Harry Potter Wiki

Talk:Mistakes in the Harry Potter books

Back to page

12,618pages on
this wiki


Is it just me, or is this page pretty much a carbon copy of --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 23:55, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Suspicious. We should move this to the respective book article. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:06, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

In order?

Should the book mistakes be rearranged in order of how they happened in the book to make it easier? Just a thought... GinnyPi 23:27, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

The Hogwarts' equipment list mentions the Lockhart book "Wanderings With a Werewolf," but later, Lockhart refers to the book as "Weekend With a Werewolf".

  • It's most likely intentional to show how clueless he is about his 'own' work.Oneshot 19:35, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is also possible that the title of the book was changed by the editors/publishers from the original manuscript/working title. Sings-With-Spirits 16:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I think, like Oneshot said, that this was an intentional mistake by Rowling to show how much of a fraud Lockhard is and how he is completely clueless and knows nothing about "his own work" (as if it was his anyway :P ). German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 15:02, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. I don't think J.K. Rowling would have made a mistake like that.---CatGlow10585 15:41, July 1, 2014

Secret Keeper

When Dobby arrives at Malfoy Manor to help Harry and the others escape, Ron tells him the location of Bill and Fleur's house in Tinworth. But ever since the Death Eaters found out Ron was with Harry, the house has been protected by the Fidelius Charm, and the charm works in a way that a protected location can't be revealed by a third party. Only Bill could have told Dobby where the house is, and that isn't what happened.

There is nothing that indicates that the Fidelius Charm had not been in place long before the Death Eaters found out about Ron. In fact, Ron had visited the Shell cottage before and was almost certainly a Secret Keeper.

As such, this is not a mistake and I have removed it.Sings-With-Spirits 17:00, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Bill has specically said that he was the secret keeper. And it never occured that there was more than one secret keeper for any of the important places mentioned in the books (Harry Potter's parent's house, Sirius Black's house). So it's more likely that Bill's house had not been put on the Fidelius Charm when Ron told Dobby where it was.Shengtom (talk) 14:20, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

The Weasleys didn't know the Death Eaters found out about Ron traveling with Harry until Dobby showed up with the first group he rescued. The Fidelius Charm was probably not in place before that. Tjb173 (talk) 17:42, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of these are speculative

A bunch of these "mistakes" are speculative, and should, imo, be removed (eg - Lupin "probably not" able to have taken 7 days worth of Wolfsbane in 1996; the idea that since it wasn't mentioned there were no Quidditch tryouts in Harry's 2nd or 3rd year, etc). They're not technically mistakes as they require us to assume that because something wasn't specifically mentioned, it could not have occurred. Stevehim 03:01, January 20, 2011 (UTC)


We should also add the books omissions. Omissions are not real mistakes, but it's still a "book-trouble" and that could maybe help. FrenchPygmyPuff 16:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but here is the part where cinematography kicks in. Trust me, if the films didn't have their own style that is dependent from the books and were copied page by page from the books they wouldn't have been as good as they are now. Books have their own style which makes them awesome in their own way while films have they own style which also makes them awesome in their own way. German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 15:06, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Quidditch Through the Ages (real)

  • A discrepancy in the in-universe book is that although Harry had the book in his first year (1991-1992), there is an event listed that occurred in 1994. It is, however, possible, that the "real" edition was updated.They should have something about that in the book series.
  • This book is available in the muggle world (Dumbledore writes that everything is "fictional"), but Wizards try to stay invisible to Muggles so we can imagine that lot of them are against the idea of this book available in the muggle world but there is nothing about this in the books series. FrenchPygmyPuff 16:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (real)

  • This book is available in the muggle world (Dumbledore writes that everything is "fictional"), but Wizards try to stay invisible to Muggles so we can imagine that lot of them are against the idea of this book available in the muggle world but there is nothing about this in the books series.

I'm going to go through and delete the ones that assume somthing is a mistake on rowling's part over being fine if interpreted a slightly differant way

"In the American paperback on page 461, it states: "It was Moaning Myrtle, who was usually to be heard sobbing in the S-bend of a toilet three floors below." However, in Chamber of Secrets American paperback page 230, Moaning Myrtle says, "I was just sitting in the U-bend, thinking about death..." meaning that she normally sits in the U-bend, not the S-bend."

Yes of course because she happened to be sitting there that praticuler time means she must always do so! Honnestly!

To be perfectly honest, I agree with you. As a matter of fact a lot of the "mistakes" here are not really mistakes but are just misinterpretted by the readers such as the one you just mentioned but no one listens....Your delete will most likely get reverted :P. Anyway always remember to leave your signature but pressing on the "signature" button on the top or by typing "~~~~" without the quotes. German eagle logo  Firefox1095  German eagle logo 21:00, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 15 of HP3

Come on. 200 hundred Slytherins? That's 20 thousand people! The books say 200! And eight dormitories? 03:19, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

This was presumably an error on the part of someone who intended to write "2 hundred" or "two hundred." I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out. Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:20, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not a mistake!

The article mentions this "mistake":

When Harry and Hagrid are leaving the little shack out in the middle of the sea, they used the rowboat that the Dursleys' had borrowed in order to leave the rock. This leaves the Dursleys with no way to get back to shore, yet there is no mention of retrieving them, and it is implied Harry goes straight back to Privet Drive after his shopping at Diagon Alley.

I don't really think there is a mistake. As stated in the book, the island is within visual range of the coast, and once daylight came, the Dursleys would have been able to wave a blanket or bedsheet from the shack to make known that they're stuck on the island, and someone would have come to take them back with a boat. 14:01, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

The above is clearly an instance of the "it's not explicitly stated to have happened, therefore it didn't happen" fallacy, so I removed it. We're not told of the numerous times Harry went to relieve himself either; are we to infer from this that he managed to hold it for seven years? — RobertATfm (talk) 11:08, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, depending on where the "island" is located, it might only be an "island" during high tide, connected to the shore as a peninsula at low tide; they might have just walked back across dry land. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:54, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Another bit... "fug" referred to on p38 of HBP as a mistake; clearly not the case and a perfectly legitimate word Sheriff85 21:39, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


Since this has come up a couple of times, simply seeing someone die is not enough to be able to see a thestral. According to JKR:

"That is a really good question, because it enables me to clear up a point. The letters that I’ve had about the Thestrals! Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means."

(JK Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August 2004)

Wva 19:58, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate list of "mistakes" that aren't mistakes but misunderstandings on the part of the reader. The Thestrals one is a common one (I've seen it multiple times in various media), but I'm sure there are others.
As well as being asserted that Harry should have seen the Thestrals at the end of GoF, having seen Cedric die (in fact, end of term was only a week or two after Cedric's death so it hadn't sunk in yet), there are also those who claim that Harry saw his parents die (as noted above, he didn't, and even if he did he was too young for it to register) or that Harry saw Professor Quirrell die (I think he was already unconscious by the time that happened). -- RobertATfm (talk) 10:37, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Myrtle's bathroom

In the passage: "Hermione says Moaning Myrtle haunts the bathroom on the first floor. However, when Harry sees the writing on the wall outside her bathroom, he is on the second floor. (This, however, is explained by the fact that in the UK, the ground floor is the floor on which the entrances are, and the floor above it is the first floor, and this was one of the few edits made for the North American release, despite the criticism on edits for Philosopher's Stone.)"

The 'mistake' is only valid for people reading the book in a language other than the language the book was written in. In addition to this, it is not unreasonable for some who was not born in the UK to know (by common general knowledge) that the floors are named differently in different countries, and so it should not be listed as a mistake.

Bowman Wright 17:43, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Hogwarts House Quidditch Format

This is not really a mistake as such, but the House Quidditch competition format at Hogwarts seems to be that whichever team has the most points at the end of the season wins. This means it is possible for a team to win the Quidditch Cup by losing all their matches, which is strange 07:45, July 19, 2012 (UTC).Anon Y. Mous

Yes, the Cup is awarded by point totals, not wins, so it would be theoretically possible for a team to lose all 3 of its games and still win the Cup. For example, if a season went like this:
Gryffindor vs. Slytherin: 300 - 310 (S win)
Hufflepuff vs. Ravenclaw: 160 - 150 (H win)
Ravenclaw vs. Slytherin: 160 - 150 (R win)
Gryffindor vs. Hufflepuff: 300 - 310 (H win)
Hufflepuff vs. Slytherin: 150 - 160 (S win)
Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw: 300 - 310 (R win)
At the end of the season, Gryffindor would have 900 points despite losing all 3 of its games, while the other teams would each have 620 points and 2 wins. - Nick O'Demus 08:09, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. Don't you think it's a little odd that a team can win the Cup yet lose all its matches? Did Rowling think of this scenario when designing the Cup format? 02:53, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Anon Y. Mous
Also, here's another, more striking scenario.

> Gryffindor vs. Slytherin: 300 - 500 (S win)
> Hufflepuff vs. Ravenclaw: 0 - 220 (R win)
> Ravenclaw vs. Slytherin: 170 - 0 (R win)
> Gryffindor vs. Hufflepuff: 300 - 500 (H win)
> Hufflepuff vs. Slytherin: 150 - 160 (S win)
> Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw: 300 - 500 (R win)

This is just one of the infinitely many scenarios where a team loses all three of its matches yet wins the Cup. However, this is different to the previous scenario. In this one, you can clearly see that Ravenclaw looks far and away the best team, and Gryffindor looks like easily the worst team. Here, Gryffindor gets smashed by 200 points in all its games, and Ravenclaw breezes past all its opponents with ease. Yet Gryffindor would still win the Cup with 900 points, and Ravenclaw would only come second with 890 points, despite easily beating all its opponents.

I conclude that surely Rowling made a mistake when designing the format, as it would be absurd to allow a team to win the Cup yet get smashed in all its matches, like in the scenario above. 02:53, July 22, 2012 (UTC) Anon Y. Mous

It's true, this is a terrible way of handling a sporting tournament. Between this and the completely crazy point allocation (10pts/goal versus 150 per snitch), Quidditch would be unbalanced to the point of being completely unplayable if not for the authorial hand guiding the action to keep games close and interesting. It's worth noting that when real life college kids play Quidditch (by running around with brooms, rather than flying on them), the scoring system and tournament system is radically altered compared to the books.

This is explainable by the fact that JK Rowling has explicitly said that she tweaked some of the rules of Quidditch deliberately to annoy the sport-loving boyfriend with whom she was fighting when she was designed the sport. If it seems like it wouldn't work as a real sport, you're right. It's designed that way. Iainin (talk) 14:07, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Descent from Slytherin

This is one that's been bothering me for some time.

The Gaunts, and hence Riddle, are supposed to be the last descendents of Salazar Slytherin. But given the large degree of inbreeding in the wizarding world, isn't it far more likely that many, if not most, wizards (especially pure-bloods) are descended from Slytherin?

In Deathly Hallows it is revealed that the Gaunts are descended from the oldest Peverell brother, and Harry from the youngest; meaning that Harry is, at least distantly, related to Voldemort. -- RobertATfm (talk) 03:31, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Harry is VERY distantly related to Voldemort, but all purebloods are related in some way. (I know Voldemort wasn't a pureblood, but I am reffering to his ancestors).

Which brings me to you first question: yes, I see what you mean, but I believe that the Gaunts are the only family DIRECTLY decended from Slytherin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatGlow10585 (talkcontribs) 21:46, July 1, 2014 (UTC).

The point I was making is, if the Gaunts are descended from Slytherin through the Peverells, then the Potters are also descended from Slytherin as they too are direct descendents of the Peverells. — RobertATfm (talk) 00:33, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily.  Ordinarily, when one talks about "direct descent", one means "male-line descent."  That is, an unbroken line of "fathers and sons."  That implies that there would also be a consistent last name.  However, we have a change in last name from "Slytherin" to "Peverell" to "Gaunt."  This very strongly implies that a descent from "father to daughter" or "mother to daughter" is also considered "direct descent" in the magical world.  Dumbledore specifically alludes to this when he talks about the descent of the Cloak from Ignotus Peverell to Harry Potter.  Therefore, it is possible that the descent from Slytherin merged into the line of descent from Cadmus Peverell by marriage.  It would not necessarily mean that Salazar Slytherin was an ancestor of the three Peverell brothers. (This would not change the initial issue, in that all English wizards are most likely very distantally related to each other.) Wva (talk) 15:50, July 2, 2014 (UTC)


I think that the page name should be changed to "List of Mistakes and continuity errors in the Harry Potter books" as the term "continuity errors" better fits some of the points listed, as they are not always completely incorrect ("mistakes") , just JK Rowling's oversight. I wanted to propose the thought rather than change it myself as this is a new account and although I have experience on other wikia's, I am by no means a moderator. RavenclawDBS (talk) 16:07, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Cornelius Fudge never checks Harry's memory..?

They call Dumbledore and Harry liars about Voldemort returning, and for some reason no one thinks to check Harry's memory to confirm what he saw that night? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Because, as Slughorn proves in Half-Blood Prince, memories can be tampered with. Either way, Fudge didn't want to know: Cedric's body, Harry's testimony, and Barty Crouch's confession alone would be proof that Voldemort had returned, but he simply chose to disregard them; he would disregard Harry's memory in the same way. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:21, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Vanishing Cabinet "error"

I've just removed a spurious "mistake" in which Bellatrix Lestrange (correctly) calls Harry a half-blood (inserted by someone who was under the false impression that Harry was pure-blood), which was "corrected" on-page by somebody pointing out Harry's blood status, instead of by removing the spurious "error" as should have been done. (Even if that had been a mistake, it would have been a mistake on Lestrange's part, not JKR's.)

However, there's another passage which seems dubious to me, which I suspect ought to be removed, but I'm not sure so am posting it here:

  • In Half-Blood Prince, the Death Eaters enter Hogwarts via the Room of Hidden Things, yet a year later Voldemort is certain that no one else knows of the room's existence.
    • However, he may have not known that the Vanishing Cabinet was in there, just that it was somewhere inside Hogwarts.
    • Voldemort's ignorance and arrogance do not make this a mistake.

My thoughts on this are as follows:

  1. The Vanishing Cabinet was not in the Room of Hidden Things in Voldemort's time; it was only moved there after Peeves broke it.
  2. Likely none of the Death Eaters informed Voldemort that the Cabinet was in the Room of Hidden Things; they probably assumed that he already knew, and that this sort of thing was too trivial to mention.
  3. As mentioned in the third part of the above section, Voldemort's assumption that he was the only person (at least in his time and afterwards) to find the Room of Hidden Things was probably due to his arrogance blinding him to the fact that finding the Room didn't require very great wizardry. Certainly his arrogance caused him to ignore the evidence of the Room being crammed to the rafters with assorted items, showing that the Room had in fact been discovered hundreds or thousands of times before; he probably assumed that these items were centuries old, or created by the Room itself to indicate that this was a good place to hide stuff.

I thus think this is another non-error which should be removed; what does anyone else think? -- RobertATfm (talk) 10:40, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

I am currently re-reading the HP books, this time in the e-book editions, and have just got to the bit of HP2 where Peeves broke the cabinet (at the behest of Nick, as a diversion to stop Filch giving Harry detention). At the time, the Cabinet conveniently happened to be in the classroom directly above Filch's office; reinforcing my impression that it was only moved to the Room of Hidden Things when it got broken, and because it got broken. -- RobertATfm (talk) 20:26, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree, it's not an error. I've already combed through the article and removed a number of non-errors, but if you see anything else that strikes you as a non-error or needs re-writing, feel free to take care of it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:40, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
On the subject of "is Harry a half-blood", yes, he is. A wizard is a half-blood if they have a wizard parents and a muggle parent OR if they have a pureblood parent and a muggle-born parent. Thus, Harry is a half-blood. Remember, Dumbledore says that Voldemort didn't choose the pureblood (Neville) "he chose the half-blood, like himself".----CatGlow10585 (talk)
It's worth noting that Voldemort and Harry are both half-bloods, but are different kinds of half-bloods, in that Harry had two magic-using parents, one of whom was muggle-born, where as Voldemort's father was a muggle. However, since the term "half-blood" refers to anyone whose pedigree is mixed between wizards and muggles at any point, they are both technically half-bloods, as CatGlow said. Iainin (talk) 14:12, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


Well, I've finally cleaned up all of the stuff with the various weak attempts at explanation and natter. I've also removed a lot of things that are nitpicks at best and non-errors at worst. If anyone thinks I've removed something that's really a legitimate error, then it can be restored, but please not if it can be easily explained away. I'm also going to be watching this page closely. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:23, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

If you need it then i'll look over it too just to help you as this article is pretty long. But for now I think that you have done a pretty good job. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:35, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
By all means, you're quite welcome to look it over and remove anything else you see if you feel it doesn't belong, or edit it if it can be worded better. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:51, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

What time does the Hogwarts Express arrive?

I've just checked my eBook copy of Philosopher's Stone and it says that it was getting dark by the time the Hogwarts Express arrived. Yet the best idea we have of Hogwarts' location is that it's near Dufftown, in Moray; according to Wikipedia that means that it's 430 miles from London, and according to, in Moray on 1 September sunset is 20:11, and civil dusk (which is when it starts to get dark) is at 20:52. Unless the Express is ridiculously slow for a train, or takes an extremely roundabout route, surely the journey doesn't take 10 hours? -- RobertATfm (talk) 02:03, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Map of Hogwarts location - "The Hogwarts Express leaves London at 11am (by British Summer Time, presumably, since they are catching the train more-or-less in the Muggle world), heads north and travels until it is almost dark. That's definitely sunset-dark, not just cloud-cover dark, because in CoS they can see stars from the flying Ford, in OotP we are specifically told that it is night when they arrive, and in HBP we see that the sun is setting just before they arrive.
Sunset in Britain on 1st September, when the train travels, would be about 7:45pm BST in London, 8:15pm BST in the Highlands, becoming seriously dark about forty-five minutes later. In a mountainous area sunset and darkness will arrive somewhat earlier, because the mountains cut into the path of the sun and interrupt it before it reaches the true horizon, but even so we know the journey takes nine, maybe nine-and-a-half hours." ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:06, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

E-book "error"

About two weeks to a month ago, I removed a supposed error because it was claimed to be "in one of the electronic editions", yet it isn't in my e-book copy, which is of the only official e-book edition (at least in British English). This shortly afterwards got reverted ("pending verification" according to the edit summary) because apparently there's also an American English version available from Pottermore (I know there's also a Japanese version, but I doubt this error is such that the Japanese edition could be the one meant) and this needs to be checked.

I now notice that the deletion has been re-done by an anonymous editor (not me, and to judge from the IP not anyone else on Three UK ether), but they didn't give an edit summary so there's no telling why they did it. Have they purchased the American edition and found that the "error" isn't there either? Or did they re-do the deletion simply because of the vagueness of "one of the electronic editions"? I think we should be told. -- RobertATfm (talk) 03:10, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

It's a good question as to exactly why they deleted it. But even if it turns out that it is an actual error, upon reflection I'm perfectly comfortable with it being removed. I consider this sort of spelling/grammatical mistake error to be a nitpick error and not really a priority to include. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:24, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

PS: no error: Supposed location of Little Whinging:

Supposed location of Little Whinging:

In the listing of errors for PS is the following entry (in intalics)

When Harry returns from Diagon Alley to Little Whinging, he takes a train from Paddington station. But Little Whinging is in Surrey, south of London, so he should have travelled from Victoria or Waterloo; trains from Paddington head to the west.

I believe this entry can be either deleted, or perhaps better modified to avoid confusion, because I'm sure that many readers wonder about this.

It is true that the largest part of Surrey is south of London. HOWEVER, as the hp-lexion explained years ago, this is not necessarily an error in the book PS, if we take into consideration that there is a small part of Surrey to the west of London. So, Privet Drive, Little Whinging can very well be located in the farthest north of Surrey, to the west of Heathrow Airport and to the northwest of Staines.

The station need not be in the County of Surrey. All that is necessary is it to be the most convenient station for Privet Drive. Harry could have taken the 16.20 train from Paddington towards Reading - direction west - and get off at a station near Little Whinging like for example Langley in Southern Buckinghamshire, and then either walked home or he could have caught a local bus. (Paraphrased from the hp-lexicon).

Please look at: Surrey: Showing the Location of Little Whinging

Essay on hp-lexicon about Surrey location Privet Drive 07:27, October 19, 2012 (UTC) Tonks-is-cool 07:27, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

There is one slight problem with your hypothesis; no station on the Reading line, or on any other line from Paddington, is anywhere near even the westernmost part of Surrey. As the essay you linked to points out, even if Little Whinging is in the very north-west of Surrey, there are no statons on the Reading line within one and a half miles of the presumed location of Little Whinging. Besides, the essay linked is not canon; and a further argument in favour of Little Whinging being somewhere on the lines from Victoria or Waterloo (and hence against it being on any line from Paddington) is that in the Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Script movie, Dumbledore meets Harry at Surbiton station, which is on a line from Waterloo (and which, incidentally, used to be in Surrey, and is just over the border from Surrey, as is Surrey's county town of Kingston-upon-Thames, about a mile away). As Joanne Rowling was a script consultant for all the movies, this can thus be taken as a pretty strong indication that Little Whinging is somewhere near Surbiton, and hence not within 20 miles of anywhere on the Reading line. Thus there is noo need to amend this entry. -- RobertATfm (talk) 09:14, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
Oops; in the above "20" should read "several". I've now made the correction; book canon trumps film canon, but film canon trumps speculation on fanon websites, even respected ones such as the Lexicon. -- RobertATfm (talk) 18:26, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Troll error

In the interests of not starting an edit war, I will bring this up here instead of merely reverting the edit again. The most recent revision to the page proposes an error in Hermione's declaration of guilt for going after the troll in Philosopher's Stone, stating that it is impossible that Hermione would know defending Harry and Ron was even needed without being present in the Great Hall when Quirrell announced the attack. Now, I personally do not follow the logic in this and had removed it when it was previously added yesterday (you can find my argument for removal in the edit history). However, as my removal of this edit was reverted by an editor who I must in good faith assume that has read my reasoning for removing it and disagreed, I will give this supposed error the benefit of the doubt and ask if others agree with this line of reasoning before potentially removing it again.

In shorter terms, is this edit describing a valid error, or has the user made an error in logic? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:45, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

After she comes into the bathroom, furious, McGonagall asks Harry and Ron why they aren't in the dormitory. That, coupled with the fact that none of the teachers seemed surprised to see the troll (they were by far more surprised that it had been defeated by first-years), I think, allowed Hermione to add two and two: she must've figured that the students had been evacuated to their dormitories because, somehow, a troll was on the loose in the Castle. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:19, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the question is predicated on the fact of whether or not the other teachers knew that Hermione was in the bathroom the whole time. Her excuse is "I went looking for the troll. I thought I could handle it." If the teachers know that she was locked in the bathroom the whole time, then they shouldn't believe her excuse. But if they don't realise it, then they would be willing to swallow it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:48, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
1337star, thank you for talking to me. Now we are on much more civilized terms. When somebody makes an honest contribution for the public good, you don't just go in and delete just because you might not understand, or you disagree. Hope you are not wreaking havoc on wikipedia. At least give it the benefit of doubt, and communicate with the author. Otherwise you risk coming through as the authoritative policeman of the web.
Anyway, back to the point I was trying to make. The scene makes sense to the reader only because we know everything that happened: that the troll was announced at the dinner; that Hermione had been in the bathroom the whole time; that the students had been sent to their dormitories and; that the teachers went looking for the troll. Our viewpoint is Harry and Ron's viewpoint. They know all this. Now let's look at what McGonagall knows. She thinks all students are in their dormitories. She hears the commotion, enters the bathroom, and finds the troll plus three students in there. Three students. Why is she angry at Harry and Ron only, and not Hermione? Because it is a girls' bathroom? Maybe. I'm not sure.
And let's look at Hermione's viewpoint. She had been in the bathroom since before the dinner began. Harry and Ron learned about it when they were going to the dinner. So Hermione could not have possibly known anything about the troll. She's sitting in the bathroom when suddenly a troll comes in. She screams, then Harry and Ron come in and save her. Then the teachers arrive and McGonagall is angry at the boys. WHY? Hermione has no idea how the troll got there or who knew about it. For all she knows it might have been Harry and Ron who let it loose in the first place! She simply does not know. Or it could have been that Harry and Ron had been present with McGonagall in her office when somebody told her that a troll was in the dungeons - McGonagall then would have sent the two boys to their dormitories and gone after the troll with the other teachers; then McGonagall could be angry at the boys, and the two boys only, for not following orders. In which case Hermione would not have learned about the troll until much later. Or it could be that the troll was discovered just minutes earlier. Or there could be several trolls in the castle! And I could go on and on. There are all kinds off possibilities that Hermione could assume, not knowing what took place outside the bathroom.
But Hermione says this: It is my fault. I went after the troll, I thought I could handle it. And this statement assumes a prior knowledge of what happened at the dinner. Otherwise it just does not make sense. Without that prior knowledge, Hermione could only say something like: "But professor, they saved my life! It is my fault, I should have gone to the dormitory. Harry and Ron came after me and saved my life". Or something like that. But not "I went after the troll, I thought I could handle it".
I'm sorry, this logic may not make sense to many, but I stand firmly by it. You are welcome to say you don't agree but please don't just wipe out my work without as much as a word.
And finally, to ProfessorTofty, I have no problem with the teachers accepting Hermione's excuse. They think she was at the dinner so it all makes perfect sense to them. But we, the readers, know she wasn't there, so this doesn't make sense... to at least one of us.
Thank you, sorry if I offended anyone. And sorry if I make any formatting mistakes, this is my first time. And probably the last, after this experience. 22:49, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

The above was me, sorry, hard to see if I'm logged in or not... (

Wiki-VV22 (talk) 22:56, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
In reply to Wiki-VV22... you're forgetting something, or so I believe. Hermione could have lied. She could have just as easily said "I let the troll in for some practise on jinxes and hexes, but lost control of it." I'm not trying to go against anyone, but my belief is that she lied through her teeth. Due to your constant reminders of logic being necessary, I thought I'd point out that if she'd lied it would make sense in every aspect. 23:02, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

Slughorn's reference to Ron

This is an easter egg, rather than an error as such, which is why it's on the talk page rather than the article page.

I'm sure that in Half-Blood Prince, when it's Ron's birthday and he and Harry are in Professor Slughorn's office because Ron accidentally took a love potion, Slughorn (because Ron isn't important to him) addresses Ron as "Rupert" — the name of the actor who played Ron. I thought this was a nice little touch; but in my e-book copy, it appears to have been changed to "Ralph". — RobertATfm (talk) 23:21, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think that may already be referenced on Ron's page. Also, I'm not sure, but I think he uses both "Ralph" and "Rupert" at various points in the book. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:29, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
I've just finished re-reading the books (in the e-book editions), and I'm sure that if Professor Slughorn refers to Ron as "Rupert" anywhere in the e-book edition (the UK version), I would have remembered. — RobertATfm (talk) 00:03, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, I just checked and here's what's present in my copy of the book: Chapter Eighteen - Birthday Surprises - Page 397 - "Well, a very happy birthday, Ralph--" "Ron--" whispered Harry and Chapter Twenty-Two - After the Burial - Page 485 - "I have had it all' tested for poison. ... Had a house-elf taste every bottle after what happened to your poor friend Rupert." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:12, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Some cleanup

I've just done a bit of cleaning up on the article; there were several places where typographic em-dashes (--) were used instead of proper ones (—), and at least three instances of American English; two of "snuck" (according to one online usage guide I've read, even in American English the correct term is "sneaked"; "snuck" is a slang term in American, and doesn't exist at all in British) and one of "gotten" (the latter was a false "correction", made on January 14; the word was already the correct "got", but somebody changed it). There may be other cleaning-up to do. — RobertATfm (talk) 14:23, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

By all means. This tends to be a frequent problem page, despite my own efforts to clean it up. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:34, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Horcrux spell on Nagini

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Dumbledore supposes that Voldemort made Nagini a Horcrux after killing Franck Bryce. However, the Priori Incantatem during the duel between Harry and Voldemort in Little Hangleton did not create any kind of form about the soul part or Nagini. 19:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC)BoT

Potion "error" again

Someone has recently (re-)inserted the supposed "error" at the end of CoS, where the Petrification victims are revived with a potion, namely "how is a potion given to a ghost?". To my mind this is not an error; how is a potion given to a Petrified person? Clearly not by them drinking it.

Hence I've removed it, but I mention it here because it seems to be another non-error which keeps cropping up, like the Thestrals one. — RobertATfm (talk) 19:11, April 4, 2013 (UTC)


A few seconds ago as I type, i removed the DH "error" that "there is no mention of Harry removing his Invisibilitry Cloak, therefore he didn't". I removed this on the grounds of the logic being dubious, but a keyboard malfunction caused it to be published before I'd finished typing the edit summary; which was meant to be "just because something is not mentioned to have happened, it doesn't follow that it didn't happen; if Harry didn't take off the Cloak before raising his arms, it almost certainly fell off when he raised them". — RobertATfm (talk) 23:54, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yet more nonsense

I've just removed yet another one which claims that "Harry saw Quirrell die, thus should thereafter have been able to see Thestrals" (and replaced it with a pair of comments warning editors not to add this). It is well-known, at least amongst those who paid attention to what they were reading, that Harry was unconscious by the time Voldemort vacated Quirrell, and thus didn't see the latter die.

Another (to my mind even sillier) speculation which I also removed was that Molly Weasley may have asked her children where Platform 9¾ was "because she has a poor short-term memory for places". Where else in the series is this possibility hinted at? I think the already-given explanation, that she was testing her children on their memories, is a far more likely one. (And of course the OOU reason is that it allowed JKR to slip in a bit of necessary exposition, and to get Harry and the Weasleys introduced.) — RobertATfm (talk) 14:50, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

hey guys in hbp around pag to  slughorn makes a toast to ron and says rupert i know he spell him wrong but never rupert his real name


jena11:38, March 6, 2014 (UTC)~~

11:38, March 6, 2014 (UTC)~~

See "Slughorn's reference to Ron" further up this talk page. As already pointed out, Slughorn referring to Ron by his actor's name rather than his own is an Easter Egg, not an error. (In-universe, it's a sign that Slughorn considers Ron insignificant; he can't be bothered to get Ron's name right.) — RobertATfm (talk) 12:51, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Non-error, Occlumency vs. Legilmency

I've just reverted the following:

In Chapter Eighteen, Snape accuses Harry of stealing from his cupboards and threatens to give him Veritaserum if he doesn't confess. This, however, completely contradicts Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where it is stated outright Snape is an Occlumens and can read minds. Thus, Veritaserum would be unnecessary for Snape to force information out of Harry, specially when Harry was feeling as guilty as he did in that lesson.

This is fallacious on several points:

  1. Occlumency (which indeed is a major skill of Snape's) is the art of preventing others reading your mind. Reading another person's mind is Legilmency, and I don't recall any evidence of this being a particularly major skill of Snape's.
  2. If Snape did obtain evidence through Legilmency, it would be tantamount to hearsay; any Legilmens could claim to have read something in somebody's mind, knowing that a non-Legilmens couldn't contradict him.
  3. Snape is a bully by inclination; the more physical an act, the more intimidating it is, and thus the more satisfying to the bully.

RobertATfm (talk) 15:13, April 22, 2014 (UTC)

Logic versus mistakes

Going through this list, in my opinion a lot of these are not really mistakes, or else go into detail trying to explain it that takes up twice as much space as listing the mistake itself. That isn't even counting all the times people tried to pass off real-life calendars not matching in-universe calendars as mistakes, or things that were rectified in later editions. For example:

  • Hagrid could have taken 24 hours to fly cross-country in daylight without attracting trouble, after digging Harry out of the rubble and talking to Sirius.
  • There could have been several parties lined up between where Dumbledore Apparated from and Little Whinging, directly in the way of where he would be Apparating.
  • Hagrid might have wanted to take Sirius the bike back regardless of Sirius not needing it.
  • Once the boat hit the shore, the toothless man could easily have brought it back to the Dursleys once Hagrid and Harry had left.
  • Gringotts is a magic bank, run by wizards and goblins together. Who says they didn't just use some hocus pocus to cool things down the deeper you go?
  • Rowling has said that one can do magic better with family wands than with a stranger's, and the Weasleys were likely too poor to afford Ron a new wand at the time. The bit about Narcissa could probably be considered a mistake, though.
  • Hagrid saying Dark wizards only come from Slytherin was almost certainly a hyperbole.
  • Molly is at least 41 at the time of chapter 6, according to this wiki's evidence; her memory could have been slipping, or as suggested in the article she could very easily have been checking her childrens' memories.
  • We don't know if wizard's chess is the same as Muggle chess, and if not then who's to say the knight couldn't move ahead one?
  • You're talking about a cover using foreshadowing as a mistake here...
  • It's likely Dumbledore and McGonagall knew that Hagrid was bringing Harry, and thus omitted the potions ingredients from the list, or that they're on a separate sheet of paper Rowling didn't mention for simplicity's sake.
  • Dumbledore says he must have crossed paths with her owl; he doesn't know for sure, and is only assuming here.
  • "Fantastic Beasts" is also used for Potions, if my memory serves correct.
  • Petunia also thought running water would stop wizards contacting her even after seeing Lily cross stepping stones as children. She presumably tried to forget everything about wizardry, and succeeded admirably.
  • Fixed in later editions, but possibly intentional to show Lockhart's ineptitude.
  • "Tower" isn't capitalised; it could thus be any tower belonging to a Post Office, and thus should by no means yet be called the same until proven the same.
  • As explained in the article, this is a language difference, not a mistake, about Myrtle's bathroom and the floor it's on.
  • Again, as proven in the article, there are a myriad of reasons why Myrtle's parents could be allowed to the school to get her body ... there's no proof they would even be entering the grounds, they could just be right outside the boundary, and if they did enter Dippet could easily loosen security for them for the day.
  • Harry also manages to unstick his teeth from the treacle toffee when he feels the need to, so why couldn't Fang when he began barking?
  • Harry is shouting at the snake and they hear hissing; if the Basilisk is at a whisper, in the walls, how is anyone supposed to hear or notice it?
  • The Slytherins have every right to be wherever they want to be before curfew, so what if they aren't at their dormitory? That doesn't make it a mistake?
  • The carriage looks empty, but that doesn't mean it is; they might have forgotten which compartment was theirs and then went looking for it. There's ample reasons for these things, it might not be a mistake.
  • As stated in the article, anyone asking could be told that it was impossible because of conflicting classes, and not too many people liked Ancient Runes anyways, apparently. This isn't really too much a mistake.
  • Rowling has already said they never bothered looking in the Gryffindor dormitory, or at their brother very much, they were too busy causing mischief. Not a mistake.
  • Snape as a substitute teacher doesn't correctly count the number of times Hermione spoke out of turn. Of course this is a mistake in writing.
  • Perhaps the manager switched places with the assistant, or as suggested in the article the manager may have been assistant to shop owner.
  • Fred and George could easily have asked for their marks early, or else broken into wherever the records are kept and found out.
  • How on earth could Mr Weasley have known that his son had been bitten by a poisonous dragon and was not serving detention?
  • That's a large black dog, not a grey-coloured wolf. It's Sirius in an Animagus form, and he can go out anytime he likes.
  • Harry is a rule-breaker by nature, and besides, he was saving his godfather from certain death right after being tortured by Dementors, with little time at all. I highly doubt he would be particularly worried about where his legs go.
  • As three-quarters of the tidbit describes, it's very likely the Gryffindor boy was making a generalised assumption based on past experience and not actually listing the exact type of broom they rode. Likewise, they could have switched broom models between Wood talking to Harry and this boy speaking.
  • Dumbledore has been working for more than forty years, what are the odds he'll remember one student's age or birthday? And who's to say he isn't talking the way the Ministry would - they surely wouldn't care Hermione's age either?
  • Voldemort had been planning for Harry to die in the graveyard, so as to have no living witnesses except his Death Eaters.
  • As described in the article and the books, the Dursleys didn't enforce the "no-names" rule before the second book. Not a mistake.
  • The Floo Regulation Panel knew the Weasleys would be going to Harry's, knew the fire was still open, and consequently would know it was Mr Weasley, especially since it was such difficult magic that most Ministry witches and wizards couldn't do it.
  • Indeed, Harry was likely counting circumstances and situations he was cursed, rather than actual number of times. Harry could also have lost count, forgotten a time or simplified.
  • Snape could easily have been making them feel bad by taking points from the other person's house or could have gotten mixed up.
  • This was explained on Pottermore, and is the only mistake I feel comfortable removing: this is the "Tournament that Nobody Remembers".
  • Hagrid was the gamekeeper's assistant to Ogg.
  • Robes still have pockets when lying on the ground, he could have had his robes beside him and put the paper in the pocket.
  • Crouch could have gotten a Time-Turner without public knowledge, could have had extra classes after normal hours, or Crouch Sr. could have been deranged, or classes may not be necessary for OWLs and NEWTs.
  • It can be said either way, although Rennervate is correct.
  • Ron could have been in a second attic, or the Weasleys could have divided the attic into two parts, one for Ron's room and one for the ghoul.
  • Again, the article explains that this is from Harry's perspective, I doubt he would think "oh, horned toads? They're lizards!".

I could go through the whole page stating why I think most of these aren't actual mistakes and thus don't belong, but that would be time-consuming and tedious for both the reader and author. Suffice it to say, I wanted to ask first before removing so many tidbits from this extensive article.

As I said above, though, most of these are people trying to force the real-world and in-universe calendars and specifics together and calling them mistakes on part of the author when they fail to. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:58, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

I question one of these. Although (in my e-book copy at least) "tower" isn't capitalised, on the other hand (1) neither Royal Mail nor its predecessor the General Post Office (the present and previous owners, respectively, of the registered trademark "Post Office") are/were noted for ownership of towers generally, and (2) more to the point, the book quite definitely says "the Post Office tower", clearly meaning the one near Warren Street Station. Even if there were multiple towers belonging to the GPO, the enormous one in the middle of London is the one known as "the Post Office Tower", in the same way that London has many bridges and towers, but there is only one "London Bridge" and only one "Tower of London". — RobertATfm (talk) 22:28, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know at the time that there was just one post/mail service in Britain. As far as I know where I live there are a few different ways of mailing things. That, then, certainly does count as a mistake on my part. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:41, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

I think that all the "mistakes" of the form "event X took place on <day>, <month> 1991 which is listed as a Tuesday; in real life, it was a Sunday" or based on the "wrong" phase of the moon for the date, should be deleted as things which JKR couldn't reasonably have known at the time of writing, and thus nitpicking rather than errors as such. Calculating the weekday for a date is simple, but with only a non-programmable calculator is fiddly, and annoying to do repeatedly; calculating the phase of the moon, or sunrise/sunset times, is not a simple matter and needs a sophisticated programmable calculator at the least. (Although by the time of Deathly Hallows, JKR had lived in both London and Edinburgh, and should have known that during the Northern Hemisphere summer, sunrise is earlier the further north one goes.) — RobertATfm (talk) 05:36, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if is still up (it has certainly long since stopped accepting submissions); but when it accepted submissions, the guidelines as to what would not be accepted as "slipups" included "anything which could not reasonably have been prevented"; so although the reflection of the camera crew in a big window was acceptable as a slipup, the reflection of the camera crew in a doorknob was not (apart from anything else, it would take sharp eyes and use of pause to spot). I don't think any of those "wrong day of week" or "wrong phase of moon" "errors" have been accepted by, and I don't think they should be here either. — RobertATfm (talk) 23:33, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Hallow - Cloak

As Xenophilius Lovegood explains, the invisibility cloak is supposed to protect again small curses.. but in book 6.. malfoy puts a "petrificus totalus" on harry when he is wearing the cloak... again dumbledore does the same at the end of the book at the top of the tower.Sowmi (talk) 20:15, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

That is not correct.  Lovegood says 'We are talking about a cloak that gives...constant and impenetrable concealment no matter what spells are cast against it."  He never said that it would form a barrier to any jinxes, hexes, or curses.  Simply that it cannot be made "uninvisible."  Of course there are other spells that can reveal a presence, and other animals have different sensory mechanisms that can sense a presence under the cloak.  However, no spell "can be cast against it" that will enable it to be "seen through."  Harry confirms the fact that the cloak provides no protection when he says to Dumbledore (after his "death") "The Cloak would not have made them curse proof." Wva (talk) 23:15, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Of more importance, what I say above is not the critical point.  Even is Lovegood thought that the Hallow-Cloak would protect the wearer from jinxes, hexes, and curses, that would not be an error.  Lovegood would simply be wrong.  I thought it was going to rain today.  It didn't.  That doesn't mean the "author" of my life made an error, it was simply that my thinking was wrong.  In the same way, every character in the series - even Dumbledore - was incorrect in their thoughts or beliefs at some point.  This simply shows that they are human.  So if, say, Hermione said in Book Two that one could conjurer food out of thin-air, this would not be an error on the part of JKR.  Instead it would simply mean that Hermione hadn't yet learned everything about magic.

To summarize, Xenophilius Lovegood never said that the Cloak would protect the wearer from spells.  He said that no spell could cause the cloak to become visible (with human sight.)  However, even if he DID say that the Cloak made the wearer curse-proof, that would not be a mistake by JKR.  It would simply mean that Xenophilius was simply incorrect - as he apparently often was. Wva (talk) 00:25, July 2, 2014 (UTC)


In goblet of fire, the triwizard cup is made a portkey by Barty Crouch Jr. but he musnt have made it a two way portkey, because he wanted harry to die at Voldemort's hands, but then how does Harry get to return to Hogwarts. Sowmi (talk) 21:16, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he DID NOT intend to make it a "two way" portkey.  Perhaps the plan was for all the death eaters to return via the portkey after Voldemort's rebirth (and Harry's death) so as to "decapitate" the entire magical leadership of Great Britain in one quick stroke.  The shock of Voldemort returning and appearing would likely have been enough to render everyone present defenseless. We never knew what was to happen if everything went according to Voldemort's plan in the graveyard.  Wva (talk) 01:41, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hiding place of Gryffindor's Sword

I find this new addition questionable:

  • In chaper 15, when Harry and Hermione discuss where Dumbledore could hide the Gryffindor's sword Harry suggests the Shrieking Shack. Hermione says that it is risky because Snape knows how to get into it and they begin a brief discussion about whether Dumbledore really trusted Snape enough to tell him where he hid the sword. The discussion was actually unnecessary because Dumbledore would never hid the sword in the Shrieking Shack in one simple reason: Wormitail knew how to get into it.

Surely the above, if a mistake at all, is a mistake on Harry and Hermione's part, not the author's? If so, then it doesn't belong on the page. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:26, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Grimmauld Place secret keepimg of snape 

Plot Holes?

This is my first venture in the Wiki world.  Please forgive me for being a neophyte.

I just got through reading Deathly Hallows.  I have only seen movies 1 and 2 long ago.  I have read books 1, 6 and 7.  Here were the 2 glaring things I noticed about Hallows, which I think might be plot holes.  These were not mentioned in the Wiki article regarding plot holes.  

In the chapter where Harry, Ron and Hermionie meet Xenophilius Lovegood, in which he reveals the three Deathly Hallows, one, of course, is a somewhat invincible Inivisibility Cloak -- it stays in good shape and NO ONE can see through it.  Harry determined that he, in fanct, had such a cloak, so apparently he had one of the three Hallows (the other two being the Resurrection Stone and the Elder Wand).  OK, then how come, just a few chapters back when H & H met Bathilda Bagshot did Bathilda -- albeit an enchanted dead Bathilda bewitched by Dark Magic -- apparently "see" H&H while they were still under the cloak at Godric's Hollow?  Granted, perhaps Bathilda's enchantment/spell was to just appear whenever anyone approached James and Lily Potter's house, and this would have been perhaps triggered by the magical commemorative plaque appearing to H&H so maybe bewitched Bathilda did not actually "see" H&H, she just assumed that someone was there and beckoned to them.  Maybe she could actually tell if someone was there or not, so it didn't matter that H&H were invisible.   Harry did talk to her under the cloak, asking her if she was Bathilda.  Or was there something related to her dead body being enchanted under some kind of Voldemort spell that somehow did allow her to "see" under the Cloak?  

Griphook and the real Sword of Gryffindore -- When Harry, Ron, Hermionie and Griphook the Goblin were trying to break into Gringotts to get into Bellatrix LeStrange's vault and steal the Quidditch cup (which was another one of the Dark Lord's Horcruxes), when the three were caught by goblin guards and wizards, Griphook took off with the Sword of Gryffindore, called them thieves, and was not heard from again.  Last we knew, Griphook had the real sword.  H,R,H had to resort to other means to destroy the remaining Horcruxes.  

After the battle of Hogwarts and the death of Voldemort, with no apparent explanation, somehow the Sword of Gryffindore ended up with Neville Longbottom.  Granted, I'm glad Neville somehow got the sword, but there was no explanation of how he got it and what happened to Griphook.  Did Griphook and other goblins join the battle of Hogwarts in the great fight against Voldemort and his forces?  Did Griphook die in said battle and somehow give the Sword back to a Gryffindore house representative, in this case Neville?   Or did Neville somehow take the Sword away from a dead goblin?  To me, this is a serious plot hole, which deserves some explanation.

I apologize if this is too long or in any way inappropriate.  Please forgive me if I have in any way offended the rules and customs of this Talk area. 

TJJ1 (talk) 04:48, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Wiki!
The Cloak of Invisibility renders the wearer invisible, not inaudible, unscented, or athermal; "Bathilda" was just "Nagini in a Bathilda suit", so Nagini could sense their presence without the need to see them.
Despite the claims of the Goblins, the Sword of Gryffindor belongs to House Gryffindor and is magically summoned when needed through an enchantment of the Sorting Hat, which was originally enchanted by Godric Gryffindor. Simply put, Neville drew it from the hat, as it was meant to be done.
Of course, when it disappeared from the Goblins' possession, they consider it theft...
--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:37, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Book 5, chapter 22: don't ask why I left the school during the night...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: in Chapter Twenty-Two Harry has the vision of Arthur being attacked. He and Ronny goes to the Director with McGonagal, and Dumbledore decides to send the Weasleys and Potter to Grimmauld Place. They have to hurry because Umbridge woke up.

There, the Weasleys learn that they can't go to the hospital to see their father because they don't want the ministry to find that they get information about the attack at the same time the ministry.

If that is the case, their disapearing from Hogwarts wouldn't create the same suspicions? What Umbridge can infer after knowing Arthur were attacked in the Ministry, and the Weasleys left the school in a hurry, during the night?

CesarAKG (talk) 16:14, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sir Cadogan and Sirius Black

Regarding this recent contribution from Victor 61516:

 Sir Cadogan letting Sirius Black into Gryffindor Tower makes little sense, even if Sirius did have the password. It should be obvious from Sirius's appearance that he is not a student or a staff member, therefore he should not be let in. Sir Cadogan also should have questioned why an unknown man brandishing a long knife is demanding access to the common room in the middle of the night. It also seems a very big security lapse that Sir Cadogan apparently was never told or shown what Sirius Black looked like, since he clearly did not recognize the man as being Sirius.

I don't agree. It makes perfect sense considering Sir Cadogan's personality. This makes him far from the ideal candidate for the job, but it is explained that only he was brave enough to take it after the fat lady was attacked. What do the rest of you think?

Agreed. Also, a mistake a character makes is not the same as a mistake in the books. I´d remove it.--Rodolphus (talk) 12:29, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yes check Done --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:34, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

My addition to the GOF section

I added this addition to the GOF section:

  • In "The Hungarian Horntail" as Hagrid takes Harry to see the dragons he stops to pick up Madame Maxime, and Harry wonders to himself 'Had Hagrid wanted to show him Madame Maxime? He could see her any old time he wanted...she wasn't exactly hard to miss....'. However, as an ironic reference to her great height, what he should have said is that Madame Maxime isn't exactly easy to miss.

However my edit was reverted by RavenclawDBS because 'Don't think commenting on potential wordplay counts as an inconsistency'. 

Let me clarify. Harry is making an ironic comment on Madame Maxime's great height. If he had said she 'wasn't exactly hard to find or wasn't exactly 'easy' to miss, or even that she was 'rather hard to miss', then this would make sense. However in saying that she 'wasn't exactly hard to miss', he implies the exact opposite of what he intends, i.e he implies she is exceptionally small rather than tall. It is not a subjective critique of the writing style but a genuine mistake on the part of the author. Are you saying that it may be a play on words? If so, what possible interpretation of it can we form so that it avoids being a mistake?

What do the rest of you think?

Artistsanomalous (talk) 20:14, February 7, 2016 (UTC)


I agree with its reversion. The statement is the same regardless of whether you use "hard" or "easy." I also believe both phrases are used just as often. So pointing it out as a mistake is incorrect, because it's not wrong.
He does not imply that she is "exceptionally small," only that her height, whether small or large, is visually noticeable compared to everyone else around him, everyone he's ever met, or at Hogwarts in general. To imply she was "exceptionally small" would mean he should have said something along the lines of "she's quite easy to miss". As her height, in this scenario, compared to other students would be nearly, if not completely, indistinguishable. EternalLocket (talk) 20:50, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

No, think about it. 'Easy' and 'Hard' are antonyms, so substituting one for the other completely inverts the meaning.
You say 'To imply she was "exceptionally small" would mean he should have said something along the lines of "she's quite easy to miss".' But that is exactly what he does say, he says that she is not hard to miss, which means more or less the same thing as that she is quite easy to miss. If her height is visually noticeable (which is what he is trying to say), then she should be hard to miss (i.e, hard not to notice), but he says that she is not hard to miss
'As her height, in this scenario, compared to other students would be nearly, if not completely, indistinguishable. '
Indistinguishable? So you're saying that she is more or less the same height as her students? And in this scenario, there are no other students present, just Harry and Hagrid. Not only that but he is talking generally about her height, not how it compares to the people present in this particular scene.
Artistsanomalous (talk) 21:13, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the OP, and disagree with EternalLocket; reversing the meaning of the key word in the phrase reverses the meaning of the entire phrase, that's how English grammar works. It's like those who say "could care less" instead of the correct "couldn't". — RobertATfm (talk) 22:45, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

I felt it was nitpicking as the intent of the statement was clear, regardless of the exact words used. RavenclawDBS (MCKA DevilboyScooby) 23:08, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how nitpicky it is. If you agree that the phrase 'wasn't exactly hard to miss' implies the opposite of what is intended, (which it does), then it should count as a mistake. Artistsanomalous (talk) 23:22, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
The one thing I disagree with regarding this addition is that "not exactly hard to miss" isn't irony (an oft-misused word), it's meiosis. — RobertATfm (talk) 23:45, February 7, 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that the meaning of these types of phrases are not always seen as reversed. As it was clear for me what was meant. It's likely more to do with a cultural or written vs spoken difference. I personally don't consider this a mistake, as I feel it was intentionally written that way. EternalLocket (talk) 00:01, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
I myself am British, and have never heard of anything in our culture by which meiotic phrases such as "not easy to miss" mean the reverse of what is implied by the literal meanings of the words. Ironic phrases such as "a lot of good that will do" meaning that it will do no good at all (this is one of the true meanings of irony), but not meiotic ones. By your logic, you might just as well argue that the mistake in some early editions, that Voldemort was the last ancestor (instead of descendent) of Slytherin, was not a mistake as it's clear what was meant. In fact, that it's obvious what was meant just makes the mistake all the more evident. — RobertATfm (talk) 00:12, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
I'd say this is a different issue to "ancestor"/"descendant" as it's a term of phrase by which the intended meaning was still clear, but could be said multiple ways (i.e. either way it was said, it's a pun on her height); however "ancestor" is clearly wrong, not just illogical or questionable, hence definitely a mistake. RavenclawDBS (MCKA DevilboyScooby) 01:01, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki