Book or Film?

Will this be written in universe based on the novels or the films? For example, the story describes what happens in the books, and in the end you can have a section of "differences between the films and books" or something like that. Or vice versa. Thoughts? - Squishy_Vic (Send an Owl)

It should stay book specific when applicable. A separate article about the differences would be okay. John Reaves 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are most of the pictures from PoA?

I find it awful that most pictures are from PoA. How about for Hermione her BEAUTIFUL pictures from GoF?


I'm going to get some screencaps from the films for this article tomorrow.

Anyone got any suggestions? --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  email  19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) The aspect ratio of the Harry as a baby picture is wrong. The screenshot probably comes from a DVD, which is anamorphic. The image should be streched by 33%.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


Well I could talk about this on this page only.I am amazed to see ads on every page of the Wiki. What are the doing here? All the previously running wiki projects are free from ads.

Harry and the last Horcrux

This is the only place I could think of writing this idea so please tell me a better place and what you think of the theory: what if Harry was the Last Horcrux. and whenever Voldemort attacked baby harry trying to get rid of the prophecy he actually helped the prophecy by accidentally making harry a horcrux because maybe the prophecy says Harry will sacrifice himself to kill Voldemort. Now I know that you have to take a soul to make a horcrux but maybe Voldemort put the last part of his soul (the part that is keeping his body alive) into Harry, so essentially voldemort's soul becomes one with Harry's. So I think harry is going to destroy all the horcruxes and learn he has to die to stop voldemort. Now i would really like it if the book skipped to like two to five years later or something and Ginny is pregnant that way harry dies with an heir, but i doubt that will happen. so let me know what you think.SilverSword 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind I found my own answer. User: 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and surrogate parent?

The book doesn't say anything about Teddy Lupin coming to live with Harry. He merely sees him at the Kings Cross. After all, Teddy had his grandmother to take care of him, so I don't know if it should be mentioned that Harry was the surrogate parent, because that is merely speculation and not reality. I think these simple words should be removed unless someone can provide evidence that Teddy actually went and lived with the Potters. User: 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) You're right, they never mention Teddy Lupin living with Harry, but he goes to their house a couple times a week. So he could be considered a surrogate parent. Skyreader 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

refrences to the real world

Can I please point out that as a Wiki were not allowed to have references to the real world (eg the titles of the books) in the main part of the article. As it is nearly every paragraph of this article starts with "In Harry Potter and the..." this needs to be sorted on nearly every article thank you.-KickAssJedi 08:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

wizards being related

It was clearly stated in the last books that all wizarding families were related in some way or another. Potter is half-blood, so he should be related to most wizarding families anyway. But somehow, all family ties that should be there are non-existent and the only family he has, are a bunch of muggles. Can anyone clarify this? 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Although all wizarding families may be related, that does not mean his direct family has survived at all. Saying all Wizarding familes are related is the same as saying all people in the world are related. Its true to an extent, but that doesn't mean you consider them all family. All it means is that at some point all the wizarding lines there are crossed, not that Harry has to have cousins or aunts and uncles. (P.S. Sign your talk edits.) -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to simply list the Weasleys in general as relatives rather than each and every one of the dozens of individual Weasleys? Mafalda Hopkirk 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Salazar Slytherin

In COS, Harry wonders about if he is related to Slytherin. In HBP, Marvolo Gaunt says he's related to the Peverells and Slytherin. That means Harry is somewhat related since he's related to Ignotus. Should Slytherin be in ancestor? Syugecin

He's not necessarily, their relatives could be on different sides of the family. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, but if he's related to the Peverells at all...the Peverell line has to start somewhere, and that would be the link. Hufflepuff Half-Giant 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see I misunderstood the question and answer. Yeah, they aren't necessarily related. Hufflepuff Half-Giant 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it's not said if Slytherin is related to the Peverell's at all. He could have married into part of the line but not necessarily mean being related to Harry.Dbones2009 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Harry is also distantly related, on his father's side, to the Blacks, Malfoys, the Weasleys, the Longbottoms.." that's disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Head Auror

Unless I missed a recent interview which is very unlikely, I missed her saying the year he became head auror. Therefore, I changed it back to how it was without the date saying by 2017 he was Head Auror.Dbones2009 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wizard of the Month on confirms he joined the Auror Department at the age of 17, and became the head in 2007. - Cavalier One 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you...Dbones2009 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Book 1

I was rereading this, and when HRH lose 150 points, the Gryffindor Qudditch team turns on Harry. The rest of the team I understand, but was anyone else surprised the Weasley twins turned on him? Cubs Fan2007 05:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, the group that loses 150 points is Harry, Neville and Hermione. Ron had nothing to do with it. I guess the Weasley twins were shocked that Harry & friends would actually lose 150 points from Gryffindor in one go. Probably not as shocked as the rest of the team, but they're not exactly as close to him as Ron, either. 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacrificial Protection

Does J.K. Rowling actually say that the students were given such a protection due to Harry's attempted sacrifice? I don't think merely dying for someone, or dying trying to prevent someone else from dying qualifies. Dumbledore suggested that it also requires a very deep love, such as the love Lily had for Harry. As much as Harry cared for those fighting against the Death Eaters, I don't think that it was quite the same. Maybe for some of them, but certainly not all of them. If dying for someone protected the other person from similar slaughter, it would happen a lot, such as when Voldemort killed that family in Deathly Hallows in his search for Gregorovitch. Those children didn't get the protection, yet their mother died for them. Any dang way, I'm really just asking if Rowling has SAID there was a protection due to Harry's attempted sacrifice, or if it is something assumed: "Die for someone, they are protected." Hufflepuff Half-Giant 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When Harry is dueling Voldemort he says that the reason that none of Voldemort's spells worked was because of that protection.

Voldemort may have learned from his past mistake, it never specified in Deathly Hollows that Voldemort actually killed the children in question while he was looking for Gregorovitch or, if he did, that he didn't use some non-magical method to finish them off.

Note on Recent Edit

Just wanted to let anyone know who comes across the page in the next hour, I started a section on Draco Malfoy and his relationship with Harry, but can't finish it just now. I will return in about 20 minutes to finish it. Mafalda Hopkirk 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing and inappropriate terms

With "good faith" in mind, my feelings are that in some cases, people have used inappropriate phrases some of these articles. For instance, in this article it lists Cho Chang as Harry's "love interest." I think this is bad and frankly sexist. Female characters have more value than just being love interests. Though I know Cho is a minor character, I feel it is disrespectful to the character, or at least the author, to discount a character as merely a "love interest." In another instance, such as the article on Perkins, someone put in his article that he's an "old deaf wizard" which is insensitive. I feel that personally as I'm partially deaf and I reworded it. Again i'm not trying to attack anyone for insensitivity, but we should be more mindful how we phrase things. In an encyclopedia, we should word things like we would word an article on ourselves, no? Mafalda Hopkirk 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Describing someone as a "love interest" of Harry does not mean they have no value, etc. It simply means that Harry is in interested in having a relationship "beyond friends" with her. If it had said that "The only reason Cho is in the series is to serve as a love interest of Harry," then I would agree it needs to be rewritten.
With Perkins, I understand it is insensitive, I doubt the person who wrote it meant it to cause any hard feelings. Although if it is how JKR worded it then... -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Citation for the JKR bit? Mafalda Hopkirk 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Should the four Founders' possessions (Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's Cup, Ravenclaw's diadem, and Gryffindor's Sword) really be considered Harry's possessions? The diadem and the cup, at least, are only in his possession long enough to destroy the horcruxes (and they're in Ron and Hermione's possession just as much as Harry's, for that matter). I don't see him keeping any of the items, except perhaps Gryffindor's Sword, but even that, I suspect, would be left at Hogwarts. Dumbledore left it to him (which was probably to draw Harry's attention to an item that could destroy horcruxes once the will was read out), but it's been said by others that it either belongs to Hogwarts or to the goblins. At the end of the series, Neville is holding it. None of them are possessions the same way the Invisibility Cloak or Number 12 Grimmauld Place are. Much of the information about them is repetitive as well, from the search for the horcruxes section. I don't think they should be included as his possessions. Oread 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree - Mafalda Hopkirk 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So do I. However, a summary of Harry's affinity with Gryffindor's Sword may be appropriate, along with Dumbledore's wish for Harry to have it in his will. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the diadem, cup, and locket from that section, but I left a modified blurb about the Sword, including Dumbledore leaving it to Harry in his will. Oread 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we are speaking of Harry's possesions here, should we mention about the golden watch that Molly gave him on his 17th Birthday? It belonged to Fabian Prewett, and if I remember correctly, it was apparently dented, but Harry still kept it 19 years later, as we read in the epilouge. We aren't sure the nature of the watch, but it could be magical like 12 arms watch of Dumbledore, and might be like the Weasley's clock that show the status of everybody in the household. I mean the thing has stars instead of arms, definitely something unique about it.Seasrmar 05:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Harry Potter!--HallieryElizabeth 00:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


I noticed the editor's note in the infobox about not adding her as a sister-in-law. But the way I undertand the concept, she's related to Harry through marriage, since their respective spouses are related. -- Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First just to have the link available: Harry Potter Wiki:Character infobox family guidelines. Anyway, an "in-law" is the direct family member of someone's spouse as far as I know. So...Hermione is Ginny's in-law but Hermione is Harry's wife's in-law, Hermione to Harry is going through two marriages -- thus not an in-law. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've found online dictionaries that, in addition to the common definition, define "sister-in-law" as the wife of a spouse's brother: [1], [2], [3] -- Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I knew you were going to come back and say that. I mean it can be added I suppose -- I personally don't really care. Not sure who added the comment. Just cite one of the dictionaries after it. Although in my opinion the whole list of family on this article is too long to start with. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Marauder's Map

In Harry's succession boxes, an anon-IP changed the successor of the Marauder's Map to Harry' son James. But the way I understand it, James isn't the owner in the sense Harry is and the Marauders were; he only borrowed it. Should that be changed back? -- Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing anything saying that Harry gave the map to James.--Matoro183 (Talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say leave it. James steals it from Harry's desk, he becomes the new "owner" -- its not owner in the sense of the Elder Wand that has to be disarmed to get, etc. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? James stole...what?--Matoro183 (Talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Go read James Potter II. "James would eventually steal the Marauder's Map from his father's desk drawer while he wasn't looking to have fun with it at Hogwarts." There's no source, but I do remember it coming from somewhere... -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Map belongs to Hary and Teddy Lupin because their father's both created it and are now dead

Using that kind of logic though you can argue that Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, James Potter, and Sirius Black all owned one-forth of the map originally and passed their claim down to their descendants automatically with their death. Only then would Teddy have a claim to his father's one-forth share. Pettigrew died, leaving no known heir, and thus his claim to the map is thereby dead with him. Being the sole heir of James Potter, Harry naturally inherited his father's claim. Sirius Black's will left "all his worldly possessions" (see Post-Mortem in his article) to Harry, which would, in terms of Marauder Map claims, seem to apply as well. If the remaining dead share were divided up accordingly Harry would have a controlling two-thirds share of the map. One must also not forget that in PoA Lupin had the perfect opportunity to exert his claim (being at that point it's only creator believed to be still alive and not a criminal) to the map. He didn't even though he did have it in his possession for a while. He left it with Harry believing that James would've enjoyed the thought of his son engaging in the same types of late-night antics that he once did. In essence, Lupin gave up his claim on the map to Harry and Teddy would have no claim. Thus, when the map is stolen by James II, Harry probably would have enjoyed the thought of his son carrying on the Marauder's night time excursions and allowed the map to pass into his possession. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Harry's birthyear

Having read through a fair bit of the articles, I cannot help but wonder why Harry is listed as being born in 1980. The first book was published in '97 with no apparent indication of year. I'd place Harry's date of birth to 1986 instead.

CurseBreaker 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

JK has said, and I think that it is mentioned in one of the other books, that the first book is set in '91. Harry's birthdate is also on JK's website, I believe.--

Matoro183 (Talk) 11:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... Nearly-Headless Nick died on Halloween, 1492. (Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 8) It was Nick's 500th aniversary of his death on 1992 (1492+500=1992). Harry attended this 500th deathday party in his second year, placing the events of Chamber of Secrets on the 1992/1993 school year. Then, the events in Philosopher's Stone are placed in the 1991/1992 school year. Harry is supposed to be attending his first year at Hogwarts when he's 11 years old. So he was born in 1980 (1991-11=1980).

I hope I have helped you. (For more info, see Dating conventions)

But at the start of Goblet of Fire (set in August 1994 according to you), Harry mentions Dudley throwing his PlayStation out of his window, despite the PlayStation not even having been released until over a year later.

-- Seth Cooper 11:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One must also remember that on numerous occasions that JKR has noted that she has a horrible way with numbers. For instance, in the first book, supposedly set in 1991, the young wizards and witches are fawning over the new Nimbus 2000 in Diagon Alley. The next year, now referred to as 1992, the new Nimbus 2001 came out. The increase in model number from 2000 to 2001 means that the number in the previous model number (the 2000 in Nimbus 2000) can't simply be taken as a meaningless addition meant to simply make the broom "sound cool". There would then be a reason to believe that the beginning year for book one to have been late 1999 and that the 2000 was meant to showcase it as the Nimbus model for the next year. The most common use of this form of numbering is when new car models are released, 2010 models in the fall of 2009 for instance. It's not a stretch to believe that with the bleed over from the Muggle world into the Wizarding world this is a naming convention that may have been carried over as well. Starting in PoA JKR stopped introducing new broom models, particularly ones with model numbers, by introducing the Firebolt. It's quite possible that JKR simply forgot when she intended the first book to take place and simply picked an arbitrary starting year at some later date and then stuck with it. This would seem to be the only way of accounting for such errors and for the 7 year displacement in broom models. If such were the case, and the original starting year was 1999, Harry's birth year would then be 1988. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


Could add this for irony: Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends. He is mediocre to the last degree, though as obnoxious and self-satisfied as was his father before him. - Severus Snape

Random thoughts

I'd like your opinion on these thoughts of mine. Le;ave your opinions on my talk page.

- Harry should have been in Slytherin. I think that his Slytherin side was stronger than his Gryffindor side. - Harry should have broken up with Ginny for good and stayed just friennds with her. She's too firey and I bet that Harry is only with because she reminds him of his mother. - Harry should have been friends with Draco Malfoy. Draco is a much better pure-blood than Ron, and Draco didn't believe any of Harry's fame. I mean that Draco and Harry didn't see Harry as all that the Prophet said he was.

Gryff23 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oho...your thoughts are very dark ones indeed. You should be Slytt23, not Gryff23...still I think that if Harry was to be with Malfoy, he would not have survived through the series. It was both Hermione and Ron who had helped him through. If he was to be friends with Draco, Lucius would most likely corrupt Harry's mind and we might be seeing another dark wizard. Draco himself is rather cowardly, even if intelligent. Finally, it is all thanks to Hagrid that Harry knew better than to allow the Sorting Hat to proclaim him to be in Slytherin.
One more thing, even if Harry made friends with Draco, their thoughts would conflict all the way and I doubt their friendship would survive for a month.

--Tonicquill 09:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about the 2nd killing curse that struck Harry

What is the frail, disfigured, child-like entity that Harry met at King's Cross when he was struck by that killing curse? Is it the part of Voldemort that was destroyed when Harry was struck? And had dumbledore been waiting for like a year all the while in the station for Harry to arrive? --Tonicquill 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

JKR explained on her website that the "mutilated baby" was what was left of Voldemort's soul after all his Horcruxes had been destroyed. When Voldemort attacked Harry at the end of DH34, they were both knocked unconscious, and both their souls ended up in limbo (King's Cross). The appearance of Voldemort's soul reflects the damage he did to it.
In a webchat shortly after the release of DH, JKR explained that, although Voldemort only had seven Horcruxes, his soul was actually split into eight parts. The Master Soul from which the seven Horcrux pieces were torn remained in his body.
I don't remember JKR ever addressing whether Dumbledore waited for Harry to arrive at King's Cross. The way I read DH35, though, I think Dumbledore only showed up after Harry did. Dumbledore surprises Harry by approaching him from behind while he's examining Voldemort's soul ("[Harry] spun around. Albus Dumbledore was walking towards him...'"). Starstuff (Owl me!) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, thanks alot. Guess I didn't take the time to read her interviews...only books and encyclopedia's... --Tonicquill 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. A good place to go if you want to read JKR interviews is Accio Quote! They've got quotations arranged by subject, which makes it easier to find answers to questions on specific characters, locations, etc. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This articles a mess!

This article really is a mess. I cleaned up the relationships section a while back but other than that really it's all a little sloppy.

Am I the only one who thinks that Harry Potter being the main character should have the best page on this Wikia?

I was fixing a few things on Hermione Grangers page and I noticed that her page has a lot of clean, detailed and informative sections with good relative images. In comparison Harrys page looks terrible, Harrys "second year" section is merely two paragraphs long, and Hermiones is HUGE and she was petrified for the best part of Chamber of Secrets. I'm not saying we cut down Hermiones but I think alot of us need to pull together to fix Harry's page.

I'll do as much as I can, I sorted out the relationships and that's stayed clean and alright but the rest of the article really lacks... something. AND it's rated 5 *****?

Anyone else going to work on this with me? Afterall, Harry is the main character and if his page looks bad that makes the Wikia look bad.

I agree, it needs a lot of cleaning up. I added etymology and the personality and traits section, and did a lot of expansion and clean-up of the third year section. I was going to add references as well, but I think that's something to do either as the article is being expanded and including more detail, or afterwards. I would be willing to rewrite the history section that covers Deathly Hallows (though in-universe, of course), and to do the referencing.
By the way, there was a group project that was focused on just this, but it seems to have run out of steam. Maybe that should be revitalized? Oread 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


(Transferred from Talk:Scarhead following redirection of Scarhead article)

Should this term really have its own article? It's not a more general term particular to the wizarding world (like Mudblood or blood traitor) -- it's a nickname. By the same standard, we should have articles for "Weasel King" (Draco Malfoy's nickname for Ron), "Gred" and "Forge", "Prongs", "Padfoot", "Snuffles", "Moony", "Loony Lovegood", "Snivellus", etc. Oread 05:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We don't really need this page, as it is simply a nickname for a certain character.

Iluvgracie129 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. Now i learned another lesson.--You-Know-Who 08:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ginny Weasley

to the person who edited Relationships:Ginny Weasley.

Will you please only edit articles when 1) You're sure of it's truthfulness and 2)It's helpful?? Please don't go around messing up articles. A lot of work went into them. Thank you. Quidditch Lover 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only correcting grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

It may not have been you, but somebody came by and wrote "Harry does not actually love Ginny," and some nonsense about him being gay. I undid the change, but the editor was not logged on, so I have no idea who it was. Quidditch Lover 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No that wasn't me! Sometimes I shorten the articles, but I don't go crazy. I fix grammar so it won't be as distracting to the reader. And good thing we have people like you to take care of things! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Project Scarhead

I've run the whole article through an online essay grammar error detector I know. It didn't come up with any errors, so I think we're good with Grammar.Quidditch Lover 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also just finished a spell-check over the whole thing. We are sticking to the British Spelling, right? Oh, and a general note for editing: when you have punctuation marks along wiht quotation marks, always put the punctuation before the quotation (i.e. ."/,"/!") Quidditch Lover 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Image

I like the new picture somebody put in, but I think it's a bit too big. I don't know how to fix it, though. Could somebody shrink it a bit?? Thanks Quidditch Lover 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Pictures in infoboxes shouldn't exceed 250px in width. If you want to resize an image in the future, just add "|250px" to the image code, replacing "250" with whatever number you want. Starstuff (Owl me!) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Starstuff. That's really usefull to know. I'll remember that in the future. Quidditch Lover 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a cool image!! KingDonfin You Seem familiar have I threatened you before!!! 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Harry Potter in movie 6

little over top with HP in my case

ok harry potter (HP) is the best movie/book in the wrold but than twilight comes along and trys to take the spot light!if your a littel over top like i'm please note me and i just may by able to help ( if you want help from a tottally crazed person that almost kill her classmate over the fact that hp is better than tw (twilight))

...sorry not to be rude, but what does this have to do with the Harry Potter universe and inserting more information for inquiring minds?


In the infobox. Lol, what?

Relationship: Dolores Umbridge?

Do we need to add Dolores Umbridge in Relationships section in Harry Potter's Main Page?

For my own opinion, we don't need to add her. As she is only had interaction between Harry when she have the opportunity to teach at Hogwarts but we all know that Harry and Umbridge was never close to each other and for Harry, she hated Umbridge very much as up to the point that he and with Hermione and Ron called Umbridge as a devil woman. We must add Remus Lupin instead.
About Voldemort, Although Harry had the same feeling with Umbridge to Voldemort. He is acceptable because we all know that Harry and Voldemort had a connection in each other through the scar on his forehead, And he is Harry's mortal enemy.

What do you think other HP Wiki editors? --ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have a section for his relationship with her. I wouldn't oppose it if the section were more detailed, but as it is now, it's unnecessary. It is also misleading to describe Umbridge as Harry's "arch-enemy", since Voldemort suits that term better. Oread (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Harry's relationship with Umbridge was too short anyway. ShirleyA 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter DH Photo

Are we going to use that photo of Dan, as the main image? For me He looks so funny at that photo. Another thing is, we are not sure if that is officially for Deathly Hallows films to be include, or it's only a behind the scene photo. --ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I already updated the photo. --ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 06:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't that picture look sorta weird though? I don't like it being the main image. ShirleyA 00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think a behind-the-scenes photo of the filming of DH isn't suitable for use in a character article. The photo could depict a take of the Tottenham Court Road scene that won't be used in the final cut of the film (or included as a deleted scene on the DVD). Starstuff (Owl me!) 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Starstuff is right. And so, i want to suggest that we still using official photos from the Half-Blood Prince movie, I was selecting photos of Harry. For you, Which of these are suitable?
--ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say no to the first as it's a bit fuzzy, and no to the third as it's too dark and Harry is facing away from the camera. How about this.Jayce Carver Slytherin Prefect badge Talk 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Harry Potter Half-Blood Prince Profile
I like your suggestion best, Jayce. It's well lit, forward facing, and close up — ideal qualities for a lead image in my opinion. Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall we vote on it, or does anyone else have any suggestions? Jayce Carver Slytherin Prefect badge Talk 07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good and Bad

One of the good things about Potter is that he's not the best person around. He swears, and is a bit arrogant. I think.--Tigan Barkwater Why not chat? 07:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

Does there need to be that many sections regarding his life before Hogwarts? i think some sections could be merged. ShirleyALuna Lovegood(The Quibbler) 08:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The books are told from Harry's perspective (with the exceptions of HBP1, HBP2, and DH1), and, as such, we know more about Harry's childhood than we do about Ron's, Hermione's, etc., meaning that there will be more to cover. I don't have an issue with keeping "Early Life," "Life on Privet Drive," and "Muggle Primary School" as separate sections, but I do think "You're a Wizard, Harry" and "Phoenix-feather Wand" should be merged. Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaunt/Riddle family connections

While Harry is technically a distant cousin of Voldemort and his family, I don't see the reason for putting this in infobox. It has little or no bearing on the story and merely a conclusion we reached by considering the complexities of the family tree. While I don't object to mentioning it in the Relationships section, the infobox (which is already quite bloated) seems to be an unnecessary place to put this information considering its relative unimportance and obscurity. -- 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Look! It is constantly added to this article that Hermione, Fleur, Audrey and Angelina are sister-in-laws of Harry. They're not! A sister in law is the wife of a person's brother. Harry has no brothers, so hence, he has no sister in laws.--RandomEnigma 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sister-in-law: "A sister-in-law is the sister of one's spouse. The wife of one's sibling and the wife of one's spouse's sibling are also considered a sister-in-law." - Nick O'Demus 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur with Nick. My mother's side of the family is bigger than the Weasley clan, and all them, regardless of their own relationship to my mom, are my dad's brothers- and sisters-in-law. --Cubs Fan2007 (Talk to me) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to concur with both of these guys. Look up sister-in-law in a dictionary and you should find some definition related to the one Nick gave you. -- GrouchMan (Send an owl then scram!) 02:52, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Kids Names

It Say's In The Book The Children Are Called: Albus Severus, Lily Luna and i think James Lupin?

Lupin is a family name. His name is James Sirius.--Rodolphus 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

the death eaters did not want to harm him

"he was the only one of the six D.A."..

they didn't try to..Pintel 14:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How is Harry related to Tom Riddle?

This is just me wondering, not really much to do with the article besides the point that it is listed, but How is Harry related to Tom Riddle/Voldemort? It says "distant" but I was wondering exactly how is he? 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)´

They are both descendants of the Peverell brothers.--Rodolphus 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright. 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

new comment on dumbledore relationship part?

I know you should refrain from using quotes from the movies, but I like the half-blood prince quote when dumbledore says:

  • Dumbledore: Arent you wondering why I brought you here harry?
  • Harry: actually sir, after all these years, I just sort of go along with it.

hows that? Wanted somebody higher-up's opinion before I made the change. 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

You're not supposed to refrain from a movie quote when it doesn't contradict the books. Go for it, add it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WAY Too Long

This entire article is a huge mess. It's way too long and filled with unnecessary information. Do we really need an entire summary of the seventh book here? And there are far too many "relationships" stuck in there... Either make a whole new page for "Harry Potter's Relationships" or cut it down to only the important people (Dumbledore, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, etc). 02:27, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Well he IS the protagonist of the series, so there is a lot more content that's relevant to him than to most other characters. As for the relationships, the same applies, although you're right in that it needs a lot of work in cleaning up. Several of those sections were recently added, and some of them do seem somewhat extraneous. Personally, I'd support removal of the more "generic" relationships, such as "Slytherin Students", "Death Eaters", "Ministry of Magic", "Ghosts", "Hogwarts Professors", "Magical creatures", etc,. and keep it limited to specific characters. - Nick O'Demus 05:29, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Length doesn't necessarily make an article better. The relationships section should be limited to Harry's important relationships - despite Tonks being a major character, her relationship with Harry is relatively unimportant. Likewise, Hedwig is an unimportant character, but her relationship with Harry is extremely important to his character.
Further, characters such as Godric Gryffindor and Vernon Dursley's sister are completely unnecessary. 00:40, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the relationship section is far too long. It should be reserved for particularly meaningfull relationships, not everyone he ever crossed paths with. The same can be said for alot of articles on characters. Jayden Matthews 11:47, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayden and with all those who said that Relationship section is too long.. i agree with the removal of those... --ÈnŔîčö DCRavenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 06:48, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


Um, is it just me, or is there far too much information above the ToC? Shouldn't that be a brief description? All of that information is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I think it needs to be trimmed down. Eleanor Rigby 16:23, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

That lead just summarizes the article. Since this specific article is so long, it requires a relatively large summary. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 16:30, September 27, 2009 (UTC)


Prisoner of Azkaban in 1993, but October 16 is told as being a friday in Divination to Lavender Brown, it was a saturday in 1993. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Numbers and dates aren't JKR strong suit, she even admits that. Ever noticed that September 2nd is always on a Monday no matter what year it is? - Nick O'Demus 11:41, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

never noticed the september 2nd always being a monday before, just thought this would be and interesting point to notice.

Title Image

Is there any way we could find a better picture of Daniel Radcliffe for the title image? I know it's recent (being from the set of a to-be-released film), but it is too much of a 'natural shot'. Not to mention that Radcliffe's facial expression shows absolutely no emotion in that photograph. There are plenty of other close-up images of Radcliffe from past films that we could use, surely. Any suggestions?--Yin&Yang 08:29, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

The main image should be from the most recent film if possible. The fact that his face is unexpressive is a good thing. Jayden Matthews 08:34, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. Still, that doesn't detract from the Ron and Hermione articles' title images. Rupert Grint looks a little suprised (if memory serves) and Emma Watson looks plain worried. I think we need to weigh up the advantages of recent photos, with photos that look too natural. Let's also not forget that the DH films haven't been released yet (nor fully completed for all we know) so do those photos even qualify as "from the most recent film"?--Yin&Yang 09:59, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

We just need to do the best with what we have. We can't always have both netural expression and most recent film, but, in this case, we do. Jayden Matthews 10:05, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be totally honest with you, I really don't mean to sound shallow and in no way am I trying to offend him, but Daniel Radcliffe looks a little creepy in that particular photo with that blank stare. It's not a personal attack on his appearance because we all have photos we're slightly ashamed of and I doubt even Daniel himself would like to have that picture as his main profile shot on a website. If we really don't have a better image from the Deathly Hallows film set then that's fine, but if we do (or you know where to find one), kindly replace it with the title image we have now.--Yin&Yang 10:43, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

The recent change that added "Harry also hated Umbridge" in the Hogwarts staff of relationship section is redundant, because there is already a relationship section with umbridge on the page, saying that harry hated her. Is there another reason to add that last sentence? otherwise I think it should be removed. Ratneer 20:51, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed. 1deano1 14:20, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Half-Blood or Pure-Blood

Why is Harry a half-blood? His dad is a wizard and his mom is a witch. Two magical parents. The only way that I could see him being half-blood is if you were doing it by his grandparents or something. Please answer, I have been wondering about this for a while! Hermione524 03:03, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Easily explained! A half-blood is a wizard who is more or less, "half" a "Pure-Blood" wizard. Harry, even though his parents were wizards, is a Half-Blood because his mother, Lily Potter, was a Muggle-Born witch. In other words, her ancestory was mostly Muggle yet somewhere distant in her geneology, an ancestor of hers had to have been a wizard/witch. The "wizard gene" was passed down through the generations without being expressed again (as far as we know) until it reached Lily Evans. James Potter's ancestors, on the other hand, would have comprised mostly of Pure-Bloods and hence, he is considered a "Pure-Blood" too. So you see, Lily had predominantly Muggle blood in her with just the slightest amount of witch blood to give her magical abilities. This makes Harry "half" a Muggle. Does that make sense? For more details see Blood purity.--Yin&Yang 04:52, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Main Image 2

The main image has been changed. I was under the impression that there should be a community discussion before it was changed. Any ideas why it was changed/what happened? QuidditchLoverSnitch 2(My talk)(contribs) 03:34, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Although I like the new picture better, I agree there should be a vote or at least an opinion. Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Profile or Dhharryroomhighreso RatneerOwl Alert! 02:01, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Lets start the vote then --Darth Jadious 17:03, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


Voting will remain open for one week from the start time, closing at 17:00 on Dec. 18th. Any votes not in accordance with Voting Policy will be struck.

Old Image - File:Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Profile.jpg (+0)

New Image - File:Dhharryroomhighreso.jpg (+4)

  1. --Darth Jadious 17:02, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
  2. --QuidditchLoverSnitch 2(My talk)(contribs) 22:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  3. -- RatneerOwl Alert! 23:01, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  4. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


  • On the old image, Harry's hair is far too much clear; looks like he has brown hair. On the new image, however, his hair is darker, and the image is therefore more canonical. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Seth. Ive seen alot of pictures that makes harry look like he has brown hair, and it annoys me alot. -- Ratneer Owl Me! 23:04, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • It's been over a week, so it's official. "New Image" is the main image now. - Nick O'Demus 19:53, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
-WOW- ! XD , I didn't know all this happened after I uploaded the "new "main" image" XD .  Alsa7ir  owl me!

Why so much stress on dates?

Throughout the article people are putting dates on EVERYTHING. As if dates matter in a fictional world, if a scene is being explained is should be done so by books, not by dates that literally don't matter at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Articles are written from an In-Universe perspective, which means using the time frame established in the story. References and the "Behind the Scenes" section, however, go by the real world information. - Nick O'Demus 07:52, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

this page should be bigger. -- 05:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)


Who changed the picture to that blurry piece of slag? The old one was much better. Sky Shadow 07:13, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. - Nick O'Demus 07:56, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Why????? Miki1234 07:59, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Because if you scroll up just a bit, you can see where the article's main pic was voted on. It should not be changed without another vote being called first. - Nick O'Demus 08:03, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Prewett family

Couldn't Harry, technically, be a part of the Prewett family, even though it would be by his marriage to Ginny? -- GrouchMan (Send an owl then scram!!) 17:54, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

He is, tecnically.. However I don´t think it is really worth mentioning. Sirius stated that all pure-bloods are related. I don´t think we should include distaff members in categories or infoboxes.--Rodolphus 18:08, January 12, 2010 (UTC)