like that. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is how the title is displayed in the copyright text of the Part 1 UK Blu-ray/DVD. It is the official title. This article does not need to be moved again. Hallows Horcruxes 08:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haNGZHBwzWx4JYnqThx2cclK4keQ?docId=6982dedd0c3849af81478db25327135a
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_1/Archive_3&oldid=1136273610"