Talk: Harry Potter

Archive
The talk page has the following archives: Archive 1 Archive 2

Article style

this artical needs to be from a in-universe perspective. I am making some chances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.65.123.157 (talk • contribs).

I think Harry is very powerful

He was able produce a corporeal Patronus at the age of thirteen which is impressive. The D.A. and Madam Bones were all very impressed.  What she said was; "Impressive", said Madam Bones, staring down at him, "a true Patronus at that age... very impressive indeed." (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix)  considering the vast majority of wizards and witches can't even produce a tangable one. It says here on the wiki on the page dedicated to the charm that "any form of Patronus, and to create an intangible one is generally considered a sign of great magical power". in my opion that's why the majority of the wizarding work can't produce a Patronus because very powerful aren't the norm. In the Prisoner of Azkaban whan Harry cast his Patronus to drive away the hundards of Demintors it was said that "it must have been a really powerful wizard to drive away all those dementores away" (Hermione Granger). Another sign of prove is during the Battle of Hogwarts when Luna, Ernie, and Seamus cast their Patronus's the dementors didn't scatter but, whan Harry cast his "the dementors scattered in earnest." not everyone could cast a Patronus that was in the D.A. only 8 kids not including Harry out of 36 could cast it. So like I said the majority can't.

More evidence is shown in his shield charm and stunning spell. The shield Charm is a difficult spell and most adult wizards and witches can't produce a functional one it's stated in the Half-Blood Prince. And yet not only was harry alble to cast this spell at fourteen but, was also able to display a powerful mastery of it surpassing Ministry employees. His shield ws so powerful that it was able to knock snape of his feet when he tried to jinx Harry in the Half-Blood Prince. His stunning spells was so strong that people would be knocked unconscious if hit directly.

Harry is also able to preform Unforgivable Curses the three most powerful spells in the wizarding world there use requires great willpower and skill and yet Harry was completely able to cast a Cruciatus Curse so powerful that "The death Eater was lefted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a crunch and a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of the bookcase and crumpled, insensible to the floor" '(Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows).

Thier not saying that Harry's more powerful then the teachers. Thier saying that he's powerful for his age and compairing Harry that was still a student during the books to much older and fully fledged wizards isn't fair. Think about how powerful he'll be when he's their age.

and just so you know Harr's grades weren't average they were above average.

Astronomy: A (acceptable)

Care of Magical Creatures: E (exceeds expectation)

Charms: E (exceeds expectation)

Defense Against the Dark Arts: O (outstanding)

Divination: P (poor)

Herbology: E (exceeds expectations)

History of Magic: D (dreadful)

Potions: E (exceeds expectations)

Transfiguration: E (exceeds expectations)

Outstanding obviously means outstanding to be great at it, exceeds expectation means to go beyond what is expected which isn't average it means your good at it, if it was average than why didn't everyone exceed expectations at potions. There was 40 kids in Harr's year and only 12 made it to N.E.W.T. level potions. Acceptable is average because it's the lowest passing grade, it means your ok at it. The only reason Harry failed History of Magic is because he fainted durring the exam and divination is his worst subject.

Not everything Harry has accomplished has been down to luck because luck will only get you so far. What really helped and he said so himself is your brains and your guts. And dumbledore's view of Harry wasn't biased he was the only one to see through Tom Riddle and he was even said to extraordinarlly insightful to point were he seemed almost omnishant. And anyone knows that McGonagall  a Gyrffindor dosen't give praise unless it's do. The peaple how were impressed with and complemented Harry's Patronus at the disciplinary hearing were not all Gryffindor's. In the Deathly Hallows Dumbledore says that the other teachers that he is talented and the last time I checked thae weren't all Gyriffindors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misskatniss1546 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts. As for an actual reply, can you be more specific on what changes you think should be made in the article? -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 01:27, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Did you really expect him to bet Snape in a duel he's 20 years older than Harry. Let's speculate here Harry started Auror traing at 17 and became Head Auror by age 26, so he would have to be a skillful duelist cause they don't make just anyone Head Auror. So let's take a 36 year old Snape vs a 36 year old Harry and I think they would be evenly matched or Harry would be better.

by the way it is notted that Voldemoret is not insane Dumbledore said that his mind, body, and magical powers were still whole and it would take a wizard of uncommon skill and power to bet him. - Misskatniss1546 (talk) 18:35, December 13, 2013

Please don't erase other user's comments. Also, you didn't answer the question: what's the point of this you are pointing out? Is there anything in the article you wish to see changed? Please try to be more specific. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:32, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to HalfBloodWitch's post. I'll resond on her talk page next time.

Misskatniss1546 (talk) 02:42, December 16, 2013 (UTC)misskatniss1546

I wonder if it's possible to fix the speculation on Harry Potter's wandless magic in wiki page? It feel more conjecture than actual fact. Harry Potter has never shown actual control over wandless magic, accidental magic is NOT wandless and shouldn't be confused so. Accidental magic at age 13 is to stress his anger and his lack of discipline, and shouldn't be read as the testament of his power.

I think the line where "This further testifies to Harry's skill, as only some of the most powerful wizards of his time were able to do so." is very biased, as every wizards are shown to have displayed accidental magic. The mark of Tom Riddle's magical maturity has been his control over his magic, not the lack of control over it.

I think Harry is definitely among the more powerful magical student of his year, and his duelling skill is top-notch. However, he is far from the level of young Tom Riddle and listing "wandless magic" as part of his skill is exceptionally misleading. Even his nonverbal casting is only up to par when he is not aggravated, also testament of his own lack of magical control. Cassius1989 (talk) 14:28, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

HP magical skills and abilities: bravery item and editor-only instruction about Occlumency

Two points:

1) The pertinence of the "Bravery" item is probably a matter of opinion, but I would like to see a reason why it should be removed. Now I've come to think about it, what about "Love"? even though the magical implication of love may be clearer than of bravery.

2) There is no reason to remove the editor-only instruction about not adding Occlumency to the magical skills section. That HP failed to master it may be obvious to some editors, but not others - there should at least be a good canon-based justification for its removal.

MinorStoop 22:45, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

No I todally agree about him not mastering Occlumency, it was a mistake that I removed it.

The reason I think love has magical implication is beacuse there is an entire room in the Department of Mestories devoted to it, which is ever locked. If love didn't have any magical properties then you wouldn't be able to servive the killing curse trough Scrafical Protection, the ultimate form of love willingness to die for the person or people you love, allowing them to servive the most powerful curse there is. If love didn't have magical properties then Harry wouldn't have been able to make Quirrell's skin burn when he tried to murder him, only powerful magic can do that. I don't see bravery as a magical ability or skill of some sort but, more of a personality trait. I see it more as something that shapes how you are not what your able to do through ability or skill.

Misskatniss1546 (talk) 03:37, January 9, 2014 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

Harry and Ginny, THIRD COUSINS?

Harry and his wife, Ginny are third cousins? If you see the family tree, you'll know. By the way, James is Dorea and Charlus Potter's son, so they are NOT third cousins, once removed. AB Ng (talk) 02:29, April 16, 2014 (UTC)

We do not, for sure know that they are third cousins. It is speculated that Dorea and Charlus are James' parents, but this is still only speculation. Kaesy Mereida Rowle (talk) 02:18, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

changing the picture

I think a change in picture is in order the one we have now frankly isn't good enough. It's poor quality and there are better one out there we can use. We should open a poll and have a vote since that seems to be the only way to change the picture despite it's poor quality.

Misskatniss1546 (talk) 01:44, June 5, 2014 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

Photo needs fixing. Vandalized. I suggest restricting, or locking key pages. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:43, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

Home

Pottermore tells us that the Potters live in London. Should we make an article for their home, or can we assume that Harry, rightful owner of 12 Grimmauld Place in London, would make use of the place as his family home? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:49, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

I would create a separate article. If we assumed everything, then nothing here would be canon, and we'd end up like Twilight: with catagories titled "Hot Picxs of Edward Cullen". Not Kidding. Kaesy Mereida Rowle (talk) 02:14, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Hermione's Surname

Could Herminone's surname in the family section of the information box be changed from Weasley to Granger, to reflect the change made to her page after the new Pottermore evidence from Rita Skeeter's coverage of the Quidditch World Cup that married Hermione kept her surname? Rosie Sourbut (talk) 11:23, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Would anybody be able to do this? Rosie Sourbut (talk) 06:58, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have noticed that many people tend to change the infobox image, despite the fact that it was voted on by the community. Does anyone think we should add a <!-- warning above the image coding like Hermione Granger's article? Professor Nerdy (Owl Post) (Contrib's) 22:48, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Somebody ruined Info box, I think it was the most recent user. I can't fix it, have no experience with that. Zane T 69 (talk) 05:01, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I vote to change Harry Potter’s profile picture on his info box.

Contents Flaw.

The contents thing listing years, personality and abilities. Is missing the relationships part of the page common in other important pages. Vandalism I suspect, I advise locking page. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:49, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

It's doubtful that it's an act of vandalism. More likely it's an error in the formatting or coding, possibly due to the length of the page and/or the large number of subsections. - Nick O'Demus 08:58, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Given the multiple potential causes, we could condense the page, remove redundancies. Until then we could create a page: Harry Potter/Relationships, copy/paste the info there, Avatar wiki does that, it looks nice. I suck at formatting/coding, but i'l scan for redundancies, try shortening page until then, I'l aim to do it in minimal edits incase you disapprove, I or you can easily revert, or maybe a Expand/Collapse option like here. I found how to do and experimented in my Sandbox, heres the link

 Zane T 69 (talk) 00:50, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

I experimented, emulated another wiki. Did it in one edit. @Admins, I did it in one edit so it can be easily reverted if its not liked, by admins. It didn't work, but it looks nicer IMO, Again I suggest making a relationships page. Which I may experiment on in my Sandbox. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Relationship page created, I wanna make sure its off similar quality to main/original section. Iv done all I can I think btw, but it looks ok.

 Zane T 69 (talk) 17:00, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Me removing relationships section, replacing with link didn't solve content issue, We could replace the horcux hunt sections with another subpage listing everything. Also someone removed the Expand/collapse options which i added, to lighten the loading process, being able to select what you wanna see rather than getting everything at once. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:48, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

Consulted other users, they say page may be too long. So again I suggest moving Horcrux hunt history, down to end game to another page listing it, like did with Relationships. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:35, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

Problem fixed. -- Saxon 09:57, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

So it turned out to be just a misplaced Quote template. Good to know. Thanks! - Nick O'Demus 10:32, January 26, 2015 (UTC)

Relation to the Gaunts

I noticed that Harrypotter394 recently made this addition to the page. Per the family infobox guidelines, family should be limited to two generations, and notable distant relatives can be an exception. But as distant relatives of Voldemort, are the Gaunts notable enough to warrant inclusion as Harry's family? Distant relatives of a distant relative seems like a bit of a stretch to me. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 20:03, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no. The exception is made for "notable distant relatives", not "relatives of notable distant relatives". The Gaunts have no real significance to Harry except through Voldemort. - Nick O'Demus 20:22, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Possession vs. ownership

The succession box added by USN1977 needs to be edited; USN1977 appears in several cases to have possession (the item in question is among your worldly goods) confused with ownership (you have legal title to the item). These are two separate concepts, and neither of them implies the other.

Take the first entry, the Invisibility Cloak; to my mind, the ownership of this passed to Harry immediately on his father's death, but it was at that time in the possession of Professor Dumbledore, and remained so for ten years until he handed the Cloak to Harry, from which point Harry had both possession and ownership. The distinction is because James loaned his Cloak to Dumbledore; it was a loan, not a gift, so James relinquished the possession but retained the ownership. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:23, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

Length

This page is extremely long. So long, in fact, that my browser actually crashes the tab when I try to edit this page as a result of link suggest and other things. The page also takes forever to load because of the excessive GIF's present on the page, which slow up loading times. Not good for people with slow broadband speeds.

I'd like to propose that the "Relationships" section be split into a separate article called "Harry Potter's Relationships" and a link left to the new page on here. However, it should be written as a page relating to his relation with other character's he's interacted with significantly and should not degrade into a page where we discuss his romantic relationships or a list of characters he's never talked to.

This should significantly help with page loading times and editing of the article in general. What's the opinion of the community?

I should note that some other wiki's of popular series have done the same for their "titular character" and is quite common in general with most "title characters" who have a huge role in a franchise. --Sajuuk 18:32, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

As the last editor of this page as of the timestamp, I agree. I had to go to the specific section to add what I added; it went to the "Aw, snap!" page as soon as I hit Ctrl-V.ThroningErmine8 (talk) 19:06, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, some of the pages, like Harry Potter and other main characters, I have massive load issues and crashes. One thing that came to mind when I was reading Saj's suggestion, on the Dragon Age Wiki, they do sub articles for like all the dialogue, so like for example, they give a brief overview on the main article and a link to the subpage, same with relationships, though on that wiki relationships are called Approval cuz well game reasons xD. I think whatever is decided though it should be done uniform, we don't want to do just Harry's article like that, we'd need to figure out what the cut off point would be for articles, like relationships sections with more than x relationships or more than xxxx space being used up should get a subpage, etc.  BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.  19:17,3/4/2016 

That signature is huge in source. :O

Back to the discussion: I agree a cut off point should be had. I think any page over 200,000 bytes should be split up. This limits the splitting to just major characters and not just minor villains. 200k bytes should cover most of the larger character articles imo. --Sajuuk 19:21, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

I think templates would do it, although they can be irritable since you have to link to them before editing them. Sub pages would work, although they also have their disadvantages. So I think I'll go with what the majority says, until further notice. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:27, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

The idea I had was to move the content to another page, then leave something like this:

== Relationships ==
{{Main|Harry Potter's Relationships}}
Harry has had many relations with other people, mostly friendships, but he has also had romantic relationships with some and even a mutual hatred for others.

I think this would be suitable imo. I don't think the relationship content should get listed here on this article, moving it to another page keeps it tidier. --Sajuuk 10:18, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter's relationships has been made. I've done some preliminary cleanup of the content and removed some non-notable relationships that Harry had. The page will have a comment warning, indicating that only "notable" relationships should be added: that is, people should not add random students Harry has never spoken to, same with any other person in the series. --Sajuuk 10:30, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

Also Known As

I don't know whether you have a discussion for this kind of thing elsewhere - I looked! But I have looked through the "Also Known As" part of the infobox and found a lot of names which don't seem to make sense as something a person would be officially known as. A lot of them are insults such as "Scarhead" and "Potter the Plotter" so they don't really belong there. The same goes for one time pet names such as "Sweetheart" and "My Dear Boy" which could be put under the relationship title under the name of the person who said it. Also Known As is something someone is officially known as either by choice or bestowed upon them for a good enough purpose so "Boy who Lived" or "Chosen One" or a name they chose as a secret identity/an alias. But "Patronus Potter" and "Potter Wee Potty" and especially "Friend of Hagrid" too don't really belong there. I don't mind if you don't agree but I wanted to know if they can be removed or whether you have already had a consensus on it so it will get changed back if I do remove them? Thank you! :) -- May32 (Talk) 14:29, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

See the AKA requirements here: Harry_Potter_Wiki:Character_infobox_guidelines#.22Also_known_as.22_field. Some of the values for Harry probably abide by the requirements, and some probably do not. Probably best to add refs to support those entries that should be kept. --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:24, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I had a read through the guidelines and Harry's infobox has a few names I think should be removed. There is a lot of generic insults such as

• Scarhead
• Potter the Plotter
• Saint Potter
• Precious Potter
• Patronus Potter
• Potty Wee Potter

And there are one time pet names. I agree sweetheart and dear boy may stay because they were often used but:

• Parry Otter - this also goes against the guideline that there can be no mispronunciations or mix-ups
• Mr Perkins - another mix up
• Friend of Hagrid

They were also only really used once - along with a few of the insults - and the guidelines state they have be referenced as such more than once to be put in the infobox. The rest of names sound good because they were used more than once properly or were for a purpose. Let me know what you think! -- -- May32 (Talk) 14:42, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Before removing any of these let me check my ebooks for capitalization and times used. I know Potty-wee Potter for instance was repeatedly used by Peeves, so if it has caps it should stay. Same for Aragog's use of Friend of Hagrid I believe, but let me confirm. Anyone else with the ebooks want to help search for refs? --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:53, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

I have e-books too so I will also look.-- May32 (Talk) 14:42, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Potty wee Potty and just Potty is used more than once. Potty wee Potter is not in caps in the Chamber of Secrets. He is next called that in the Order of the Phoenix but that time it is in caps. He is simply called Potty for the first time in the Prisoner of Azkaban and then again in the Order of the Phoenix several times - more times than Potty wee Potter is ever used. He is just called Potty in the Half Blood Prince a few times but then he is neither referred to as Potty wee Potter or Potty in the Deathly Hallows. I think on this basis we keep Potty wee Potter because he was called it at least three times or Potty because it was used several times in caps and it's not a terrible insult - it was said in good faith.

Friend of Hagrid is only used once in the Chamber of Secrets and then once in a question in the Order of the Phoenix but it is in low caps. I don't think it counts properly as something someone is also known as or an alias so I still vote to remove that one - everyone is a friend of Hagrid! The rest of them were generic insults or one time names so they I think they should still go. -- May32 (Talk) 14:42, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Potter the Plotter

When was "Potter the Plotter" said in the books by Peeves? I went through my ebooks and actual books to any mention of Peeves and he never says it. The word "plotter" is not even said in the books once by anyone. When I typed it in google too, I didn't find anything which says he was ever named this. He was named "Plotter?" in a newspaper made for the films, which isn't an alias - it's a question. So I don't know why "Potter the Plotter" was put in the infobox. Let me know what you think. --May32 (talk) 16:17, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - good edit. Parry Otter also should be removed (one mention, mis-pronouncement), as well as Mr Perkins (one mention by Binns). Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:43, July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I removed them and I think they were the only names left which didn't seem right so I think everything else in the infobox looks fine now. Thank you for your input - good work :) --May32 (talk) 22:07, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Harry James Potter... Evans?

Well, we know the full name is "Harry James Potter" but being the son of both James Poter and Lily Evans... How is that is not "Harry James Potter 'Evans'"? It should be logical, right, or they explained in the books why he did not have the Evans part?

Setokayba (talk) 20:43, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

Most people's surnames (including mine) are their father's surname only and not their mother's also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:21, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

New Main Image Vote

This is a Featured Article, and the character this whole universe is created around. And we can do much better in terms of quality for the imfobox image. So I think it's time to bring it to a vote.

Deathly Hallows Promo 1

1. It was between this one and Promo 2 for me. But this one shows his scar, which I think is important for the infobox image. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 03:55, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows Still 2

• I prefer this one or Deathly Hallows Promo 1. I really think the main picture needs updating. - Kates39 (talk) 14:41, January 14, 2017 (UTC)
• --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:42, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

A little much don't you think? There are no strings on me (talk) 04:06, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

Skin Colour

There is no canonical evidence that says "Harry James Potter is light-skinned" and it would be more accurate to say that it is unknown. Film/movie casting cannot be considered canonical because it does not technically agree nor disagree with book canon; taking it as simply canon ignores the general white-dominated film industry being biased to white actors. Plus, there are a lot of undertones from Dursleys within the books that can take Vernon Dursley's attitude towards James Potter in particular to be not only anti-magic but also racist. Please reconsider this Wikia's idea of why a character is considered to be only assumedly white.

Matriarchy (talk) 22:29, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Honestly, I seriously disagree that it should be listed as unknown. I'm not quite sure exactly what my reasons are, as I'm not sure how to express them into words, but I just don't think it's a good idea. Unless others can give me a reason as to why I should support your theories, I'm opposing them. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:35, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter, as this basically implies that because his skin color is not stated, it is assumed to be white, which is a white-normative attitude of thinking especially since the text does not explicitly state it. Additionally it means that interpretations otherwise can be considered "non-canonical," when again, interpreting Harry as dark-skinned does not go against any canon text at all. The text does not comment on Harry's race or ethnic origin, which does not by any means mean that he is white. I would not want to list Harry's skin color as dark/black either, as again, the text does not make this explicit. Therefore it would be the most accurate to say it is unknown, because it is unknown.

Matriarchy (talk) 22:50, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

He's shown to be white in each portrayal. This isn't an issue of a "white-normative attitude of thinking" or any other Tumblr diagnosis. -- Saxon 10:24, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Saxon. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:25, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

What is this, Buzzfeed? Illustrations of him on Pottermore depict him as white, as does his Chocolate Frog Card from Rowling's old official site. - 12:23, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention Rowling's own personal drawings of him. - 12:26, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sources which show Harry in drawings made by J.K. Rowling herself, which should sort things out. There is no assumption. It is just the way Rowling has always envisioned them and there is nothing wrong with that. -- Kates39 (talk) 12:42, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

We discussed this quite a bit in the past and came to the conclusion that physical descriptors for book characters need to be based on book info and not actor portrayals. The need for this becomes most particularly clear when you have varing actors portraying a role such as with Lavender Brown, but the principle is applied to all characters. As such, JKR drawings are secondary and supportive evidence, but books refs are needed. I'll continue searching the ebooks, but Harry is particularly difficult because of the sheer number of mentions so all help is appreciated to see if JKR did or did not provide this info in text. --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:25, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Anything from Rowling is Tier 1 Canon, including her personal sketches. There are no conflicting sources here. - 18:53, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that her sketches are not actually listed in Harry Potter Wiki:Canon - probably worth adding in for clarity. If anything from JKR is Tier 1 Canon (and her newest info is the most canon) then Hermione can be a black woman? --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:07, March 26, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we all know Rowling left Harry's ethnicity up to our imaginations, but didn't Rowling say she always imagined Harry looking like Daniel Radcliffe? I mean, I personally don't imagine Harry looking like Radcliffe, but Rowling saying "That's always how I imagined Harry would look" about Radcliffe is actually a valid argument and if you want proof for the infobox, I say this is about the most valid argument I've come across, maybe consider using that if you insist he must be white? It's the only valid proof besides the drawings, the rest hsow he was fearful or something. Slim it Greenie (talk) 23:13, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Rowling herself stated these things about Harry: She wouldn't let them use an American actor because Harry was British, and she said, "That's always how I imagined Harry would look" when she saw Radcliffe. So, the infobox can stay, this validates it, though I think theories and imagination are fine. And how can I add these things to the proof, just wondering? Rey swung her staff at your head and (talk) 00:24, December 30, 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with Matriarchy, people always get mad at me when I argue against infoboxes because of the consensus and voting systems that I don't understand. I say it can stay because of Slim it Greenie's point. Also,Slim it Greenie, work on your spelling. Hermione is a Ravendor Jedi Master (talk) 00:33, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

Full bio

So in adding Harry's bio from Second year we're starting to see some issues in that the Table of Contents is maxed out and not displaying headers after this section. While there are ways around this (remove section headers within a year, change TOC depth of display, remove TOC altogether, etc) I think it's an early sign of bigger problems we're going to encounter when trying to post his entire bio to this page.

I would suggest we use the summary paragraphs from before but with main article links and move the detailed version of each year into the school year page e.g. 1991–1992 school year. I know historically these have been for a view of the year for the average student and not Harry-related events, and I think that overview should be the opening sections of the article, but I think these pages are the right place to hold a detailed Events section for all events for the year. Currently these pages try to point to the book articles for the details, but that fails to integrate events from other adaptations (Flipendo!). While a 'Harry Potter's first year at Hogwarts' article would also work, this fails to integrate it with other details known about the same school year. Thoughts for or against this approach? --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:50, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

New Image Needed

This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Hey. I really think the image for Harry needs to be updated to a better one. Can we please have a proper vote this time (judging by an above post where a vote was held earlier this year, voted on and then forgotten about) and actually change the image? Ron and Hermione have proper promo pics where you can see their faces properly, like with the majority of characters, and I think Harry needs to have one of that kind of quality too, rather than a still from the film? Personally I think one of these two are the best -

Deathly Hallows Promo 1

Deathly Hallows Promo 2

Thank you. - RoseKate13 (talk) 15:56, December 23, 2017 (UTC)

The vote above wasn't forgotten about; none of the proposed images achieved the necessary majority. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:26, December 23, 2017 (UTC)

It kind of was. The idea was proposed and then just dropped because it needed more attention, not because anyone had a problem with the idea. Can we at least have another vote, because there are better pictures? How many votes are needed until a majority is reached? - RoseKate13 (talk) 17:45, December 23, 2017 (UTC)

I like this one https://harrypotterbooks.fandom.com/wiki/Harry_Potter -- Maxikelley62063 0:33, June 27, 2020

I quite like the second one. -- Saxon 02:58, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

I also vote on the second one; wasn't even aware the current image was supposed to be the actual current image; I find it awkward at best with the weird foreground.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:31, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

There's also file:Harry Potter.jpg I suppose, the one that apparently was casually swapped to (did not check to see who did it) but actually looked fitting imo. How many votes do we need again? I thought it was +3? If my vote is counted towards option #2 (since seriously, I think any of the 3 would have been better than the current one,) RoseKate13 voting either of the 2, and Saxon also liked #2, can this count as having it decided?

Also, back in Talk:Harry Potter#New Main Image Vote, 1 person voted for either of the options #1/#2 mentioned here, another voted for either the option #1 here or file:Harry Potter DH1 still 2.png, while Seth just voted for Harry Potter DH1 still 2.png; since it doesn't look like that vote is closed, should we just relocate the votes here and combine them to that one? Would that then mean:

• Deathly Hallows Promo 1
  • User:JMAS (or Promo 2)
  • User:Kates39 (or Still 2)
  • User:RoseKate13 (or Promo 2)
• Deathly Hallows Promo 2
  • User:JMAS (or Promo 1)
  • User:RoseKate13 (or Promo 1)
  • User:Jack "BtR" Saxon
  • User:Sammm鯊 (I'm disregarding the complication of a new candidate for now)
• Deathly Hallows Still 2
  • User:Kates39 (or Promo 1)
  • User:Seth Cooper

And that should no one else vote for Promo 1 and Still 2, does it mean if Promo 2 gets another 2 votes, it can be seen as the majority? In that scenario it'd be:

• Promo 1: 3 votes
• Promo 2: 6 votes
• Still 2: 2 votes

I'm just trying to see if there's a way to make this process proceed faster, because I think people who participated at least clearly all preferred the infobox image to be changed.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 04:27, September 10, 2018 (UTC)

Changing the Infobox image

Hey can I change the Harry Potter profile picture please?Maxikelley62063 (talk) 20:44, June 27, 2020 (UTC))

Hi there. Infobox images for main characters have generally been voted in by the community and so any changes need to be discussed and voted on. I would also note that the articles generally use the latest representation of a character that is of high quality. You'd probably want to gather together some options that fit this criteria and present them here for people to consider and discuss. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:59, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

2010s

There appears to be some overlap between the events of the Cursed Child and Wizards Unite. How should we go about covering the latter events in conjunction with CC in an orderly manner? Tfoc (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Harry Potter at Kings Cross 2008?

I was reading the Ollivander article, I will write a question on that talk page in the next day or two for that question, but it ultimately led me to the Harry Potter: Magic Awakened playthrough as I always incorrectly assume that Ollivander is dead. Anyway, I was looking through the playthrough and unless there is a change that I did not recognize, Harry Potter is at Kings' Cross station in 2008. This troubles me because I cannot think of a canon reason that he would be there. His godson, Teddy, does not start school until 2009 since he was born in April 1998 based on the books and even Victoire, who is the eldest of the Weasley/Potter clan, does not enter Hogwarts until 2010, most likely 2011, per that article's lengthy discussion some years ago and the fact that she is on the train in the epilogue. So with that in mind, is there a reason, that we have in canon somwhere, that Harry would be at Kings Cross during that time? I cannot seem to find a clear answer to this.

MrOptimistic1001 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps he is giving a DADA lecture like JKR mentioned in an interview? Personally I don't really think there need to be a clear answer to this. People visit their mother schools, there's nothing strange about that. Or that he is going elsewhere from other platforms, not Hogwarts at all. MalchonC (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the most likely case it seems other than potential auror business or seeing off somebody else's kid that we have not heard about. I agree that this is a miniscule moment but was just curious as if there were any rationale behind it besides the obvious fan service. Anyway, thank you for your response, MalchonC. MrOptimistic1001 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WU newspaper

This article announces that the Golden Trio joins the Ministry of Magic, but it looks like they do it at the same time, even though Rowling mentioned in interviews that Harry and Ron joined as Aurors immediately after the Battle of Hogwarts, while Hermione returned to the school to complete her N.E.W.T.s. Does this mean that Harry and Ron was, formally speaking at least, working as interns and getting on the job training working with fully qualified Aurors, and then one year after they joined the Ministry, they had completed the temporarily laxed version of the employment process Kingsley proscribed for those who was of age and survived the battle, and then they joined the Ministry officially speaking, and their formal employment conceded with Hermione's joining of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It means that image is completely non-canon due to what you say JK mentioned in an interview. WU is only tier-three canon, after all. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, but how does Rowling saying that Harry Potter and Ron Weasley joined the Ministry one year before Hermione Granger did exclude this article's announcement of the trio joining the Ministry in an official capacity, exactly? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Is joining the Ministry "in an official capacity" at a later date than the original time one joined the ministry an actual thing that happens at the Ministry as confirmed by a canon source, or a theoretical thing you came up with simply as a possible explanation for the image? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I would have to say the former. In book 5, Harry asks Tonks if she's an Auror. ('Yeah,' said Tonks, looking proud. 'Kingsley is as well, he's a bit higher up than me, though. I only qualified a year ago.') and that pretty much confirms that you haven't really joined the ranks of the Auror Office until you have passed the training programme to become one. She only qualified a year ago, so she's only been employed at the Auror Office for one year. And then we have Umbridge, who began her career as an intern in the Improper Use of Magic Office.

Apparently, there's a training/trial period for first-time job applicants at the Ministry to make sure they're cut out for it before they become actual employees. And it makes sense; functionally speaking, Harry, Ron and Neville would be Aurors, because Kingsley wanted them to help "finish the job", as Rowling called it, so the year spent "in training" would be more of a formality. Sort of show the public that the Ministry was back on track.

I think that based on the above, the article seen above would be the by-product of Ministry procedures, bureaucracy and public opinion. It'd be in character for Kingsley to want the magical community to see that the Ministry was doing things properly again after the Death Eaters lost control of it. It'd be a part of their efforts to de-corrupt the Ministry. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Harry and Ron didn't spend a year in training, because one, "Kingsley permitted those who had fought in the final battle to become Aurors without getting their N.E.W.T.s, as surviving such a battle satisfied the skill and character requirements" (which sounds like they became aurors immediately tbh), and two, Auror training was a 'three-year long programme anyway, not one. I doubt Kingsley would make Battle of Hogwarts participants go through that training, for the same reason that they didn't have to sit N.E.W.T.s. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, those objections should be easy enough to address, I think.

1) I would like to challenge the notion that the quote implies that they would become Aurors immediately. To me, it sounds more like those who survived the Battle of Hogwarts, was of age and fought on the right side was simply taken accepted into the training programme without having to undergo the usual aptitude and character tests that otherwise required to qualify for it, as they had already proven that they could react well under pressure. If anything, I would compare Kingsley's invitation of young war veterans more to an older Harry Potter reviewing Penelope Padgett's accomplishments in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and subsequently offering her a place in the training programme as seen in WU than anything else. Also, remember that there were more to Aurors than a good duellist.

2) While it takes three full years to complete the Auror Training Programme as a general rule, there's always the odd exception to it. Penelope Padgett for instance, impressed Harry by completing the training programme in two years instead of the usual three. And given the overriding need to round up the fleeing Voldemort supporters after the Battle of Hogwarts and the special arrangements that was already in place for young war veterans wanting to join the ranks of the Auror Office, it could very well be that the training they got was more of a crash course.

WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"could well be" is not good enough to write about it in an article as if it definitely is the case. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't argue semantics, dude, come on. Whether or not you'd call it a "crash course" specifically is kind of beside the point, so all you got from the above was "could well be", I'm not sure where to go from here. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Don't argue semantics, dude"? Now who have I heard that sentence from before?

Sigh. Look, J. K. Rowling said in an interview that Hermione completed her seventh year at Hogwarts and then joined Harry and Ron at the ministry. Harry and Ron joined the ministry, then Hermione joined a year later, that's what Rowling is saying there. That newspaper article presents it as if all three joined the ministry simultaneously. Thus it breaks canon. I mean, why would the papers wait a whole year to make a song and dance about the fact that Harry Potter joined the ministry anyway? I'm not "arguing semantics", I'm arguing common sense, and canon policy. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  01:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

I don't know where you've heard it before. If you put a gun to my head and told me to guess, I'd say... YouTube? Just about every other atheist call-in show have had a host or caller accuse one another of arguing semantics, from The Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen to the more recent Sceptic Generation. I've also heard it used on some religious ones, though not as often. And then there's dozens upon dozens of recordings from debate servers on Discord where people have accused each other of arguing semantics. Not always correctly applied, of course, but it is a thing. Anyway, do you have a link or quote from the interview you mentioned so we can see it exactly like she said it?

Because technically speaking, Harry and Ron would have been with the Ministry for a year by that point. Are there anything that says specifically that they were employed by the time she joined the Ministry? Because as long as it does not directly contradict Rowling's words or writing, second and third-tier canon are valid, aren't they? We should be sure before we dismiss it so we don't dismiss information that belong in the articles, even if it can seem counter-intuitive to our common sense. Better safe than sorry, right?

Also, we don't know that the Daily Prophet waited a year to announce that Harry was with the Ministry. For all we know, Harry could have been referenced in articles before then, but that it was only a year later where he joined officially as a fully-fledged employee, and then when Hermione came along, the article announcing the three of them "joining Ministry ranks" could be partially about how "the trio's back together after a year apart." WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If the Prophet had already run stories on Harry being at the ministry before this one, it would be a little silly for it to be titled 'HOGWARTS HEROES JOIN THE MINISTRY' as if readers hadn't already known that for the past year.

Anyway yes, here is a link to the interview, and she says it pretty much like I said it. At one point it says "Of course [Hermione]'d go back. She has to get her N.E.W.T.s. Ron was really done with schooling. It would be kind of tempting to go back just to mess around for a year and have a break, but he goes into the Auror department.", and at one point "[Hermione] would be glad to go back to school, be glad to get back to study, and then would join [Ron and Harry] at the Ministry.". -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  10:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MrSiriusBlack. I think the Harry Potter: Wizards Unite newspaper contradicts what Rowling herself has stated. She says: "[Ron] goes into the Auror department. He's needed [...] Ron, Neville, Harry and they would've all gone, and they would've all done the job" [...] "to go through that battle and then be religated to the sidelines, I think they would've felt a need to keep going and finish the job. So that would've been rounding up, really, the corrupt people". So they did join the Ministry and get into action right away, while Hermione spent a year studying at Hogwarts. The newspaper article's not accurate.

They worked for the Auror Office, so of course they were being employed. They have a very stringent training process, so they can't be just be out rounding Death Eaters up when they have to do three-years worth of at least twelve very stringent tests to determine whether they can in fact do the job. They were given an exception, and didn't even need the school qualifications to join.

I too feel very concerned about sockpuppetry, and I've been waiting for Seth Cooper or an admin to intervene. I feel the behaviour has been identical to that of Ninclow and their sockpuppets. I know that these accounts used to talk about things like "atheists" too, and it's getting very glaring the longer these kind of conversations keep happening. - Kates39 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would it be silly? A newspaper covers big stories and small stories and everything in between based on how eventful the past few days have been, why would the news that "Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley and Hermione Granger have all signed employment contracts and become official members of the Ministry family" be any different?

Well, given the framing of the events by the headline above, since Rowling didn't say anything definitive about them officially occupying Ministry positions, technically speaking, it would be correct to say that she joined them at the Ministry would be accurate even if they hadn't officially joined the ranks of the governing body yet, but they would absolutely be frequenting the Ministry on a daily basis for on-the-job training. There's nothing to say that they didn't go into action right away, as pointed up again, the year in training before it was announced that Harry, Ron and Hermione had all gotten full-time jobs could've been more of a formality. Especially if Harry was so busy rounding up Death Eaters that the topic of what he would do once "the job" was done had never been discussed in the media and Neville had already left to work at Hogwarts by then.

But I can see that I'm in the minority position, and we don't have to keep beating a dead horse. We can agree to disagree and leave it like it is, it's fine. I saw that the "Daily Prophet articles" page was lacking, so I figured I could update it a bit. I'll just skip this particular article when I edit it. -WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Family heritage

Is it possible to remove that section? Because I think that it is a bit misleading, since it is a brief description of the Potter family. The biography should introduce, from my point of view, the 'first steps' of the individual, not their genealogical background. If so, then articles such as Dumbledore, Minerva a Snape should have the same organisation. What do you think? LeFences ^Owlery 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How is Harry Potter never dies

That boy is invincible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakegames59 (talk • contribs).

Hello, talk pages are not for commentary about the article subjects, they should be for discussing how to improve the articles, thanks. MalchonC (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Introductory line

The article starts with "Harry James Potter (b.31 July 1980) was an English half-blood wizard, and one of the most famous wizards of modern times". Could the tense be changed to the present "is" since it may be misleading? Thank you and really appreciate the great work you have been doing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altair9713 (talk • contribs).

The whole wiki, more or less, is written in past tense because that's what the books are. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read our "past tense" policy, thanks. MalchonC (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Harry is not a half blood

Harry is not a half blood. Despite what Tom said his mom is a pure blood. It is mentioned that his mom was the head girl at hog warts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daughter of Zeus Thalia Grace (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 July 2022‎ (UTC).

Lily Potter was a muggleborn - therefore Harry is a half-blood. What does being Head Girl have to do with her blood staus? - 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

a pure blood is a wizard whose mother and father are a wizard and witch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daughter of Zeus Thalia Grace (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2022‎ (UTC).

Not true - if the mother is Muggle-born, the child is still considered to be half-blood. Only after many generations without having Muggle ancestry can one be considered pure-blood. Also please sign your talk page messages with four tides (~~~~). MalchonC (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Change the image

I know it was 'voted on by the community, but it is absolutely hideous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trident0101 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC).

The Boy Who Lies

In Harry Potter's also known as part of the article, it says he was called "The boy who lied". The book actually says "the boy who lies". Please read https://www.wizardingworld.com/features/biggest-lies-harry-potter-characters-told as it mentions it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenin14 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 March 2023‎ (UTC).

"Died briefly" in infobox

OK, so before I participate in an edit war: is there any other editor than User:ScripterBloxian who thinks that this is a good edit? Because I do not. Harry did not die, dying is by definition permanent; the infobox is there to quickly enable the reader to see whether someone is canonically dead and Harry is not. Luna Scamander (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Harry Potter did not die in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It is false information to say that he did. You were right to remove this the first time, although MrSiriusBlack has since removed it again. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

About the image currently in the infobox

While I am aware that changing the images requires voting, if I'm correct the current image was placed without any input during an ongoing vote (and it wasn't even a candidate), at least according to both the New Main Image Vote and New Image Needed topics found in this page.

Considering there was a vote, shouldn't the current infobox image theoretically be the one referred to as "Deathly Hallows Promo 2", that being this one, which was the one which got most votes? -ColovianHastur (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it needs changing regardless. It fits the policy, because is the highest quality, most recent image of Harry. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)