Talk: Harry Potter

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

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

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)

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)