Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Who designed really in Harry Potter books the Uniforms? Is there already a name from the maker of the costumes?--Station7 10:08, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
If we have a look on McGonagall´s list to Harry in PS, we see that he only requires a robe and a hat. How can the uniform from the films be considered cannon, then?--Rodolphus 11:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Bumping--Rodolphus 12:36, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- It is not. See Robes. The hat is actually mentioned a few times in PS, and in OP Snape gets tripped up by the ankle by James, revealing his underpants. How can that happen if Snape is wearing the film uniform?--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 00:27, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
We badly need to rewrite the article, then.--Rodolphus 10:26, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Harry granger 20:56, April 1, 2010 (UTC) I have an idea. Perhaps they wore trousers, but Severus Snape's family was too poor, so he does'nt have one or not enough for a change when his trousers must be washed.
Goblet Of Fire robes
I just noticed that the students appear to be wearing their pre-Prisoner of Azkaban robes in G.O.F., however they seem to revert to the P.O.A. robes for the rest of the films. Perhaps something about this should be mentioned. -Smonocco 23:06, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
In the second book, harry have a bag : "the embarrassed Harry trips and falls, having ink spilled all over the contents of his bag" (chapter 13, The Very Secret Diary). FrenchPygmyPuff 14:50, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the article you are looking for is Harry Potter's schoolbag. -Smonocco 11:35, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Lily Evans Uniform
Couldn't we use the Lily Evans from Deathly Hallows: Part 2? It is a better view of the uniform, as opposed to the one we currently have of her, which is only from the side. AlastorMoody 01:29, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Why did you change my revision? I didn't add anything fanon. I just tried to, as said, emphazise the differences between how the uniform is described in the books as compared to how they look in the films. I don't think "violating" is the right choice of words. I'm sorry if I didn't follow your rules completely and I understand if you prefer to have this article edited by experienced users but I only went by what was said about changes that needed to be made on this talk page, and I do think it would be better to just change the parts of my revision that you weren't satisfied with rather than erasing all of my hard work. I only changed it because everyone was talking about how it needed to be changed but nothing seemed to happen. If my way to do it was not the right one, then please let me be better informed of what the right way to do it is. And please pay attention to what people say on the this talk page in general. Chanpuruuu (talk) 21:05, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
- As I informed you in the edit summary, and clarified on your talk page, the major problem with your edit is that we write in an in-universe fashion. Using phrases like "in the books" or "in the films", outside of "Behind the scenes" sections is prohibited here, as I'm sure one of our many policy pages says. Really, this article's problem isn't, as you seem to believe, that is doesn't clarify the differences between the film uniforms and the book's overall lack of general description of them, but rather that it tries to take a split difference between the two. We need to decide how canon (by our polices) the film uniforms really are, I think. Do the books ever explicitly say they only wear solid black robes with no objects of house colour? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 21:24, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
- No, but if you look at J. K. Rowling's drawings she just draws them as solid black robes like the ones you mentioned. Are those considered canon? I would think so since I'm sure she draws them like she envisioned them. Maybe we should add one of her drawings to the behind the scenes section? That way people would be able to choose themselves which version they want to picture in their heads – the film version, the uniforms as drawn by Jo, or something else that they make up themselves. Also on Pottermore it seems as though the students do not wear the film version of the robes (except for in the PS3 version). In the drawings they seem to be wearing plain black robes but with a white collar, like some sort of cross between the book description and the film version. Another option would be to delete the text describing the book version and instead just show that there are different versions by keeping the "History" section intact and adding some screenshots of Jo's version and the two Pottermore versions in the Behind the scenes section, perhaps with an explanation/description to go with them. I might do that if I were you, but I'll leave most of the editing of this article to you from now on, so that we don't have to argue too much. To me, the book description will always be canon and the film version will not. But it seems to be part of most people's headcanon as it is. I just want there to be a clear description of which version is which so that it can be easier for people who are not sure what the "canon" version of the uniform really is to make up their own opinion, without the text being in favour of one of the versions and not another. Though I think that if it needs to be in favour of just ONE version, it should be the book version. Just my opinion. For the record I am NOT trying to provoke, just help you. So please don't remove any possible future edits by me just assuming they will be no good. I'll try to leave the "film versus book version" area alone from now on, but if you like, give the "add more pictures to the behind the scenes section" some thought as it, to me, seems to be my least provocative idea. I'd be happy to add the pictures if you support it. If not, well, you can do what you want to this page and I'll just have to accept. Chanpuruuu (talk) 01:56, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
Some of this is repetitive of the message on the talk page for robes, but I still don't quite understand how the uniform works. To clear up confusion, this query is mostly about the book uniform - the film one is easy enough to understand.
My question is, what do Hogwarts students wear under their robes? The films suggest a dress-shirt and a tie with slacks or dress-pants or trousers. The books, however, are somewhat conflicting.
In Snape's Worst Memory, when Snape is flipped upside-down, his greying underwear is revealed, suggesting he isn't wearing pants; likewise, in Quidditch he merely has to lift up his robes to expose his bare leg and the wounded flesh thereon. There are several instances throughout the books of wizards changing into robes from Muggle clothes or from one set of robes into another as opposed to putting on robes over their ordinary clothes. "Pants" in Britain is supposedly synonymous with "underwear", and it makes no sense for Neville to burn his pants instead of his trousers, which makes me think that all they do wear under their robes is their undergarments. Also, the trio and the Weasleys have to change from their robes into clothes, suggesting they aren't already wearing clothes underneath.
This is, however, contradicted in several places. Well, actually, only in two that I can think of. Firstly, the fact that in some books Hermione, Harry and Ron all change together in the same compartment, which might simply be discounted as their being comfortable enough with one another to change in front of each other or else looking away/being too difficult with their own clothes to be bothered with anyone else's. But the real contradiction comes from Draco's statement that Ron's shirt is untucked, which could technically be discounted as him being nasty and Ron not wearing a shirt, but you never know...
- Based on my personal experience and research, I would think that they would have something under the robes (besides just underwear). Wikipedia defines a robe as "a loose-fitting outer garment", which, unlike a cloak, has sleves. As for the books, I honestly cant recal there ever being a specification. I always imagined that in "Quidditch", Snape was also holding up his pants (trousers) or that Fluffy had bit him low enough on the leg. It could be that they were wearing knee-length pants. Dr. Galenos (talk) 23:24, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought so as well, but based on Snape's Worst Memory and on pants being synonymous with underwear in Britain and Neville burning his bants, it'd seem not. Another thing I found interesting was that the supply list specifies that they're "work robes", which might possibly indicate a difference from the sort of robes used in the Muggle world.
- Harry says that dress robes look just like normal robes, but Ron mistakes his robes for a dress, indicating either that they were so enormously lacy that the fact that they were open didn't occur to him, or that they really did look like a dress.
- Thanks for the answer, though; I appreciate it, and your view makes more sense than the other option. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:28, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
- I want to say yes, as the information presented is from a source of the highest canon, but at the same time, I cant discount the use of logic. Robes are an outer garment, and this feels like a situation where JKR made a mistake. I dont know, I'm really torn on this one. This is a conundrum that I think only JKR can resolve. Dr. Galenos (talk) 04:13, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
One mistake this page made. They called Hagrid NOT to be a wizard and that's not true. He IS a wizard, a bad wizard because of his expel from the school, but a wizard like his father.14:49, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
I feel this article could use some cleaning up: in particular, the fact that there is conflicting information about House affiliation being listed on the robes, and the fact that despite no shirts or pants being mentioned in the books, we are using the films to describe the uniform as being a full suit underneath a robe underneath a cloak. I would change it, but wanted to ensure this was something the community wanted, and not just something I felt was necessary. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 14:29, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. This wiki takes the books as 1st canon. So why should the uniform be described as they are shown in the film? Snape has no trousers underneath his robe in the book, but in the film he has. When this belongs to all students that's a contradiction to the 1st tier canon. 16:13, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Students wearing Muggle clothes in their free time
This article says that Hogwarts students only wear Muggle clothes during their free time in the films. Can't they do it in the books as well? I got that impression. Mrs. Weasley makes sweaters as Christmas presents. It would be pointless for her to send sweaters that her children and Harry won't be wearing. - UnicornWolf (talk) 22:05, February 11, 2015 (UTC)