Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 2

message: Under Magical Weaknesses, the article states that "Harry shows weakness in some classes, including Potions ... When Professor Slughorn takes over, however, he gets top marks, partly due to the Half Blood Prince's old textbook, but also because he does not hate Slughorn and also because he is actually very good in potions." However, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry is shown to be completely inept in the antidote mixing scene as well as whenever he doesn't have direct help from the scribbled on book, such as when he needed an antidote for a love potion for Ron and was forced to go to Professor Slughorn.
::You don't get Exceeds Expectations OWLS unless you know something about potions.  Snape hated Harry; the fact Harry got a good OWL In potions was despite Snape and his hatred of Harry.  Jclinard 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's Skill in Potions 

message: Paragraph 5 of the Background section is highly irrelevant. We should delete it and just provide a link to the main page Relatives of Harry Potter. If I do not hear any arguments against it, I will make the change in a week's time. Sushovande 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed family relations of Harry is irrelevant

message: Wouldn't this section be better off further down, rather than right near the start of the article? --Dave. 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be in this article at all. If there's a reputable source commenting on any similarities between the two, Harry Potter would probably be the best place for it; if there isn't, it should stay in its own article. To put it here would be to suggest that there is a connection or basis between the two - and whilst we may or may not think that, without serious proof, it would be OR (and slanderous) to introduce it here. Michaelsanders 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Harry Potter 

message: I have separated possessions by book. I intend to work them into the sections as soon as possible; if anyone can finish it up before I can, please try (I do think they are relevant).--Aaronhumes 21:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished for you. Sargun 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, apparently  did. Maybe you forgot to log in.  At any rate, whoever did this  should use the preview function for future edits. John Reaves (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  possessions 

message: Should it be discussed that he hasn't received any form of education in non-magical subjects since the age of 11 and what implications this leads to in terms of his status as a children's role model and perceived intelligence in the normal world? 65.213.142.2 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he can read, write and cipher; shouldn't that be good enough?--206.27.244.59 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source (teachers or government officials or journalists) expressing an opinion about Harry Potter lacking knowledge of music or intermediate mathematics or adequate foreign language skills or literature or technology or sports or politics or history or sciences and such, use it. If you can't, however, it would be your own thoughts, or otherwise unattributable, and thus inappropriate for wikipedia. Michael  Sanders 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose to say he doesn't recieve any of those educational activities at Hogwarts? It being written into the book would be perhaps useless, since it isn't really helping the plot move along any since its just taking up space. Disinclination 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only have we had the kid's timetables quoted at several points - and no mention of any such subjects - and it would be pretty simple to throw in something like "Some of their lessons were like primary school - maths and English - but some involved magic", but I think we can safely say that if Professor McGonagall was teaching the kids about the joys of Sir Walter Scott on the side, it would have been mentioned at some point. Michael  Sanders 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, they're studying history of magic and probably in that way magic's litterature. As of science, it's completely irrelevant to the wizarding world. The same applies for math, economy, informatic and pretty much all we're learning in high school. As for English as a subject, they seem to practice it quite a lot since they are writing lots of things for their classes. 207.107.233.124 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd disagree. Literature and history are not the same thing, and limiting the study of history to only the history of magic sounds dangerously narrow. Mathematics would be valuable in any setting (numbers and their properties don't just cease to exist), magical or not. Economics most obviously so, as inflation, supply and demand, etc would still exist no matter how magical the society.--Lovepush 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Education

message: Show Harry's dueling skills seriously be considered a weakness. Everyone listed that Harry fought and didn't fare well againts (save for Draco Malfoy) were all adults. I don't think a 14-16 year old is expected to outclass experience death eaters in combat.
Lionheart08 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dueling Skills

message: Should the thing at the side say "First appeared in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" not Sorcerer's. Never mind I changed it, if the article is supposed to be British English it should be Philosopher's. 
:Just say "First appeared in Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone in the American adaptation)." Or just leave it the way it is. --Majinvegeta 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philosopher's is correct. As he did first appear in it before appearing in the american adaptation. (Rekija 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosopher's not Sorcerer's

message: Um, this article is VERY long, and should be cleaned up. I don't know if we truly need seperate sections for each book. Perhaps a chop down and combining sections is all we need. He is the main character of the series, obviously he's going to appear in every book. Just list the names of the books that he appears in and combine all the book sections into one: Here's an example of a main character article that I just worked on, where there is four books to the series, and all four books were combined in one section, while the character's ancestry/other info had it's own section. Perhaps we could do something like that. The reason why I say this is because Harry Potter is a fictional character, and according to Wikipedia, fictional character articles are supposed to focus on the author's development of the character, not the history of the character itself--Majinvegeta 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: The section on blood (Parentage) was recently edit from:
:blood=Half-blood | 
was changed to:
:blood=Half-blood | with the following edit summary: "Harry Potter is Pure Blood according to the books"
Not being an expert in this area, I have revered the edit due solely to the fact it was only half done.  The actual displayed type was not changed only the link itself was changed. I will leave it to other to either edit completely or let the revert stand Dbiel (Talk) 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage 

message: I removed the in-universe tag as this article seems to be adequately labeled. I am new-ish at this so if each section needs its own label I will put the tag back or try to fix it. Let me know what you think. :-) ZouBEini 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: The begginnings of all the individual book sections seem a lot like the teaser you can read on the back of the book; not as neutral as wiki is supposed to be.  If nobody objects, I'll be happy to rework them.--Solar Sunstorm 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Teasers 

message: :Image:Harry Potter's Wand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Harry Potter's Wand.jpg

message: Since the book is out we must update it to come up with the story. Marlith 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone update the section on Deathly Hallows 

message: Sorry, fans, but if it is an important characteristic of the character, it should be pointed out - and Harry's Horcruxness is not a trifling matter.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horcrux Potter

message: For what it's worth, there will be spoilers here unrelated to JUST Harry Potter (character).  One of the themes that was supposed to be better explained was the constant reference to Harry having his mother's eyes. This was stated, or confirmed, by the author several times in various interviews. Admittedly, I read the book quickly, but I never noticed anything "new" about his eyes other than the comment at one point that emphasized that he had "exactly" her eyes, or something like that.  I came to this page to see if anyone had mentioned it yet, and seeing how no one has, if anyone did catch what was so special about Harry having Lilly's eyes, please add it to the article.  Thanks!   Maijstral  22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will have been because of Snape's love for Lily Potter. His last words were for Harry to look at him, so that he could gaze into the eyes of Lily before he died. Pettythug 10:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's Eyes 

message: If it was 19 years after the events of the book, shouldn't it be 2015, since the book's events occurred in 1997? Thanks ^^
: HP was born in 80, so he entered Hogwarts for his first year in 91.  H1 would have been 91-92.  H7 would have been 97-98.  Assuming "19 years later" refers to 19 years after the end of the main story line, that would be 1998+19 = 2017.  Maijstral  06:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Epilogue

message: There are some inaccuracies "Events heat up for the final battle, as Voldemort demands that Harry, the faculty, and older students of Hogwarts fight him."
WRONG
only harry is asked to come "Give me Harry Potter"..."and none shall be harmed. Give me Harry Potter, and I shall leave the school untouched. Give me Harry Potter and you will be rewarded. "you have untill midnight"
So on this basis i shall modify accrodingly the uppermost quote.
DONE Picer 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies  

message: As Harry-19-years-later appears in the epilogue - how would "parting from the Horcrux" and ceasing to be a hero have affected him? (The fanfic is already, no doubt, being written).
How many other characters are there who can be seen as composite entities of this nature - apart from Dr Who Black Wolf? Jackiespeel 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry the ex-Horcrux

message: I know "19 years later" has him with kids (but are they really his?) and a relationship of some sort with Ginny, but is it ever stated that they are in fact married? Perhaps they have been living in sin all this time. Perhaps they are involved in some sort of group relationship with their old school chums. Anyway, no interpretation should be ruled out unless the text itself excludes it.
Cheerio!
There are several references in the epilogue that these are Harry's children: Young James is said to give his father a hug goodbye, and Harry tells his children something he's never mentioned to them before, stuff like that. I think it's safe to assume that Harry and Ginny are indeed married, but since Rowling never specifically mentions it, no reason to do so here, I guess. PNW Raven 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Married?

message: Rowling stated that there was to be a non-magical person who develops magical ability in adult life and it would be revealed in Deathly Hallows. Who is this? I must have overlooked it in the book. At some point I want to add a quick line about this to that person's page (if there is one), because I'm sure others will want to know if they are also confused about it I thought it would be Dudley, who was affected by the Dementors, but it apparently wasn't. Is it Trelawney?  PNW Raven 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this? It's possible you may have just misinterpreted what Rowling said.--Lovepush 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Non-Magical Person Who Does Magic 

message: There should be a spoiler warning for harry's family tree. It could ruin someones reading of the book
Tomazzr 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really needed? It's a Wikipedia article, not a fan site. --VorangorTheDemon 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if somebody, for example, wants information for the reading of another Harry Potter book, and sees that? Some parts of that family tree only occur at the end of the last book. Maybe they wanted to see if Harry was related to Salazzar Slytherin? Tomazzr 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be a good idea for spoiler warnings, because people going on here don't know how much it will reveal.Coldpower27 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely if you have enough sense, you will avoid most of those areas anyway. The only spoilers bit really is about Harrys children and who he marrys at the end. As soon as you see the tree, anyone who didn't want to be spoiled will have enough sense to avoid it.Wild ste 12:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Spolier Warning For Family Tree 

message: Someone want to update the 19 Years Later section with the now know information about Harry being the head of the Auror department at the Ministry.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ --71.220.32.25 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's what he did before he became an auror. V-train 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profession 

message: Harry is an Auror, Ron is not. New interview up here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/07/30/potters.afterlife.ap/index.html. Please update 'Nineteen Years later' with this information.
:No, she has already stated they are both Aurors.  Someone in the chat asked what they did right after the end of book 7, and she wrote that Ron went to work with his brother.  That does not contradict what she said previously, it merely supplements it.  CNN is merely summarizing only what was mentioned in that chat.  V-train 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info re. post-Hogwarts 

message: I found an interesting article on my local newspaper website about a 78 year old Florida man who has the same name. If a person does not find this appropriate for this article and finds it appropriate for another article for example, the main Harry Potter article, can move it. KSweeley 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't relevant.  There are lots of "actual" people called Harry Potter.  It doesn't add anything to the article, which is about the character.  I've therefore deleted it.--Dave. 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - what you found was a slow news day. There must be thousands of people named Harry Potter. There is even a Monty Python skit that has a Harold Potter as a character. Coincidence is just that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added information on an actual 'Harry Potter'