Talk:Harry Potter universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Transportation[edit]

Should the transportation section be expanded and moved to its own page? There is a lot of stuff that could be added... I'll do it, if anyone wants me to... Phoenix Song 02:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Dwarfs[edit]

  • Could someone please clarify for me, dwarves have been added to the magical creatures>beings list. As far as im aware there are no dwarves in the Harry Potter serise. I have deleted the entry but on the off chance that I have missed an errant dwarf hidding in Dumbledore's broom cupboard, I will of course add them back on. Death Eater Dan 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There are dwarves mentioned in Book 2 : HArryPotter and the Chamber of Secrets during Valentine's Day. The one who sang Ginny's letter to Harry. And where were minotaurs mentioned?-Isao

I don't recall a mention of minotaurs anywhere in the series, but perhaps someone else can. Noneofyourbusiness 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

I dislike the opening paragraph and it's focus on the meaning of the wizarding "world". Its not a hard concept to grasp and I think the section should be rewritten. Sorry im posting announomously I forgot my account name.

British Vs. American spelling[edit]

Could Kestenbaum please expand on his comment that the American artifact is prefered to the British spelling artefact? As it is commonly taken on all the Harry Potter articles (dicussed several times on the talk pages) that British English is the more appropriate spelling, as the series is set in Britain with predominantly British characters, written by a British author and originally published in Britain. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha)

This source discusses the difference: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm (both forms are used on both sides of the Atlantic, but apparently the "artifact" version is more widely used overall).
Moreover, as to the very specific Harry Potter context, on Wikipedia alone, there are seven articles that reference "muggle artifacts", and only two that reference "muggle artefacts". The Google numbers are 11,500 for "muggle artifacts" and 693 for "muggle artefacts".
Based on those sources, I thought I was on pretty solid ground changing the spelling back to "artifacts". But, I could be wrong, and if so, there are a lot of other references to be changed.
I don't know whether the British edition of Rowling's works uses the "artefact" spelling (perhaps you could check and post that here?), but the American one certainly does use "artifact". Kestenbaum 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if the American one does or not, we're going with the British spelling. If the British version does in fact use "artefact", then that is the appropriate spelling, irregardless of what other Wikipedia articles on Harry Potter use...if they use "artifact", those articles may well be incorrect as well. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Artefact" may be the leading British spelling, but it is not the only British spelling. No one yet has answered my question as to which one Rowling actually used in the British edition of the Harry Potter books.
I don't think American readers of the series outnumber British ones by 15 to 1, but the Google references to "muggle artifacts" outnumber "muggle artefacts" by more than that. This strongly suggests that both editions use the "artifact" spelling.
May we have something tangible to go on, please? Kestenbaum 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm only saying that whatever the British version uses should be the correct one. Until that's determined, it doesn't matter as much. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that we should try and be consistent, the consensus is that British English spelling is the more appropriate for the subject matter, this is also the guideline stated in the Wiki Manual of Style. The fact that both versions are in common usage is not relevant as this is an encyclopedia and therefore the correct grammar should be used and the fact that some web site can argue either way on the usage of certain words is not relevant either as artefact is and always will be the correct British English spelling (see British dictionary). Who knows, in years to come we may all be calling pavements - sidewalks, but encyclopedicly the correct version in a British context would always be pavement no matter how popular the American English word may become. I have to say though after all the google tests and website quoting, I must go back to my initial point, consistency is the key - British subject matter = British Spelling. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources quoted above stated flatly that both spellings are used on both sides of the Atlantic.
If Rowling used "artefact", then sure, let's go with that, and make all the references consistent.
But if, let's say, Rowling used the "artifact" spelling in both the British and American editions, does that mean that she misspelled the British word? Are we also going to argue with her spellings of "muggle" and "horcrux"? In this case, the word is not invented, but the concept ("muggle art*facts") is. Can't we find out how she actually spelled it in the original UK edition and go with that?
Danlina, I can't help but be a little put off by your position. Does you mean that a British author is not entitled to spell it "artifact"? That use of such a spelling by a British author would be simply disregarded as error, and your preferred spelling substituted?
Again, let's have an answer from the actual text, not rhetoric about what it ought to be. Kestenbaum 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not allow both spellings as both are recognised in the english language as a whole--Radioactive turnip 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go with "artifact". I myself am British and actually didn't know it was spelt "artefact". But, the real answer is whichever JK. Rowling spelt it as.

I have the British editions right in front of me, and Rowling spells it "artefact." I've changed the spelling in the article to reflect her preference. (I've also changed "firewhiskey" to "firewhisky"; even if no one spells the real drink without the "e," the name of the HP universe product is spelled without one.) IrisWings 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
IrisWings, many thanks for finding the answer. Now, we have a big job ahead in fixing all the references, not just in this article, but in many other Potter-related articles. Kestenbaum 05:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizarding Examinations Authority. Petros471 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Per my reasoning in the above AfD, I don't really have too much of an opinion on this one, but I think the section titled "Education" would be a good place to put this simply because this group is responsible for evaluating students as part of their education. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

List of wands in Harry Potter[edit]

As a result of the recent AfD of List of wands in Harry Potter and my discussion with the administrator who closed the debate, I've created a redirect to Wizarding World. This is a link to the most recent version of the list of wands. From this, we can decide on what information needs to be merged into this article. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article/section is supposed to be entitled "List of Wands in Harry Potter", there is no need to fill the reader in on details about the status of wands in the Wizarding World. I propose a recreation of the List-of-Wands-article, containing a only a list of the various wands dealt with in the series and their properties, while the additional information on Harry Potter wands as such would be found either in the Wizarding World article or -seeing as the Wizarding World article is alreadz rather long- in Wands (Harry Potter). Of course, all three articles would be linked.

User:Livedevilslivedevil

Population[edit]

The article states that "about 40" people entered Hogwarts with Harry, and referenced HP1. I can't find any reference to this count in the book. I'm assuming that it is a calculation, based on (five students per dorm [going by Griffendor]) * (two dorms, boys and girls) * (four houses). However, in HP5, when Harry quarrels with Seamus, he says "If you've got a problem sharing a dorm with me, go and ask McGonagall if you can be moved," implying that there may be more than one male dorm in their year. Is there some more definitive basis for this comment? -- Delius1967 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In Chapter 7 of The Philosopher's Stone, there are 22 1st years who are named in the sorting. It must be mentioned however that Dean Thomas, Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle are not named, sugesting that there may be others that we dont know about in Harry's year.--Radioactive turnip 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) \__________________\

_______________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.74.10 (talk) 04:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Limits of Magic[edit]

"About the only feats disallowed by magic are the conjuration (creation from nothing) of permanent objects [...]" Where does this come from? Wizards are conjuring solid objects all the time. Dumbledore creaates a chintz armchair at Harry's hearing in HP5; he conjures mead (and glasses for it) in HP6; Malfoy conjures a snake in HP2; etc. These things only disappear when he directs them to, which for all practical purposes makes them permanent. There is some limitation, obviously, since why would they need Diagon Alley otherwise? But it's not as black and white as "no conjuring anything". -- Delius1967 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In Book Seven it is revealed that food cannot be created out of nothing, that it's one of the five exceptons to some magical law. Since it's an exception, that means other things can be conjured. The 'no conjuring food' rule goes against Dumbledore's mead-conjuring, but maybe he transported it from elsewhere instantaneously, basically teleporting it. There's also a spell for conjuring water, but maybe it's teleported from somewhere too. Or maybe drinks don't count as food and can therefore be conjured (not all liquids can be conjured, however, otherwise making potions would be pointless since you could just conjure them instead), or maybe water is the only exception to the food rule. On the Diagon Alley thing, I think if you conjured, for example, a broom, it would just be a nondescript, average broom, not a Firebolt or a Nimbus or anything, people have to buy those. Also, it wouldn't make sense if money could be conjured. Obviously. Sik2thestomach 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


RE: Conjuration and Magical Duration -

You are confusing the concept of "solidity" with that of "permanence". That a conjured item is solid (as opposed to liquid or gas) is not neccesary and sufficient for it to be permanent. In each of the three instances you bring up, a very short amount of time passed between the conjuring and subsequent active vanishing of the items, 15 minutes for the chairs at the hearing, 20 minutes for the goblets & mead at the Dursley's, and less than 1 minute for Draco's snake.

Had these items been left to exist they would have returned to nonexistence of their own accord eventually. A Ravenclaw Common Room password riddle shed some light on this in Deathly Hallows: "Where do vanished objects go? Into non-being, which is to say, everything". Draco's snake was solid and as such dangerous, but had Snape not vanished/destroyed it would have gone back "into non-being, which is to say everything", and sooner rather than later as Draco was not an exceptionally powerful wizard. It may have been 3 minutes or 20 minutes or 2 hours, but while the snake did exist the damage it's very sharp (solid) fangs could perpetrate would be very real.

   This is rather faulty logic. The Ravenclaw common room riddle spoke of where objects that are actively vanished by a wizard go - it said nothing to the effect that objects spontaneously vanish themselves. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Further, it appears that the potential, strength, and duration of all types of magic, not just summoning, in the Potterverse are strung along a vast continuum. All wizards are not created equal, and no amount of studying or practice will turn a Wormtail into a Dumbledore. The way I read the books, the great majority of wizards & wtiches are at the middle to bottom of the bell curve, while those with the prodigious skills of Dumbledore are very very rare. I think of when Madam Poppy Pomfrey reflexively conjured a chair out of thin air for a distressed Minerva McGonagall and the chair that appeared was very basic, hard and wooden (not very comfortable) contrasted with the squishy luxurious armchairs Dumbledore conjures up with the merest flick of his wand.

   This is pretty much all conjecture, and unsupported by the books. There is nothing to say that wizards a born with a certain raw power - indeed, this goes against JKR's message that birth counts for nothing compared to a person's choices. From my reading of the books, I find it much more likely that power is directly related to magical skill, and skill alone. See: http://www.readcon.com/index.php?page=20 for the full argument. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 

There's nothing to say that either of these chairs is permanent, but my take is that left unvansished, Dumbledore's would last much much longer(years?!) than Pomfrey's, which might only last hours days or weeks. Only when Dumbledore succumbed to Snape's Avada Kadavara did the Petrificus Totalus he placed upon Harry dispel, that is to say had Dumbledore not cast the counter jinx or died, Harry would have remained frozen indefinently, whereas with the vast majority of spell casters such a spell wears off much more quickly and in direct proportion to their own personal magical ability.

     And yet a great many enchantments and spells last for hundreds of years, without renewal. For example, the spells upon Hogwarts.

Similarly, all types of spells have to be reapplied throught the books as their effect wears off, the Imperius, Stupify, Disillusionment Charms, Silencing Charms, as well as the magic of potions i.e. Polyjuice. In "Magical Beasts & Where to Find Them" the Ministry of Magic warns pet owners that "Disillusionment Charms should be performed daily, as their effects are apt to wear off". As with summoning charms, Disillusionment Charms are only temporary and both their effectiveness and longevity is explicitly connected to the level of magical power residing in the caster.

So, it's Nuture vs. Nature, you are either born with magical ability in your genes or not. Among those who are, the maxium theoretical magical potential residing dormant since birth inside each one available for them to tap into and develop varies enormously along a wide spectrum from Squibs to Dumbledore. You can develop the latent intrinsic power within you by studying and practicing, but very few wizards have the "inate magical power" coursing through their veins to become the equivalent of a Ronaldo or Michael Jordan. It's the same with Hermione beating the pants off Harry & Ron at every turn. When Wormtail chops off his hand he can't conjure a replacement, but must wait on Voldemort to do it for him.

Following this logic in reference to your theory about all conjured brooms only being nondescript and average I would submit that the quality of the conjured broom is entirely dependent upon the quality of the wizard conjuring it. Using the wizards mentioned above, Wormtail's innate genetic magical potential, honed to it's fullest potential, might net him the equivalent of one of the Hogwarts school brooms in bad disrepair with a serious pull to the left, Madame Pomfrey a Comet 260, Minerva McGonagall a Nimbus 2001, and Dumbledore a Firebolt 5000 etc.

    I find it likely that when conjuring a broom, all you'll get is a regular broom - extra charms have to be added to make it fly. Taurisimus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course JK Rowling's theory of magic as presented to the reader has more holes in continuity than time travel theory. The fact that you are questioning the system of magic in her universe shows that you find it interesting enough to wade through the murky waters of suspension of disbelief in effort to remain engaged despite the gaping holes, and they sure are there. The above is just how I patch the cracks in Hogwarts crumbling magical foundation.Negroe Hypothecary Substitute 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


RE: Conjured objects exist temporarily:

My understanding is that a conjured object only exists so long as the conjurer retains his mental concentration on the object, and it does not have permanent existence. Thus Dumbledore’s chintz armchair would cease to exist when he left the room or no longer needed it (intentionally banishing a conjured object is probably not necessary but is good for keeping the mind clear of distractions). It would follow that food could not be conjured in this way; when you eat food it becomes a part of you, so for something to be food it must have its own independent existence. There are examples in the book of food appearing out of nowhere, such as the feast at the beginning of the year, but that food was prepared by the houselves and then magically summoned to the table.

-JLM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.24.46 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


In our Muggle world, matter is neither created or destroyed. We have a huge social effort aimed at processing raw materials, making steel, refined oil, cement, bricks etc. Agriculture uses plants to process raw materials into food. Industrial chemistry emerged from medieval alchemy about the seventeenth century. I see magic as a vastly more effective form of industrial chemistry. In our world, counterfeiters have tried to make money since money was invented, & governments design currency to make it very difficult to counterfeit. Wizarding governemnnts will also work to make it difficult for wizards to process raw materials into coins. --DavidJErskine (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Economy[edit]

Can we really say that one knut equals a British pound? If 493 knuts equals a galleon, that means a galleon is worth about 500 pounds. At the Quiddich world cup, Harry buys everyone omnioculars for 10 galleons apiece, and by the current standards, is dropping around 1500 pounds on his buddies on a whim. There are a number of other examples as well that would suggest the money is worth far less.

There is a lot of confusion about the value of a galleon. See Money in Harry Potter. And please sign your posts. Four tildes should do it :-) 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re: reversions[edit]

There are arguments for keeping the old layout; that I will concede, though I think my layout is clearer. But changing the intro, which, by any definition, is far too short, that I cannot abide. For now, I'll leave the layout as it is, but the intro should be retained. Serendipodous 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing the sources tag[edit]

I placed a sources tag on the article; another person reverted it very shortly after with the edit line "sources are from the text". "Sources are from the text" is not acceptable, not with an article this large (the Harry Potter article itself is very well sourced). If a whole universe fictional universe article is synthesized from a text, it's original research. There should be third-party sources to corroborate the information in here. This is Wikipedia, we can't just go making up large amounts of text from our own interpretations of books. ColourBurst 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Since none of the other HP articles on this site are referenced at all, you'd have a hard time drawing the other editors to your point of view. Serendipodous

Wizarding Genetics Section[edit]

I have deleted the genetics section, as it has no place in this or any other article. It is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the HP series. Furthermore, it has no basis in the series and isn't mentioned, ever.
John Reaves 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that different species can not mate. Different species can mate as long as they are from the same genus--they just can not have viable offspring. As an example, a horse and donkey can mate and have a mule, however, mules can not reproduce. As a results. Thus giants and humans, for example, can be from separate species but bear off spring (such as Hagrid). Theoritically, Hagrid should be sterile. Since im not a biologist, however, I defer to someone with a more substantive background in this topic to change the relevant text. Also, Im not sure that it is "extremely" important to bring this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.70.122 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tebo[edit]

What is this? Michaelsanders 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"...an ash-coloured warthog found in Congo and Zaire." From Fantastic Beasts... John Reaves 02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Michaelsanders 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Patronus charm as communication[edit]

Michaelsanders, I don't want to start an edit war on this, so let's discuss it here. In HP5, Dumbledore says (quoting from memory, I don't have the book in front of me): "I should explain that members of the Order have a more reliable method of communication than the floo network." He doesn't detail what it is, only that it exists. In HP6, Tonks does indeed use her Patronus charm to alert people in the castle that she (and Harry) have arrived.

However, that the first comment refers to the second action doesn't seem plausible to me on several counts. First of all, a Patronus is a localized manifestation of a single wizard; it would not serve well for long-distance communication. The same argument would raise security concerns, etc. Second, there is no indication that a Patronus has the capability of delivering a payload, i.e. an actual message, as opposed to simply making its presence known. It's the difference between getting a telegram and reading it. A Patronus seems particularly ill-suited to any form of detailed communication.

You say in the edit summary that Rowling has confirmed that she was referring to the Patronus; can you provide a link to this? Delius1967 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Members of the Order use their Patronuses to communicate with each other. They are the only wizards who know how to use their spirit guardians in this way and they have been taught to do so by Dumbledore (he invented this method of communication). The Patronus is an immensely efficient messenger for several reasons: it is an anti-Dark Arts device, which makes it highly resilient to interference from Dark wizards; it is not hindered by physical barriers; each Patronus is unique and distinctive, so that there is never any doubt which Order member has sent it; nobody else can conjure another person's Patronus, so there is no danger of false messages being passed between Order members; nothing conspicuous needs to be carried by the Order member to create a Patronus." [1] That said, your points are entirely justified: I consider the idea that a Patronus could be anything other than a visual signal (or its real purpose, a Dementor ward) unadulterated rubbish (and on the Redhen site, there's a brief amusing parody comparing the business to Lassie giving messages). Nonetheless, it is unfortunately what Rowling has said, so we just have to accept it. And hope that there is some half-credible logic in it. Michaelsanders 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, straight from the source. Should probably add that link to the main page. Delius1967 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Schools: Where is this Brazilian school mentioned?[edit]

Bill Weasley had a pen pal at an unknown school in Brazil, who took offence when Bill couldn't afford a student exchange programme and sent him a cursed hat that made his ears shrivel up. " Huh?--Problematik 05:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned in GoF ch. 7. faithless (speak) 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the books to suggest that the Salem Witches Institute (not Academy) is a girls' school in the U.S. or even a school at all. In "Goblet of Fire," Harry sees some middle-aged witches from the SWI attending the Quidditch World Cup but no young girls who might be students. It has been suggested on another Harry Potter Wiki site that the name of this Institute was intended to be a play on the Women's Institutes of the U.K. I think that's likely. I think it's meant for Salem, Mass. I mean everyone has heard of that.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add the tildes to my post, above. However, I must say that the Wiki HP sites are crammed with poor grammar, punctuation, and syntax. I'm trying to work on this without altering substantive content, but the task is, frankly, wearisome.68.72.102.12 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relations To the Muggle world: Add why it is a secret.[edit]

In the Relations To the Muggle World section, while it constantly mentions that the Wizard World is a secret from the Muggle World, it never says why it is a secret. This should be added.--Little Jimmy 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A belated reply. Harry asks Hagrid that very question in HP1 Chap 5. Hagrid replies: Why? Blimey, Harry, everyone'd be wantin' magic solutions to their problems. Nah, we're best left alone. A lame reply, perhaps. I have spent most of my working life as a technician in a scientific research institute, & scientists are like wizards. Scientists are exasperated by the ignorant & erratic Muggle response to scientific knowledge (magic) & in the future scientists might retreat into their own world & abandon the Muggle world. --DavidJErskine (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2009

(UTC)

I expect that JKR was trying to fit in with history. In Europe, witches were a perceived threat until about 1700, & the preceived threat declined thereafter. The Statute of Secrecy was, I think, 1695. Once wizards & witches faded from sight, Muggles no longer took witchcraft seriously. --DavidJErskine (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge in Money of Harry Potter[edit]

The article contains nothing but factoids from the books, which is unnecessary as the book and film articles cover the story. The one reference to Rowling talking about exchange rates could be moved in here. Judgesurreal777 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge: that article about Money is barely more than a stub, and is obviously part of the HP Universe. Lord Opeth 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been no objections over a period of several months so I thought I'd be bold and merged the page. [[Guest9999 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Capital or lower-case Universe?[edit]

I was about to move the article to Harry Potter universe with a lower case "u" until I had second thoughts and wanted to pass by the main editors of this page. "Universe" is not a proper noun, this is not the "official," per se, name of the article, so shouldn't it be "u"? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No response, so I'm moving the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Blood purity[edit]

That whole article about a fascinating topic harry potter, is unfortunately just all OR and should have any important parts merged in here. Judgesurreal777 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose this merger. Even if all of the unnecessary cruft is junked, there is still quite a bit of good information. The Harry Potter universe is already 55K, and there's probably about 10K worth of good stuff here. Trim Blood purity (Harry Potter) if you must, but I don't think merging is the way to go here. faithless (speak) 17:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine if it can stand on its own, I don't love mergers for the sake of them. But what within Blood purity is out of universe? I was under the impression it was AFD'd because it had none. Judgesurreal777 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No merge. I think that Blood Purity is it's own article. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The Blood purity article is almost entirely in-universe; at the very least it should be pared down to a brief explanation. If we could find some sourcing that linked it to real-life racism, that would be excellent, but I doubt such a source exists (making me wonder if the subject really merits an encyclopedia entry per WP:WAF). bwowen talkcontribs 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge. Let's just clean-up the article so that it fits the fiction criteria and Wikipedia's standards. The article about Blood Purity contains lots of information about families, and some of this information is not detailed or even mentioned in character pages and sections. Lord Opeth 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I don't think you can fix it to fit the fiction criteria - it is very much an "in-universe" thing. A Harry Potter wiki might have such an article, but not, I think, a general encyclopaedia. The whole thing seems to be drawn essentially from primary sources, and looking at Google we seem to be the leading authority on this subject, which is not right - encyclopaedias are a tertiary source and the secondary sources to support this are all just fansites. Cruftbane 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Prophet[edit]

"The Daily Prophet" redirects here, but there seems to be no content related to it in this article 172.130.152.27 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to a more suitable loaction in Harry Potter newspapers and magazines. [[Guest9999 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Why was this moved to "Harry Potter Universe"?[edit]

It's called the Wizarding world or the Wizard world. That's the name of the Harry Potter universe. Changing it is like changing "Middle-earth" to "Lord of the Rings Universe". Serendipodous 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article does, or will eventually include the whole of the Harry Potter universe, not just the wizards, because remember there are many muggles who aren't part of the "Wizarding world". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Error in Money section[edit]

I haven't read all of Harry Potter, yet. But I remember (from the first book) that 1 sickle is 29 knuts. The table in the exchange rate sections states that 42 knuts are one sickle. Vandalism, or was this changed in the later books? --Stesch (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I checked the link to CNN's currency converter and they configm: 1 sickle is 29 knuts. And: the table showed that 1 knut is 0.03448 sickles. That's the correct value for 1/29, not for 1/42! Looks like hidden vandalism. I changed the 42 to 29 and the 714 to 493 (= 1 galleon). --Stesch (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_universe&diff=189344195&oldid=189298053 and later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_universe&diff=192248870&oldid=192246919 (could be a failed attempt to correct the error). --Stesch (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

source information[edit]

I am new here and wondered where you get all the source info that you use on these pages. I have all 7 books (American version) also the books Fantastic beasts and Quidditch that J.K.R. wrote, and the first 5 films on dvd (american). Some of the stuff I see here I have never heard of. I check J.K.R.'s site a lot and don't find the stuff listed there either. Shouldn't the information here be taken directly from Rowling? From anyone else it is just guess work.

Thanks ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHITETIGERLADY44 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

source information[edit]

I am new here and wondered where you get all the source info that you use on these pages. I have all 7 books (American version) also the books Fantastic beasts and Quidditch that J.K.R. wrote, and the first 5 films on dvd (american). Some of the stuff I see here I have never heard of. I check J.K.R.'s site a lot and don't find the stuff listed there either. Shouldn't the information here be taken directly from Rowling? From anyone else it is just guess work.

Thanks WHITETIGERLADY44 ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHITETIGERLADY44 (talkcontribs) 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


coinage[edit]

Passage states their money is bimetalic, then goes on to state they use three metals- which would be 'trimetallic'. I don't know the series well enough to know which is more accurate, could somebody check it out and fix it? Thanks. 204.69.139.16 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After Hogwarts[edit]

"It is customary for young wizards to travel the world to "observe foreign witches and wizards" after graduation to complete their education".

How the heck is it customary to travel? I would imagine that it is just like people who complete University. They may travel the world, or they may go straight into the work force.Wild ste (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Narcissa[edit]

I just happened to come over the Narcissa page. It's a redirect to here as "Narcissa Malfoy". As there is a much more notable Narcissa, the American missionary Narcissa Whitman and a small place in Oklahoma, Narcissa, Oklahoma, I'd like to turn it in a disambiguation page. As the original author, User:Od Mishehu, said in creating the redirect that "As long as there are no other claims to this first name, it should redirect here. If there are others, feel free to replace with a disambiog page" I think that there are no objections, so if no are risen here, I'd be bold and do it. Link to this discussions have been posted to Talk:Narcissa Whitman and User talk:Od Mishehu. Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 07:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there could be any objection. A redirect is a disambiguation page with one entry. When there's more than one, it gives the reader a clear choice. Go for it. —EncMstr (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Snowolf How can I help? 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nurmengard[edit]

When I searched for Nurmengard, I was redirected to this page but it doesn't have an entry. I would go ahead and add it but I'm not sure where to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.234.233 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Squibs[edit]

I would appreciate some clarification on the following text please. "Squib births are rare anomalies, and the Ministry of Magic does not keep records of them." JKR does not actually state that no record is kept of them in the reference given. While it is clear in the series that Squibs are an anomaly, I am uncertain about no records kept of them. In Book 5, Order of the Phoenix, when Mrs. Figg is at Harry's trial, it is said that there is no record of "any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging". When she states that she is a squib, she replies "so you wouldn't have me registered." I take this to mean registered as a member of the wizarding community. Mrs. Figg is told that "We'll be checking that. Leave details of your parentage with my assistant Weasley."

I may be nit picking [and would be pleased to be told so], but I think "the Ministry of Magic does not keep records of them." is ambiguous. Given that the Ministry places great importance on keeping the wizarding community secret from Muggles, it would be in their best interests to know the identity of Squibs at least. Presumably, checking on Mrs. Figg's parentage would reveal they had produced a child and that she is a Squib.

I suggest that the text could read "and the Ministry of Magic does not require them to be registered as part of the Magical Community." Any comment would be appreciated. Proxxt (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I found it strange when reading the article too. Edit it. 86.135.97.226 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made the change I mentioned above. Thanks for your comment. Proxxt (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

This is very badly done. There are many instances when a Muggle-born or half blood does something religious. This should not really be included in a section about wizarding religion, because they weren't raised by wizards (though technically they are, it could easily just be a one off case and should not be applied to the universe as a whole). Also, the fact that there are churches in Godric's Hollow is irrelevant; there are churches and a cathedral in London, but they're nothing to do with wizard religion. If there was a church in Hogsmeade, I'd see that as proof of religious wizards, but there is no mention of one.

I've added a few lines to explain this, but it may be better off with a sentence at the end saying something like: It should be noted that Wizards raised by Muggles may not have the same religious beliefs as pure blood wizards due to their upbringing. Religious actions by these wizards could simply be one off cases influnced by Muggles, rather than an indicator of a wizrding religion."

How come then does Mrs. Wealsly say "Thank God" in the 7th Book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.131.57 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


I could be way out here. Thoughts? 86.135.97.226 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that they are Christian, Harry's parents were buried in the graveyard of the church at Godric's Hollow, and when burying Mad-Eye Moody's eye next to a tree, he carves a cross into the tree. So at the very least the Potters are Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.197.176 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Very unlikely statement. The in-universe truths , puts all "muggle religions" out of play. If something there would have to be denominations specially for Wizards for it to work. That is, the in-universe realities in the HP series are obviously incompatible with either denomination of the christian religion. chandler ··· 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think religion is relevant in jk rowling's universe. She doesn't really think that much about religion, and her world relfects that. If you've joined pottermore, and r british, then it appears that wizards are about as religious as british muggles. It's clearly not a big deal to rowling therefore, u shdn't think 2 much ab it. (82.28.146.233 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Series[edit]

How about we use a vertical series box (part of a series on the Harry Potter Universe) on this page, Spells in Harry Potter, Places in Harry Potter etc., or alternatively, on all Harry Potter pages (i.e. Part of a series on Harry Potter. ajmint (talkemailcontribssubpages) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wizard World backwardness[edit]

The article mentions that the wizards lack Muggle technology, but not how the separation in 1700 also put them out of touch with social progress. They missed out on the abolitionist movement and so still own elf-slaves. Their use of dementors in prisons violates the American Fifth Amendment and its counterparts in other countries. Also, their notions of legitimacy are so primitive that Voldamort apparently was able to take over simply by occupying the Ministry of Magic. The fact that Voldamort's mother took refuge in a Muggle orphanage implies that they have no social-welfare system, except for scholarships for poor students at Hogwarts. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood Purity[edit]

In fact, by the end of the eries the Weasley's Family is nos a pure-blood family according to the definition given. The Weasleys have mixed theri blood with that of Harry and Hermione who have muggle ancestors; this contradicts the idea of Blood Purity as "not having muggle ancestors on the genealogical pedigree".--Luke in spanish (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Family[edit]

The Black Family-Which is in the middle of Blood Purity seems to be out of place. I suggest putting it in another section because BLACK FAMILY is not a blood status like Squib-Mudblood-etc... --Tech-Chef (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirrors as communication[edit]

It is true that mirrors were used as a form of communication but it is only mentioned used by James Potter and Sirius Black and only mentions one invented mirror by one of the friends. I would like that subtitle to be deleted unless there is proof that there were more mirrors.

Gaunt line?[edit]

Technically speaking, since Voldemort is Merope Gaunt's son and he doesn't really die until DH, can it be said that the Gaunt line ended before book 1? It did end in the male line, in that Morfin died childless, but it didn't end entirely. EDIT: Claiming this comment because I forgot to log in before. Sorry! Nachturnal (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Half-breeds and mixed-breeds[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph: "The only mixed species in the Harry potter books are: Hagrid (half-giant), Fleur's mother (half-veela),and Teddy Lupin (half-werewolf)." It is suggested in GoF that Madame Maxime is also part giant; the fact that Fleur and Gabrielle's mother is half-Veela means they are also mixed-breeds; and I'm sure if I scoured the books I could find more characters of mixed breeds. Nachturnal (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh? I removed it. I do in fact have multiple personalities, but you're not me. As far as I recall.
And I removed it because it didn't make too much sense (bad grammar and punctuation) and I was pretty sure it was factually wrong.
Just sayin'. --Jean Calleo (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

sirius black killed[edit]

in HP5, siriusb is killed by bellatrix, but it aint a killing curse, for it was a red jet of light. the book says: harry saw sirius ducking bellatrix's jet of red light [...] the second jet of light hit him sqaurely in the chest. i think it was a stunning charm. he died by falling through this deadly curtain thing.