Harry Potter Wiki

Talk:Harry Potter

Back to page

Revision as of 23:04, July 12, 2013 by RobertATfm (Talk | contribs)

13,129pages on
this wiki

This article needs to be from a in-universe perspective. I am making some changes.


According to basic rules of English grammar, when relating events that happen in a story they are always done so in the present tense. You relate them as if they were happening at that moment, not as if the person relating them (you, dear reader) were looking back on them after the end of the book. Every time someone changes "Harry Potter was a half blood wizard" to "Harry Potter is a half blood wizard" someone always comes around and changes it back! Even if we choose to completely disregard the rules of grammar, this idiotic reversion back to "was" makes no sense. Harry Potter IS a half blood wizard and will remain one until he dies, only then can his blood status be talked about in the past tense, as it is with his parents. As this article now stands there's a mixture of past and present tense regarding events and characteristics. It's high time that some consensus was reached on how to view pages like this and in what tense they should be recorded in. Mr Norrell 15:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, this is done per Harry Potter Wiki policy on tense that was voted on and approved. --Hcoknhoj 15:11, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


Who changed the picture of Harry? The Last Dark Angel 10 14:01, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

The picture currently in use was voted on and decided to be the main article picture. See here. -- Ratneer Owl Me! 17:09, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Murderer, or not?

According to Wikipedia:

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with inten.

Emphasis added.

Harry killed the basilisk, but that´s not murder. I agree that Filch said something like "You´ve mursdered my cat" in CS, but I think he was just losing his temper.--Rodolphus 16:35, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I looked at everything about murder and it always says human. Okay, I will get rid of the murder cat.--L.V.K.T.V.J.Hogwarts(Send an owl!) 16:39, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the cat wasn't murdered, just petrified. Filch was upset and assumed the cat was dead, Dumbledore corrected him by telling him that the cat was merely petrified and that when the mandrakes mature a draught can be made to cure her. --BachLynn23 13:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Harry killed Quirrell. He also caused Voldemort's Killing Curse rebound on and kill him. So he is a murderer.

As the definition of "murder" is the "unlawful killing of another human with intent, technically Harry did not "intend" to kill Quirrell, it was remnants of Lily's protection that caused his death, Harry did nothing intentionally. And when duelling LV Harry cast the dissarming spell against LV's killing curse, so regardless of whether or not Harry wanted LV to die, if he had truly intended to kill him himself he would have cast the killing curse also, so as it was the elder wand that would not kill it's true master, that was something that Harry only "assumed" would happen, he couldn't have known 100% that it would rebound and kill him. So I stand with the idea that Harry has never truly murdered as per the definition. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest(Accio!) 16:34, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Quirrell scenerio would obviously also be considered self-defence, especially considering Harry was 11 years old at the time and Quirrell was actively trying to kill him, or at the very least, do him significant bodily harm. Voldemort's death occurred in the middle of open warfare, and since it would hardly constitute any sort of war crime, there's no way you could argue it was murder-- though even if you take it out of the context of battle, you couldn't possibly claim Harry used excessive force with Expelliarmus. Harry was known and chastised for not using enough force, so murderer? Please.--Emmy () 19:20, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Not unless you count the Basilisk. 19:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
...which was neither human, nor was killed using excessive force. --Emmy () 19:26, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha, yea if killing the basilisk made Harry a "murderer" then we all are, I mean I alone have intentionally killed flies, ants, spiders, snakes. And anyone who hunts would be a murderer deer etc. lol, and at least the basilisk was trying to Kill harry so it was self defense, the spider I killed this morning was doing nothing to no one, it was just annoying me. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest(Accio!) 19:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
If Harry did kill, he did so in self defence, which would not be classed as murder
How do you know that everyone has intentionally killed flies etc.?
Octopus Tom Marvolo Octopus
18:33, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Current Picture

You can't even see his scar in the current picture. What's the Boy Who Lived without his scar? --Scarletmoon579Ravenclawcrest(Talk to me!) 22:07, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The picture was voted on and approved by majority decision. If you feel it should change (and if you look at the battle over the Hermione picture from February and March, I suggest you don't), feel free to start a discussion here on the talk page. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 06:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Harry's Blood

Harry Potter is a PURE BLOOD! Both his mother and his father were of magical blood. He had absolutely NO muggle parentage therefore making him neither Half-blood or Mudblood (sorry). Really people, please think about what you write! 14:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling, the AUTHOR and CREATOR of this series, says he is a HALF-BLOOD. Read this. And perhaps you should listen to your own advice on thinking about what you write. 16:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Also, read Blood purity. Basically, if you have any admitted muggle lineage you are a Half-blood. -- 16:43, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
And also Harry's mother was a Muggle-born and the Durseleys were Muggles.SeanWheeler 21:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
You cannot be pure-blood unless many of your ancestors were of magical blood. It would probably take a long time fror a family to be considered pure-blood. Dustin1998 18:29, August 20, 2011 (UTC)Dustin1998


In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in the beginning, Harry reads a book. Which book is this. -Danniesen 25/5 2010 22:31

In the POA movie? --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 21:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
It was a History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot. Jayce DarkmarkAvada KedavraCrucioImperio 21:18, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think both Harry and Ron would laugh at the above comment. -Salazar S
He was reading History of Magic. As quoted from the book - "He replaced the top of the ink bottle; pulled an old pillowcase from under the bed; put the flashlight, A History of Magic, his essay, quill and ink in it." IT's from page 5 in PoR. Alumeng 16:28, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Parselmouth or not?

So if the part of Voldemort's soul that was attached to Harry was destroyed, and that was what gave Harry the ability to talk to snakes, is Harry no longer a Parselmouth? Something to think about...RolandaSmithson 02:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

JKR confirmed in an interview that Harry was no longer a parselmouth. 02:22, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sirius and Snape

Something I would like to point out: Both Sirius and Snape see James in Harry and treat him they way they would treat James. Sirius treats Harry like his old friend, James, by encouraging rule-breaking rather than treating him a godson. Snape sees James in Harry's arrogance and misbehavior and treats him as he wishes he could have treated his enemy, James. So Sirius and Snape have a parallel view of Harry (seeing James) with opposite reactions.--64supernoob 22:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

About Harry’s relationships:

Why is it that Ron’s paragraph about his bond with Harry (573 words long) smaller than Ginny’s relationship with Harry (760 words)? Wouldn’t Rons be longer considering that they’ve been through more together? Sure, Ginny and Harry got married and had three children, but most of their adventures together aren’t even mentioned in the series. I would help it myself, but I have a bug in my computer so I can’t help edit the page.

Actually upon re-reading Ron's section, I sort of agree, but where it was a feature article I'd like someone else's opinion before adding too much. I wasn't sure how detailed the Relationship article's should be. It doesn't mention how Ron helped Harry get to the philosopher's stone. Then it doesn't say anything about their interaction between 1994 and 1997. Maybe this information isn't necessary for the relationship page, I don't know. Any thoughts? --BachLynn23 07:36, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Bartholomew Mashingspoon?

Okay, maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I can't find mention in any of my HP books of the name 'Bartholomew Mashingspoon', yet it's listed as one of the 'also known as' name at the right of the page. Does this alias really exist, or is it just someone playing a joke. And if so, could you tell me what book and scene?--Nia River 01:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Not book, game. In the GBC version of Chamber of Secrets, Harry calls himself Bartolomew Mashingspoon in order to evade Lockhart's cupids. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


Someone has been fiddling with the article. I tried to fix it but it didn't work.

what needs to be fixed? (and don't forget you need to sign your posts, thanks). --BachLynn23 21:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I think that we could change the main image due to the publication of new trailers and promotional images of Harry. This, perhaps?Pol 871 08:33, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I would like Profile 1. In this picture he looks like in the books. His hair looks black and his eyes look a bit greenish because of the green light in the wood. Harry granger 15:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I like #1 also. --BachLynn23 15:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but Harry is a bit dirty in this picture, isn't he?
--RavenclawcrestThe Evening Prophet Ravenclawcrest (Owl Post) 16:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
True, but he does spend most of the movies on the run and in battles. --BachLynn23 16:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I saw this too and I agree with BachLynn23. Harry came directly from the first part of the Battle of Hogwarts when he decided to go to Lord Voldemort to let kill himself. Harry granger 16:51, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about #1. I might be the only one, but something about it makes him look a little ghoulish, in my opinion. Personally, I'm leaning towards #2. In that one, with the semi-profile view and looking into the distance, he appears suitably heroic, I think. Plus, his famous lightning bolt scar is on prominent display, rather than partly covered by fringe as it so often is. So yeah, I'd vote #2. (Although, it would be better still if someone could clean up the dark line on the right edge.)--Nia River 23:03, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nia River.Pol 871 09:02, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Profile 1, although Idk much about this Wiki so I don't know if I'm important to vote. lol Griffin87912 00:30, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Numero uno for me. It looks the most natural. MTG1989 00:04, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I prefer number 5, personally Green Zubat 05:15, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I like #5 the best, though #4 is a close second. -JDRooDigger 21:00, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Post-DH2 infobox images#Harry Potter

I like #4, personally. But #5 describes maybe more of the way Rowling describes him. DahSmartzCutie 03:39, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

I prefer #4 but #1 is a close second. Minicurls (talk) 23:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)minicurlsMinicurls (talk) 23:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)


What are the sources for all of the stuff that happens in later life for example Kingsley Shacklebolt changing the law and Harry being portrayed on a chocolate frog card? These are unsubstantiated claims, I could understand if they were said in the books but i've never heard any of this before, could somebody put some sources in please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

They were revealed by JK Rowling, either in interviews given after the book came out or on her website. 03:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


After voldemorts death there will ot be any dark-wizards so whats the point of being an auror after voldemorts deathNishant77 08:52, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

There are other dark wizards in the world besides the Death Eaters. Voldemort wasn't the first dark wizard and he won't be the last. 09:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
If there will no more dark wizards, there would be no more Defense Against the Dark Arts, but yet, there is, because I believe(I may be wrong, but I'm sure I've seen it before) it says in the article that Harry guest teached the class. Make sure you're searching all your information before coming to the ultimate descision it's wrong. :) DahSmartzCutie 03:44, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

reasons of death

is there any reason for voldemort to kill harry or they were just guesssing? Nishant77 09:10, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

See The Prophecy. 09:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


How much did his scar hurt? Did it hurt just a little, or was it a lot, or was it as bad as the Cruciatus Curse? 17:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on what was happening. There are times when it seemed that Harry could ignore the pain, like at the end of his first year, before they saved the Philosopher's Stone. But I think when he was having a vision, the pain was unbearable. I mean it caused him to collapse once. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 18:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


Was Harry still a seeker in 2017? Maybe he plays for a national team or something? Secret agent clank 10:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Harry works as Head of the Auror Department in the Ministry of Magic. Ginny played on the Holyhead Harpies for a while, but quit when she and Harry started their family, and became a Quidditch correspondent for the Daily Prophet. It's in both of their articles. 10:18, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

this is the new infoboxpicser van Harry Potter.
Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-Promo-Picture 1-714x1024


Did Harry ever learn to apparate? 23:33, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Is that a joke or did you not read books 6 and 7?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! Harry can Apparate and did it without a liscence all through book 7. His first real Apparation was when he Apparated himself and Dumbledore back to Hogsmeade after escaping that terrible cave. In the book version Harry did that himself as Dumbledore was too weak but in the movie Dumbledore took them from and directly to Hogwarts which never happened in the book. First real Apparation and he succeded in doing Side-Along. Don't think anybody else can say that. He managed to Apparate at least once before during traning but only went a few feet.--WarGrowlmon18 23:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
He is correct, Harry illegally Apparates around England throughout Deathly Hallows. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 02:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
You're serious? He Apparates in both, the movies and the books. DahSmartzCutie 03:48, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Harry and Schoolwork


I'm new here, so I can't edit the page. However, I just want to draw attention to the following segment:

"although he was clever, Harry also lacked intellectual curiosity, rarely putting forth effort into school work; for example, he relied on the notes of the "Half-Blood Prince" to get ahead in his sixth-year Potions class rather than devoting time to studying"

I feel this it is a little unfair to characterize his attitude to work from this single piece of evidence-whilst he did use the Prince's book in Sixth year potions, remember he even went as far as to found the DA in order to learn proper defence. Also, in the Prisoner of Azkaban, it says that he wants to do his homework. The excerpt seems to portray him as lazy when it came to schoolwork. I would say that he is selectively diligent; he puts extensive effort into subjects he enjoys or is good at (i.e, Transfiguration, DADA, Charms), and puts a minimum of effort into the rest. He also frequently is seen doing his homework with the others.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so feel free to slap me down.

Augusta Longbottom 21:45, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

It is Jkr's imagination and u cant go against d author and in d fifth movie he didnt make d D.A. to learn defence against the dark arts but to teach it

Jin kazama7 07:41, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on. This "single piece of evidence" is an "example." You don't seriously want to read a whole dictionary to read the article. There isn't enough time to show every little way JKR describes her characters personalities. If you've got the time to write one, then feel free to do so, but I can't guarentee many people will read it all. I agree with the comment above. He didn't find the DA to learn defense, but to teach it. DahSmartzCutie 04:01, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


I was reading the article and saw that the birthday was incorrect. I have read the books, and know his birthday is August 31, 1980.

Read the books again, he was born on July 31. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 22:15, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
His birthday is definitely July 31.
btw, when is the first mention of that in the books? On page 201 of the American version of GoF, this exchange happens:
Trelawney: I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in midwinter?
Harry: No, I was born in July.
Later on, at the very top of page 346, Professor Trelawney is telling the class "that the position of Mars with relation to Saturn at that moment meant that people born in July were in great danger of sudden, violent deaths", but that book never specifies the 31st of July.
there is mention of July 31 on page 51 of the first book, but no connection to that being Harry's birthday. On page 43 it says his birthday is on Tuesday (which i've heard is a mistake). i didn't know that Harry's birthday was July 31 until i saw on a fan site what JKR had said separately from the books. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
The fact that his birthday was said to be on Tuesday is not a mistake. People misinterpret this. His birthday was in midnight of Tuesday: in other words, the first minute of wednesday thus that's not a mistake. Also it is known by Trelawney's prophecy that Harry was born as the seventh month dies out so it is known that at least Harry was born in the last week of July.
then you don't get what i said. What I said is: "we know b/c JKR told us that he was born on July 31. Do the books ever use that date directly mentioning it as Harry's birthday?" and page 43 of the first book specifically says:
"If it was Monday — and you could usually count on Dudley to know the days of the week, because of television — then tomorrow, Tuesday, was Harry's eleventh birthday."
This means that today is Monday. and tomorrow is Tuesday. Harry's birthday all day long. from midnight Monday night to midnight Tuesday night. The first night (Monday night/Tuesday morning) is when everything in the Hut on the Rock happened. Also in the fourth book it says Halloween falls on a Saturday, and Halloween that year was a Monday. so yes, it was a mistake. but that was not remotely what the talk post was about. and this talk post was about the irrelevance in general of what day of the week days on the calendar actually fell on. The Knights Who Say Ni 00:20, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
I think that they mention it in Order of the Phoenix at the end wile he and Dumbledore are talking about the prophecy. Alumeng 20:02, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Harry's birthday is FOR SURE July 31, 1980. I know this, because J.K. Rowling says in an interview that I watched mysef that her birthday is on July 31st and Harry's birthday is the same. She did that on purpose. And no, it's not the same year(jk, I know you guys have brains in your heads. You knew that.) DahSmartzCutie 04:11, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
It says 'age 31' after his birthday. I can't change it but maybe someone can.Emilyrosegrace 21:53, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

One of the dot points in the 'Behind the scenes' section mentions the Marauders being claimed to have discovered more secret places than anyone else is false. The section claims this is because the Marauders did not find either the chamber of secrets or the room of requirement. The claim was not that they had discovered every secret, just the most. That they missed two out of an entire magical castle does not disprove this. -- 04:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to point out that just as Tom Marvolo Riddle is an anagram for "Immortal, Odd Lover", Harry Potter is an anagram for "Try Hero Part". I just thought it was an interesting coincidence. I don't know how editing the site works, but I guessed that this would go well in "Behind the scenes", since Tom Riddle's anagram was. I am sorry if I am not in the right place and I hope I gave useful information. 07:35, November 18, 2011 (UTC)Marie M.

To the first comment; How do you know that everyone knows about The Room of Requirements and The Chamber of Secrets AND everything else in the castle. So no, it had not discovered ever secret, but the article didn't say that. It said it's "claimed to have discovered more secret places than anyone else". So, how do you know this is not true? It only missed two spots. DahSmartzCutie 04:19, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


What is the name of the spell that Harry nonverbally used to on the glass in Hagrid's hut in 1997 to get Hagrid and Slughorn drunk???

If it is non-verbal then i dont thinks d spell wil be mentioned Jin kazama7 06:27, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


If Harry's mum and dad were magical but his mother was a muggle-born does that mean he's half-blood.


Lily Potter Muggle-Born
James Potter Pure-Blood
Harry Potter


Oh, wow I get it now. But is he a half-blood???? Hufflepuff Parseltongue(Owl Mail) 21:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Read this. 21:58, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Harry's Main Image

harry's picture does not show his normal apearance as he looks far too curius that normal, so i suggest we should change him to something like in his hogwarts uniform or something.

Despite of the fact that I am not a supporter of the most chronicle image policy especially because they will change the main images used for the characters (the trio to be specific) to the pictures of the 30-year-old characters from the Epilogue when the Deathly Hallows part 2 comes out, I disagree with you. I think Harry's main picture is one of the best in this wikia because it shows him rather normally without looking straight at the camera and smiling but just a picture of him in a normal state (though Curious). The main image is awesome. If you, however, have better images of Harry for the main image, you can feel free to post them in a gallery under this subtitle of yours (right here) and ask an administrator to start a vote for main image change because Main Images must be voted for in an election officially started by an official administrator of the Harry Potter wikia such as BachLynn23, Cavalier One, Seth Cooper, and Grunny. German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 00:18, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

For want of a comma . . .

The caption under the picture of Harry, as a baby, reads:

"Harry as a baby, faces death."

It desperately need a comma after 'Harry' to set off the independent clause of 'as a baby.' Otherwise a careless reader might think that's the only time Harry faced death.

"Harry, as a baby, faces death."

Although I am a registered user, I'm locked out of the editing function on the page. I tried editing the picture, but that edit button does not include the caption.

Sub-headers and a picture.

"Battle of Hogwarts" and "Returning to Hogwarts" should be actual sub-headings,a


s they are barely noticeable.

Same for the mention of Ravenclaw's Diadem...there is a picture missing there and the paragraph lacks a sub-heading. It would look neater.

(ArcturusHatton 16:19, July 4, 2011 (UTC))

Informational Errors

There are several typos in this article. This is to be expected due to such a long article. Here are a couple I noticed. The first appears in the section on his third school year, PoA. It says that Hermoine told them Buckbeak was to be put on trial/sentenced to death, when (at least in the Movie) it was Hagrid that told them when they went down and asked him (if the book is different than I shall be corrected). Also, I do believe the broom destroyed in PoA at the Hufflepuff match was the Nimbus 2001, not the Firebolt. Didn't he receive the Firebolt from Sirius at the end of the book/movie? I'm still reading, so I will add more if I notice any. Thanks!

It wasn't the Nimbus 2001 or the Firebolt. It was the Nimbus 2000.

Was it Draco and his father that got all of Slytherin team the Nimbus 2001's?

Yep. You would know that the Nimbus 2001 was by Draco if you read the 2nd book or seen the movie. It explains it.

Sad about Harry :(

I'm really sad Harry Potter ended. Whenever I think about Harry, then I feel like crying :'(

Teamcullen 19:52, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Quote and Picture

Now that the final movie is out, and we know that they "why do you live" quote wasn't actually in the movie, shouldn't the quote at the top be changed to one that was actually used in the books or movies. Also, shouldn't the infobox image be updated to an image from the epilogue, since that is the most chronologically recent?Icecreamdif 23:04, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

So the quote really wasn't in the film and I wasn't imagining things. Today I saw the film for the 2nd time but this time in IMAX (I saw it the 1st time the day it came out though in 3D cuz it was sold out) and I still didn't see the "Why do you live? Because I have something worth living for" quote and I thought I might have looked away for a second and missed it but now that you mentioned it, I am sure that it wasn't in the film. It might be an extra scene though that we will see in the DVD release. Oh and the images can not be changed just yet because first there has to be a poll to vote for the image change and also we must wait for the DVD and Bluray release of the film to get clear images of the epilogue. German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 04:35, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Even if the quote is in a deleted scene in the DVD/Blu-ray, shouldn't the main quote on such an important page be one that actually made it into the final cut of the film?Icecreamdif 18:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

It is in a deleted scene, but you're right, it should be in the film.Dustin1998 18:47, August 20, 2011 (UTC)Dustin1998


So after reading book 5 and 6... im kinda disappointed. Not disappointed in the fact that the book wasn't good cause book 5 and 6 were amazing!

What I'm disappointed in is that in book 5

Harry Potter was not made prefect. I was really hoping that Harry would be prefect and was disappointed when Ron and Hermione was made prefect instead. I guess its time Ron deserve some attention...
Harry was ban from playing quidditch. totally unfair!
He wasn't made prefect because Dumbledore thought he had enough on his mind after Cedric's death.Dustin1998 18:44, August 20, 2011 (UTC)Dustin1998

In Book 6:

Harry was put in detention during the final quiddich match and was not able to help the house team win the quidditch cup.

What are your opinion on this?

My opinion I'm still reading the fifth book! Percy Jackson12 02:17, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually read the fifth book as opposed to flipping through the book after watching the movie, you'd know Harry wasn't made prefect because of Dumbledore's plans.

Harry was put into detention because he cut up Draco Malfoy with Sectumsempra...

Could you actually read the books as opposed to skipping through? -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 02:25, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image vote

Forum:Post-DH2 infobox images#Harry Potter

Follow the link. Nominations are still open. Voting starts in 3 days. - Nick O'Demus 14:49, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Magical outbursts

What if harry had started having magical outbursts, just like ariana. Go-On Red 19:00, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Main Picture

Didn't we want to change the main picture to a prologue picture? I think I could help. Here is a screenshot I took from the film and I can take more if you want me to. Just say so.

I could put the portrait version of it as well if you want to. German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 19:57, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Also known as

Since I'm unable to change the actual page, I'm posting something here with the hope that someone will edit this.

In the "Also known as - column" on the page, there is said that Harry Potter was once called Parry Hotter by a drunk Horace Slughorn, but he was called Parry Otter - without the H.

In the same conversation, Horace Slughorn refers to Harry as "The Chosen Boy Who", and this one is missing from the list.

I hope someone will edit & add these things. 21:33, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Added. I also fixed the header of this section that you doubled up. -Shorty1982 21:39, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
The entire section is ridiculous as it is. You're not "also known as" because somebody called you something once, all right. Especially things like "'Arry Potter," in which Rowling has omitted certain letters to phonetically illustrate the character's accent. If I turned to my friend David and called him Tittlybits, do you think -- say, fifty odd years from now -- it will say on his gravestone, "David Hammerpants, A.K.A, Tittlybits"? No, because I called him that once, informally, to piss him off. Therefore, literally the entire section has no relevance and makes no sense. 23:47, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Harry was not a half-blood

Both of Harry's parents were magical. He is a pur-blood. T-888 21:14, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

"DO NOT change to pure-blood. JKR has stated he is considered half-blood due to his mother being Muggle-born."
Quoted from the hidden comment that you can see if you were to attempt to edit this page. Also, see our article on half-bloods, as well as the numerous times Harry is referred to as half-blood in the books. -- 1337star (talk) 21:19, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I forgot all the "rules" about being Hal-blood, I was thinking that only someone who is muggle born was a half-bllod, so excuse me for that... T-888 03:17, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Ted lupin

since Sirius is not allowed on the family members, I doubt Ted does. Also, I think nky Voldemort need be listed as a didstant cousin, not the gaunts. Just a thought. TheRavenpuff 08:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

New Image ?

How about a new Infobox Image?

I'm all for image 4 Abrosenon (talk) 14:28, June 16, 2013 (UTC)


Someone vandalized the HP page with naked anime girls. Hary7676 did it. 18:37, January 16, 2012 (UTC)Nancy

I've reverted it and deleted the images. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 18:39, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
f*** you from hary7676 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Help me please! Guys,I read the first book now,and 1 fan from school told me that in third book Harry will Turn into a vampire.Is that true?Please tell me.He also sad that he will fall in love with Hermione and that he will eat her?

That's totally nonsense. He only wanted to shock you.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 15:15, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

New Pic

There needs to be a new picture for this page. It needs to be of Harry in his robes, and it should be from Goblet Of Fire or Order Of The Phoenix, when Daniel Radcliffe actually catpured the character well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMattMan095 (talkcontribs).

The image in question was decided upon by a community vote. If you wish for it to be changed, you may propose a new vote if you have a specific image you can offer that would be a suitable replacement. However, I should warn you that any such vote isn't likely to succeed. We generally try to have the image that reflects whatever was "most recent" in the series and Deathly Hallows marks the end of the series, hence that image. So an image from Goblet of Fire or Order of the Phoenix probably isn't happening. ProfessorTofty 05:43, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Heir of Slytherin?

shouldn't it be put in also known as because in the second book for a while people believed he was the heir of slytherin and while we're at it what about saint potter i seem to remember malfoy calling him that in the same book

Secret-Lord 01:20, March 3, 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure about any of you, but I know for a fact that the word realise is not correct spelling. It's spelt realize. I feel like that should be changed. Sproutingfire 14:29, March 24, 2012 (UTC)QSproutingFire

This wiki uses British spelling since the Harry Potter books are originally a British work. So, no, "realise" is correct as that is how it is spelled outside of North America. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 16:15, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know that it was spelled like that in other places. Sproutingfire 00:09, March 25, 2012 (UTC)QSproutingFire

He's not that powerful

I disagree very strongly about Harry being extremely powerful. Everything he accoplished was due to luck, his friends/other people or a ridiclous amout of things going his way.

I'd put him at maybe powerful but honestly when it says: he was an extraordinarily talented and powerful wizard. Then I do believe that that's untrue. If that was true then that would make him more powerful then Severus Snape and even most if not all the hogwarts Professors. When we know that to be absoutly false due to mutiple examples in cannon.

He was talented in a few things like flying, DADA, leadership, and love but everything else he was average in and everyone else could do what he could. Like in the DA, if the patronus was so hard to do then why were kids even younger then harry doing it no problem? that tells me that the patronus must not be that difficult or the room is filled with unusually powerful or skilled children.

Then there are parts in his skills section that I must pick appart.

  • and briefly held his own against Severus Snape, who was able to block Harry's attempts of cursing him by using Legilimency

that's kind of a simplification to make him sound more skilled and powerful then he is. If you remember, Snape was using Legilimency to try and teach the boy to "close his mind" he wasn't even trying to properly duel the kid or even hurt him. If he was, potter wouldn't have lasted a second.

  • Defeating lord voldy.

Every time he's versed the man he's only won due to luck and someone else. For example:

1st time it was his mothers love and his friends.

2nd time it was fawkes, dumbledore, the sword of gryffindor, incredible luck, and voldys ever increasing stupidity. I will admit defeating the basilisk was cool but if it wasn't for the mentioned above then he would have died.

3rd time it was the duel wand cores and his parents spirits buying him enough time to escape.

last time it was the elder wand and the discruction of the horcruxes that rendered voldy insane and next to useless. With the elder wand he (voldy) would not be able to win.

I could go on forever.

  • He used both non-verbal and wandless magic in 1991, when he caused the glass window of a snake's cage at the zoo to vanish and again in 1993 when he inflated Marge Dursley, although both of these occurrences were accidents fuelled by pure anger. Few other wizards have exhibited this power, although Albus Dumbledore and Voldemort were among them. This further contributes to Harry's skill, as only some of the most powerful wizards of his time were able to do so.

again I disagree. That anger is the cause of his accidental magic. If i'm not mistaken powerful emotions make a person stronger (ususally) and produce results like the mentioned above. This doesn't make him powerful in the way like the others (snape and dumbles) his power is only noticable when he's got powerful emotion going which is not a good thing.

I think his power is being made grander on the wiki then it is in cannon. So I am wondering If I could change it from: 'an extraordinarily talented and powerful wizard, with many of his strengths being praised by witches and wizards much older and wiser than he was.'

to: He was a very talented and somewhat powerful wizsard.

The praise was mostly from Gryffindors and people biased to him. It's like a grandfather telling a kid hes an awesome artist when his skills are most likely averadge as best. you know?

I think that his strength should be noticed but that it wasn't that grand.

Sorry if this sounds anti potter but rest assured there are many people who have this opinion on the article. So I'm just voicing it for them.

Also I propose a slight tweaking on the skills I just mentioned above.

HalfBloodWitch 06:40, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Happy 32nd Birthday!

Just wanted to wish Harry a happy 32nd birthday! -- RLB01 (talk) 07:39, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Harry Potter!
Yer' a wizard, Harry!
ProfessorTofty (talk) 08:24, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Page security

Has this page been locked? I've seen a lot of vandalizing been done by unregistered users, and I think it should be locked to protect its contents.

Lovealways5671 (talk) 21:11, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

We normally only protect a page if there's a strong history of vandalism that would be causing an issue. Can you point to some specifics? Looking at the page history, I'm not seeing a strong record of vandalism, less than one edit that appears to be vandalism a day, based on reversions/undos. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:43, December 18, 2012 (UTC)


The Harry Potter page has been erased and has no information I looked just now and it was earsed twenty minutes ago. Please help re-build the page, if you're a harry potter mega fan please help. Even if it's the littlest detail, help. ((Unsigned|}}

It has been dealt with by the administrators. - Nick O'Demus 22:16, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Harry and Pre-Hogwarts schooling

Is there any definitive evidence that the Dursleys sent Harry to school prior to Hogwarts? I know it seems likely, even obvious, that they did, but all their behaviors towards him make me wonder if they somehow kept him out of it. Gojirob (talk) 17:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, plenty of evidence. For example, some of the references to his use of underage magic such as when he turned his teacher's wig blue, or about how he was never picked for games at school because of the tyranny of Dudley and his gang. There's no doubt that they sent him to school. Besides, they would have wanted to anyway-- any excuse for him not to be in the house. They hated even seeing him. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:36, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Infobox marital status

With Hunnie Bunn's intervention it seems easier to move the discussion here.

I started addressing ProfessorTofty with:

The infobox on the Trio (plus one, if you include Ginny Weasley)'s pages, states they're all married, wich is true only for the two or three pages of the Epilogue. For the rest of the series (virtually the whole of it), they're not.
May I inquire about the reasoning behind this detail? Personally, I'd change their marital status to unmarried, perhaps with a second line stating that by the epilogue it was upgraded, should this modification stand a chance to survive scrutiny. (Signature)

Hunnie_Bunn intervenes with:

Hi. Sorry to interrupt, but I saw your message on ProfessorTofty's talk page and figured I'd provide my opinion as well. Yes, they were only married for a few pages throughout the book series, but since JKR makes various comments about their marriages throughout interviews and such, wouldn't it still count? (Signature)

My answer:

I think it depends on what you're enphatizing: the books or the writing process.
If more weight is given to the final product, then the "Married" qualification shouldn't apply - even though the Trio/Ginny's marriages are a guiding principle, they happen only after the end of the series, the epilogue being just the tying up a few loose ends.
If more weight is given to the writing process (now that Hunnie_Bunn mentions it, I remember reading that the DH's last chapter was written rather early in the series' development), then, I agree with HB, their marital status acquires more importance.
But I still think that the label "Married" is misleading, since a peruser of ths wiki who hasn't yeat read, oh, anything between the last two/three and all books, will expect the four characters getting married some time in the last/second-to-last books, considerably earlier than in the epilogue, which does not happen.
I'm of the opinion that the (four) infoboxes should be amended as something like this:
Married (by the epilogue)"

MinorStoop 13:15, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a bit late to say this, but wouldn't putting "epilogue" into the main article or the infobox be out of universe? So that wouldn't work, really... is there any other way of saying it? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 16:30, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
No more than "married", I'd imagine. :) I feel that the "out-of-universe" argument only strengthens my favoring the use of the "Unmarried" element only. MinorStoop 16:52, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Modified the wording - it's now in-universe, I think. MinorStoop 17:02, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
I approve, for the most part, now. But I think we should see what some others think before we take the "talk" header off, just to make sure. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:09, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
I concur. MinorStoop 17:10, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the wording as it currently stands. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:38, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
It seems unnecessarily redundant to specify that they were unmarried before they were married. I think it would be preferable to simply put "Married (as of 2017)". - Nick O'Demus 16:05, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
Corrected. MinorStoop 12:55, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki