Talk:Harry Potter (character)

Mistake in Family Tree

Harry Potter's family tree currently states that both Harry and the Gaunts are descendents of Ignotus Peverell, which is infact, incorrect. Harry is a descendent of Ignotus Peverell, which is also why James Potter (And Harry) owned the Cloak of Invisibility, which was Ignotus' Hallow. The Gaunts on the other hand (and subsequently Lord Voldemort) are descendents of Cadmus Peverell, as they possessed the Resurrection Stone, which was Cadmus' Hallow. I would have edited this myself, but I do not know how to, but feel that this is quite a shocking mistake to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.45.117 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, as what you say makes sense, but if we are to believe the story of the Peverell siblings, Cadmus would be dead. Since only Ignotus survived in the story, he could be the only one to reproduce. I belive thats the explanation...but I could be remembering it wrong. 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robev (talk • contribs)

But remember that we know not when the three brothers created the Hallows. They may have been young i.e. Harry's age, or they may have already been older. I would take them to be older considering the power of their magic. Say they are older, perhaps even just Harry's parents age. Why would it not be possible for Cadmus to have already conceived a child? Stooge4ever (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason would be, in the book it says that Cadmus lived alone and had lost the love of his life. That indicates childless to me. chandler · 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the book, it also says that the story that is in The Tales of Beedle the Bard aren't strictly truth - as Dumbledore says, he suspects they were just 3 very powerful wizards who created these things. So if the story about meeting death wasn't entirely factual, we could assume the rest isn't exactly fact either. Naynay104 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

how bout this: instead of writting they decended from one specific peverell, just write they (riddle & potter) were both related to them. as the peverells are siblings, that remains true regardless who decended from whom. --46.114.127.92 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

THE NAMES Harry`s long name is Harry James Potter and the Lord Voltemort`s real name is Tom Marvolo Riddel.(I`m sorry when i`m rong but in the book is like that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.19.148 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Family Tree

Someone has spelled Angelina Johnson's name wrong in the family tree, someone correct it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.49.131 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ref 13

What is it? It comes up blank. Wrad 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just tried ref 13 and it opens OK. It is the "J.K. Rowling Web Chat Transcript" @ The Leaky Cauldron.org Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter possession image

We cannot use this image until it is legal for us to grab it. This image is almost assuredly a screenshot from an illegal download of the film. As this creates a legal nightmare, I pulled it until we have some solid provenance for the image's legalisty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be from here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be. Should we take the chance? I'd prefer not to endanger the project on th eoff-chance it isn't, There is no licensing whatsover from the uploader (which, from a glance at his Discussion page is not all that unusual). Should we remove this picture and upload the NYT version instead? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the safest thing to do. Just upload the NYT one over the other. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Hi, I only just noticed that my edits to this article were reverted. That is the second time my edits to this page have been undone, both seemingly without reason. The first time, it was done with no explanation, and when I asked the editor who did so why, they said that they were trying to protect the page from vandalism, and that I should restore my edits if I thought they would improve the article. When I did so, I was reverted again by a different editor, who simply said "perhaps you might want to discuss removing sections, achieving consensus, hmm?", which leads me to think that I was reverted simply for making drastic edits, rather than because my edits were detrimental to the quality of the page. We are encaourged to be bold here, aren't we? My edits contained summaries explaining my reasons for doing so; that "Fears" section is unsourced, unneccesary, and original research. Who says that Harry has few fears? The fans? For all we know, he could be afraid of lots of things which haven't been acknowledged in the books. Unless JK Rowling or someone confirms that he has few fears, we can't make assumptions. The whole section is pointless anyway; why can't "Fears", "Abilities & interests" and "Possessions" be merged into a shorter, much tighter "Characterisation" section? Also, the current "Character development" section isn't about character development; in order to develop a character you have to create them first, and the section should be retitled "Concept and creation" or something. I think the "Appearances" section should come before any out-of-universe information since plot details are only tolerated to provide context for the encyclopedic stuff - better to have context before rather than after. This is how FA fictional character articles such as Jason Voorhees, Jabba the Hutt, and Padmé Amidala, as well as GA fictional character articles like Jack Harkness and Jack Sparrow, are laid out. Anyway, I'm getting tired of having all of my edits to this page indiscriminately reverted with no explanation in the edit summary. If I did something wrong, please tell me so I don't do it again, but don't just revert me because I made some large edits without asking permission. Thanks. Paul730 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful post here, and as well for notifying me of its presence. Paul. Allow me to explain why I had reverted you the second time. Usually, when someone uses the argument to 'Be Bold', I am 95% sure I am dealing with one of those ass-clowns who think that their opinions are much, much more important than everyone else's, and that the rest of the editors within the WP community just don't have the brainpower to get it. They see the freedom of editing boldly but not the responsibility that comes with it. Usually, they are fairly self-destructive folk who over time detonate any sort of credibility they garner. However, I believe that is less of a problem with you, as you are willing to now discuss your edits. Congrats on that. :)

I think that you offer good suggestions, and my revert wasn't meant to intimate that they were stupid or flawed. However, you might have noticed that the sign on the door calls WP "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That means that everyone gets to contribute, and that the FA and GA articles you mentioned didn't spring, fully-formed, from the heads of one or two individuals. They were the result hard and determined work of a large number of people working together and sometimes compromising their own absolutism to think outside the box. The idea is that viewing the subject from a number of different sides gives us an edge over other encyclopedias in that - while we are not necessarily experts - we each bring a little something to the table, and that the cumulative value of that is often better than that of an expert-driven encylopedic effort. As you are a fan of Buffy, here's a translation: the Scoobies were far more successful than the Initiative in almost every endeavor.

Your edits altered the substance of the article rather dramatically, Paul. That sort of large-form edit short-circuits the editing process. You were presenting the community with an edit large enough in its scope and connectedness that it has to be dealt with en toto; either you accept the whole edit or reject it. As I believe in the editorial process, I rejected your edit. Had you introduced it a piece at a time, it would have allowed for the editors working or visiting here to either accept, reject or modify the edit to something more workable. I still think you can do this. The only hindrance to this is that it takes a bit of time. But honestly, what's the rush? FA articles aren't made in a day.

I am not going to address the substance of your arguments presented in your edit, as I think they should be introduced one by one, and have the community weigh in on them. I will join in at that time, because your edit, presented in pieces deserves consideration.

I hope I have addressed your concerns, Paul. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. And for realising that I'm not an "ass-clown". ;) The reason I objected so strongly to being reverted was, a) the first editor didn't seem to have any reason for doing so and had mistaken me for a vandal, which was a bit insulting, and b) Arcayne's slightly rude edit summary (the hmmm? was a bit patronising). I'm well aware that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - I regularly ask other editors for their opinion and advice on editing and try my best to help others. I'm not some ego-centric know-it-all (and I'm not saying you said I was). However, while those FA and GA articles certainly "didn't spring, fully-formed, from the heads of one or two individuals.", I know that at least two were completely re-written from scratch by one editor (albeit with help and advice from others). Sometimes heavy clean-up is the best way for an article to go, even if it means sacrificing cruft and plot summaries that the fanboys want to keep. This article has great potential, but it's a bit rough around the edges IMO. Most of it is good, it just needs to be summarised... quality over quantity after all. While I realise that my edits were rather large scale, and this is a highly popular article, I do believe that they were beneficial (for the reasons explained above). I wasn't really altering the subsance, just the layout. Anyway, I will try to re-impliment my edits, but I hope you (the project, not just Arcayne)actually give them a chance this time rather than revert them for being too "dramatic". Paul730 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that they will be more acceptable, if you introduce them in smaller amounts. Some of the wackier things, like retitling sections and moving them around, I think you should get some input from others before instituting them. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Grouped books together?

Is there a reason why the second to forth books and the fifth and sixth books are grouped together and not separated? --Silent Elf 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some measure of brevity I suppose. The discussion of his appearances in the novels is already quite long here, seeing as they are all called Harry Potter and ....., it's obvious that they're about him. I think the first deserves slightly more space than the rest but that section might be trimmed to just mention major incidents that forward the charcter.AleXd (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Why are there no images of the character from the books? Don't the American versions have illustrations? I think since Harry is primarily a literary character, it would be fair use to have an image of him which isn't from the films.  Paul  730 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Harry is an Orphan

The lead currently states that the author's decision to make HP an orphan was her own mother's death. Although I haven't got a reference at the moment I'm sure that JK Rowling has said that the charcter was invented six months before her mother died and he was already an orphan.AleXd (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the documentary released today, JK explicitly states that Harry's parents were always going to die. Her mother's death just made his reaction more realistic and fleshed out emotional aspects of the book. What's in the lead needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.61.227 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. I've removed the offending line.AleXd (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

wait i thought that he became an orphan because his parents died because of the prophcey that got to voldemort through snape so voldemort killed his dad didnt haveto kill his mom but she did the motherly thing to protect her child soshe died then poof hes an orphan.--Greeknoitall234 (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

birthdate

Someone should put up a definitive birth date and year, I know it's July 31st, but is it 1980 or 81? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.198.18 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1980. --UnicornTwilight (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1980. Harry was a year old when his parents were killed, which was on "31 October 1981" according to page 328 of the seventh book. This places his age at being 17 in 1993. Captain Gamma (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A note must be made on Harry's birthdate July 31st. It is one of the numerous clues foreshadowing Harry's life and destiny. It is essential to know this in understand to fully comprehend teh extent of his journey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.163.3.167 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive page move

The archive template used in this page normally includes example links of the form Talk:title/Archive1. In the case of the third archive here, the example title has not been properly substituted and the archive was located at Talk:Title/Archive3, which would be the proper place for an archive of the discussions of Title. I have now moved the archive to its proper place (Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive3) and corrected the only proper link leading to it, situated in this page's box. I have also substituted the other example links to avoid similar incidents in the future. I shall proceed to have Talk:Title/Archive3 (now a redirect) speedy-deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Windsor Spectacles?

What sort of spectacles does Mr. Potter/Daniel Radcliffe really wear?

Someone said or most of the people I know wrongly perceives Mr. Potter glasses to be Windsor-type, even though it could be, it is wrong(!) If the user would examine the spectacle of the actor is wearing, on the picture being featured on this article, one can deduce that both of the eye-frames are not circular at all. Windsor spectacles are known to be fully circular.

Did Ms. Rowling explicitly specify what sort of specs Harry (should) wear???

88.105.122.20 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverse-Horcrux?

I never really understood what kept Harry alive after Voldemort hit him with Avada Kedavra. I know that Voldemort used Harry's blood in his Flesh, Blood and Bone spell. I know that Harry was protected from Voldemort by his mother's magic. I know that Harry couldn't die with Voldemort lived. But at the same time, if Harry was protected from Voldemort by his magic blood, wouldn't that mean that Voldemort is also protected from Harry?

Then I had a thought; in a way, Voldemort is like a reverse-horcrux. Harry's blood is inside him just like a piece of Voldemort's soul is inside Harry. In this way, just like Voldemort can't die as long as the Horcruxes are intact, Harry can't be killed while Voldemort survives. And in that way, Voldemort is like a Horcrux for Harry. For more detailed information, see HP7, pg. 709. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.235.202 (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reason that Harry didn't die was because when Voldemort tried to kill him, his spell ended up killing the piece of his soul inside of Harry. That piece of soul shielded Harry from the spell, so it didn't fully kill him, only send him to the King's Cross Station Near-death experience, if that makes any sense. Borg Sphere (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. (: AshleyScripter _{talkback} 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i thought that when he tried to kill him his mother love prtected him and then he stored a peice of his soul within harry by accident and then in the fourth book when he uses harrys blood he killed the horcrux. am i right i have a whole nother conversation on this in the ron section its ron family tree/horcrux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeknoitall234 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you cant kill someone with his  blood inside u arry dont hve voldemors blood  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.136 (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 

godric griffindor

im sure godric griffindor should be in that family tree somewhere--81.141.184.114 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are? Why do you say that? faithless (^speak) 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that he is descended from Godric Griffindor...Borg Sphere (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

True. In fact, he is decended from Salazar Slytherin. Did you read Chamber Of Secrets and Dealthy Hallows properly? --UnicornTwilight (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh...he and Voldemort are descended from a common family (the Peverells), and likely a common (distant) ancestor. (The Three Brothers' father, if the fact that they were actually brothers is taken literally.) Nowhere in the books, however, does it say that they were both descended from Salazar Slytherin. Voldemort certainly was, but there's no proof that Harry ever was. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But if they both are related to the Peverells, and Voldemort's related to Salazar Slytherin, then Harry is related to Salazar Slytherin. If the Peverell brothers weren't brothers or related, they'd have different last names, proving Harry and Voldemort are related, making it also true that he is related to Salazar Slytherin and everyone that Voldemort is related to i.e. the Gaunts, the Riddles, SALAZAR SLYTHERIN, and everyone else Voldemort is related to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.86.102 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Possesions

Hi, I was reading this article and I want to ask a question…or more of a suggestion.... Why is there such an elaborated mention of Harry's possessions under a specific heading? It confuses me every time I read it. It looks like mention of minor details for fans of the book not the general and specific information the rest of the article has.

Just for an example:

1. Sirius knife; it did played a minor detail part in fifth book, but was it was important enough to make way into an encyclopedia that contains only general and important summaries about Harry? Harry also had some socks given by Dobby and books given by Sirius, and more importantly Buckbeak, they should have also been mentioned here under possessions then.

2. Harry's two broomsticks; it’s already mentioned that he likes to play quittich and a good player. Specifically mentioning that he had this and that number of brooms and were destroyed by Macgonagall, seemed a little too much in detail to me. Brooms are common things and many Quittich players have them. It doesn't serve very specific point in his characterization.

3. Deathly Hallows; I thought they may be more appropriate to be mentioned under the 7th book summary here. Harry only had them for a little time in the last book, apart from the invisibility cloak. Dumbledore also had them for some time, but it isn’t under some specific heading.

i'd like to know more about harry potters wand, i don't think it was mentioned in the possessions section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.18.190 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just mean every person has some possessions, unless they do not play a very significant part, should they be mentioned in detail? My humble suggestion is to merge Harry's important possessions with the relevant books in which they served there minor or major plot purpose and or at least exclude some like knife or two way mirror which did not contribute that much to his characterization or are common possession that most people also have, like brooms.

Other characters like Dumbledore also had some unique possessions but they are not under some specific possession heading, examples, Pensive, Deluminator, Elder Wand and even all three Deatlhy Hallows, which looks much more right accordingly to the article style.

At first I thought to edit it myself but seeing as I'm not even registered here I was quite sure that some huge edits like this without explaining the reasons might be reverted back immediately, so I thought to request you accomplished guys who no doubt have written everything here in the first place instead of doing it myself. Really it looks like that at this possessions part, things have gone into much more detail than the rest of the article. Please do consider it. Thanks in advance and very sorry if I made some mistake while posting it, I'm totally new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.229.236 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without even reading the entire post, I agree with the IP; that section has always struck me as incredibly crufty and unnecessary. faithless (^speak) 10:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see: Talk:Harry Potter#Requested move. - jc37 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

The article doesn't bear the "Good Article" icon (at the top right) and such, it's only mentioned here in the talk page. I'd do the edit myself, but I don't know how to. -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Voldemort supposedly died?

Presently, the lead states that Voldemort "supposedly died" when he attacked young Harry. Supposed by whom? Would it not be more accurate to say "vansihed", "perished", "supposedly perished" (not sure - I'm not a native speaker) instead?--Noe (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it, though it could still be improved. faithless (^speak) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of name?

Just saw this in the transcript of a Monty Python's Flying Circus episode:

It was a day like any other and Mr and Mrs Samuel Brainsample were a perfectly ordinary couple, leading perfectly ordinary lives - the sort of people to whom nothing extraordinary ever happened, and not the kind of people to be the centre of one of the most astounding incidents in the history of mankind ... So let's forget about them and follow instead the destiny of this man ... (camera pans off them; they both look disappointed; camera picks up instead a smart little business man, in bowler, briefcase and pinstripes) ... Harold Potter, gardener, and tax official, first victim of Creatures from another Planet. (See complete transcript here)

Now, okay, it's a common enough sounding name, except - compare the above paragraph with the opening lines of the first book of the Harry Potter series, which also starts off by talking about a perfectly ordinary couple (the Dursleys) to whom nothing extraordinary ever happens, and then goes on to introduce Harry, whose story is of course much more interesting. Monty Python of course long predates Harry Potter, and being a landmark British icon would certainly have been familiar to Rowling (even if she weren't British herself, but especially so since she is). Could she have been making an intentional subtle nod to the show here? Or is it just a big coincidence? Lurlock (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence. I've read something where Rowling addresses this, but I can't remember where. Possibly a case of cryptomnesia, but I doubt it's anything more than that. faithless (^speak) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

~Actually, Ms. Rowling has stated in interviews that Harry is her favorite boys name, and that she had always like the last name Potter. --Tasty Tidbits from ~*CF12*~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlyfries12 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

According to last night's ABC special, she had two playmates named Potter.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Or was it Jeopardy? I think it was. A child with playmates named Potter who liked wizards. That was obviously her. I'm sure the writers of Jeopardy did their research.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Percy Weasley's Wife

Percy's wife hasn't been included in the family tree on this page (or any other page I've found for that matter). Her name is Audrey. JK Rowling tells us this in her documentary entitled "A Year In the Life". It can also be found here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/weasley.html

I'd add it myself but I'm not sure how to do so without messing up the rest of the family tree so I thought I'd post it here and let the professionals take care of it ;) (LilMizPiper (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

I also just noticed that Molly Weasley (Arthur's Wife, not Percy's daughter) needs her brothers Gideon and Fabian Prewett (Spelling may be incorrect) next to her on the family tree. They are both mentioned numerous times throughout the series as having died in the first war, when Harry is shown the picture of the original Order of the Phionex in the fith book, and when Arthur and Molly give Harry Fabian's watch when Harry comes of age in Deathley Hallows. -Cinderfoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.100.164 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is about the origin of Harry Potter, and the whole Paradigm. Ok. I don't really know how this edition in Wikipedia works but would like to add that there is some mistake either in the quotation of JK's interviews or from JK herself. The name Harry Potter came up during a train ride fom London to Manhester and not the other way around. JK was not the one coming up with the name, but it was a bunch of international students boarding the training going to attend the school in outer Manchester. One of the student was joking around with their friends and JK was just around. She started the conversation with these students and one of the students came up with the name and the story. JK asked for permission to write the story, and the student agreed on condition. JK didn't even have a pen, so she borrowed from one of the students. Under British law, the first person who got the idea down in material form own the copyright to such idea. Although JK asked permission to write Harry Potter, and sign her name in a piece of paper given to the student with the original idea, she never did honour her agreed condition. Later, once she was contacted by the student, she ignored the letter sent to her, and discarded the fact that she had asked permission to write the student's idea. This student was to write his own story which will explain how Harry Potter came to life in the first place. I was there in the train. The whole compartment, and the whole bunch of students were there and many had mentioned about this already. I guess I will put in my contact name: Depayada@hotmail.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yotsiri (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 

Occlumency

Any reference of Harry's history with Occlumency was wiped off(I've come to quote it since I've read it last time). Can someone add it back in? 151.197.205.24 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Annisina

Broken Link in Footnotes

The link to the J.K. Rowling interview transcript in footnote 15 is broken (404 error) and needs to be fixed. Off2Explore (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. faithless (^speak) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

harry's height

here it's quoted that harry is small and skinny for his age. however this is an early description of him. james potter is always mentioned as tall and by the 5th book we know that they are very similar in appearance that their heights are practically the same. also in the 6th book hermione mentions that harry grew a lot (in the scholastic version it says "about a foot") and mrs. weasley was always commenting on the fact that harry had grown so much. am i mistaken in my interpretation that by the time he's fully grown harry is tall, or is irrelevent to mention here? should someone correct it (i would but i'm new at editing and don't want to screw anything up)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.238.62 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Daniel Radcliffe is very small Lol, but Harry is supposed to be average sized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conay (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s never been said how tall Harry is and I don’t think Jo has ever said it. It is mentioned he had a major growth spurt in OOTP. First page of OOTP “… look of someone who has grown a lot in a short space of time.” Then HBP somewhere Hermione makes a comment to Harry about him being taller. I always saw him being around 5’11. I always saw James being about that height as well. Mixed5000 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the film Troll?

Why not at least a footnote about character from the film Troll? Mathewignash (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue mistake

Under epilogue it says that Victiore is one of Ron and Hermione's children. She is actually Bill and Fleur's child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.153.34 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Srsly

What is up with the first sentence of "Concept and creation"? Tarnegol (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Glimmer721 ^talk 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Concept and Creation?

Where did this section go? --Glimmer721 ^talk 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Abilities?

The article portrays Harry as a "skilled wizard, proficient in DADA", however, I would think it worth noting that he displays very little ability, using basic spells throughout the entire series. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter character article

I believe the word "titular" is being used incorrectly in this article, and the link "titular character" should be removed and that article edited as well. The word "titular" is a noun with its own meaning "in title only" as in someone who has a titled position, but does not actively use the powers of the position. The phrase "title character" is the correct usage in this case.147.206.4.254 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)pm

I don't know. There is a redirect from titular character to title role, so if it is incorrect, that redirect is also in error. At any rate, I've changed the article to use the "title character" wording. It is linked properly to title role. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Darren Criss

Various anons keep adding "Darren Criss" to the "portrayer" field in the infobox.

1. Is this indeed incorrect and should we revert it? Criss does portray Potter in A Very Potter Musical.
2. If it is incorrect, by what principle should we reject the edits? I can't come up with a suitable warning template for the editors who add it. It's not vandalism... it's not unsourced... not sure what it really is. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He portrays him in 'A Very Potter Musical' and 'Sequel', I see no valid reason for it not to be there. User:T075iana (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)— T075iana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And how do we allow this without opening the door for everyone in Parodies of Harry Potter? Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Against it - we don't list the baby who portrayed Harry when Hagrid delivered him to the Dursleys, or in any of the flashback scenes. The role of Harry is intrinsically linked to Daniel Radcliffe. a_man_alone (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Same thing is happening with Draco Malfoy. I've been keeping it out because it's unsourced trivia. The article makes no mention of the musical. Before these actors can be added it should be shown the musical has widespread notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Against addition - this is fan material, not official source material. I think we'd have a stronger case for including the baby in the movies than including a fan production. Otherwise I could upload a video of myself to YouTube playing Harry Potter and add my own name there. I suggest we get an admin to semi-protect the pages this is happening to. Does anyone have a full list? I've seen it on Harry and Hermione (and apparently it's happening at Draco?). We should make a list and request that the pages be semi-protected. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and made a request for semi-protection. That will hopefully stop the disruptive editing until a consensus can be reached (although it seems the consensus is not to include the info, but I don't mind waiting for more people to weigh in) and put an end to these edit wars. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay so, A Very Potter Musical is made by fans for fans, yes? And the movie has to be made by fans too, or there were no one to decide that J.K Rowlings books should be a movie. Therefore, Harry Potter itself was made by fans for fans. In that case, Darren Criss should have just as much right to be there as Daniel does. Oh and trust me, everyone who loves the musical as much as I do will agree. Because Darren Criss did just as great of a job in the parody compared too Daniel. -Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.104.252 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — 70.50.104.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Couple points. The movie was not made "by fans for fans". It was made by a large Hollywood studio who believed they could make money off the venture. Nothing more, nothing less. Second, these articles aren't written "by fans for fans". They're supposed to be written by neutral editors taking an academic approach to the topic using the guidance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. One of our key guidelines is our general notability guideline. If Criss "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for his portrayal then, perhaps, he could be included. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say, he showed up at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 premiere, and they showed him up on the big screen, so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.10.148 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Baby Harry Actor

In the Film Appearances section, it states Arthur Bowen portrayed Harry as a baby in the 1st movie, in addition to playing Albus Severus in the 7th. In fact, both Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harry_Potter_cast_members) and IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/fullcredits#cast) state that baby Harry was played by the Saunders triplets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.196.125 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictional characters who can turn invisible

Is this category slightly misleading? I suppose in one sense the invisibility cloak is something intrinsically linked to the character of Harry Potter but in another the ability to turn invisible is not innate to the character. The books depict more than one invisibility cloak being in existence, with the one Harry inherits being the original. Other characters have also become invisible through use of an invisibility charm. If Harry is a "fictional character who can turn invisible" sure every Harry Potter character who has access to an invisibility cloak/can use an invisibility charm is too? Going from memory I'm pretty sure Hermione and Ron use the invisibility cloak at least once in every book in addition to many tertiary characters, not to mention the Marauders and other previous owners of the cloak. Anybody have any thoughts? I'm not saying this category should necessarily be taken away. I feel there is an equal rationale for having Harry in this category and not having him in it. Eshlare (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a fairly weak association. The parent category of this happens to be Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability, and I disagree that it is a superhuman ability of Harry that allows him to do this. His superhuman abilities as a magic user are fairly well-defined, and the cloak is clearly a magical artifact that allows him to do something he cannot otherwise do by himself. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's more to the point than the concerns I raised. I didn't look at the parent category. I've removed it. Eshlare (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Spouse and children of HP characters

I think it is necessary for us to discuss and achieve consensus on the matter of showing the spouse and children of these characters in the infobox. Other affected articles include Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley, and Draco Malfoy. Personally, I am neutral on this. I can see a good argument for providing relevant information at a glance, but I can also see that these events only occur during the last chapter of the last book and don't have a large bearing on the overall story. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I removed that because it is in-universe logic. He is not married in the books. He would be married if he were a real character living on now after the books. There does also seem to be a rather gratuitous spoiler element here. Spoilers are to be expected in plot summaries, which is why warnings were deprecated, but I don't think it's very bright to display them in the infobox like so. Mezigue (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Have another read of WP:SPOILER. These facts about the characters were given in the interest of encyclopedic completeness. It seems that the purpose of putting these facts in the infobox was to give a centralised location for all relevant facts about the characters. While it's a small sliver of plot in the book, it seems to be a popular subject for fans who are interested in how these children lived the rest of their lives beyond the events in the books. The in-universe argument may be a valid one for excluding these facts, but the spoiler argument isn't. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a spoiler element, I simply think it's inaccurate or at best misleading. With the exception of the last paragraph and the last 2 minutes of the film Harry Potter is not married and doesn't have any children, so it's inaccurate to class him as having them. The infobox should be information about the characters common attributes, which in this case doesn't include the epilogue. I'm also of the opinion that this informatiopn shoudl be removed from the other HP characters for the same reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree that this has nothing to do with "spoilers" (we just do not care about spoilers here), but rather about the essential and conceptual essence of the Harry Potter character itself. There is also the In-Universe problem here. The overwhelming essence of the Harry Potter character concept, apart from anything else, objectively, through 99.999% of the book series (and the movies etc.) is that he was simply "The Boy Who lived", a young wizard growing up in a sometimes cruel sometimes wonderful world of magic, and interacting with sometimes cruel "muggles" and other wizards and witches. In that sense, Harry Potter himself is to be presented as he appears as a whole in the books, not from a snapshot at the conclusion. The whole idea of even giving Harry a birth date and an "age" in "our" universe has always been extremely repulsive and irrelevant for the truly objective. Now, suppose that Ms. Rowling some day mentions in an interview or on her web site that Harry eventually passes away at the ripe old age of 100 years old on his (and her) birthday, "July 31 2080" (or whatever year). Do we show him as "TBD" (to be deceased) and provide that date? What if Ms Rowling decides to have some of the beloved characters get into messy divorces? It would become "canon" because she said so, right? It is all just too much on the "crufty" (or can we no longer say that? I forget...) side for my comfort. It seems to me sufficient to have a paragraph describing the essential content of the "Epilogue" in Book 7, and maybe a few other other "canonical" references from non-book Rowling interviews and such, and leave it alone. The Lexicon (or whatever) and other Fan and Rowling / Potter sites can take deeper dives on the where things may go from there. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that, for encyclopedic completeness, it needs to list that he married Ginny and had three children. I reject the arguments that it doesn't make sense because he's not written as such in the books. The truth is that Harry is said to be married in the approximately 10 page Epilogue with is Canon and part of the books. Therefore, it's ridiculous to say it does not belong in an article about him. I move that this information be returned to the Infobox for all characters it concerns and others mentioned ... including Ron, Hermione and Draco. Tremontijr (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to express it. However, T-dot's summary is far better, so I don't feel the need to repeat it, apart from to point out that your desire has already been carried out, and Ginny and his family are mentioned in the article - Epilogue. We're not saying that the detail should be removed from the article, as you seem to think, but from the infobox. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

Harry released a bermese python not a boa co nstrictor at the zoo. 68.153.116.32 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)