Harry Potter Wiki
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki

Archive
File-manager
The talk page has the following archives:

Template photo[]

I think the current picture looks out of place: The way Dumbledore's posing for the camera. Most character pages has pictures that are either taken from some movie, or at least a promo picture that looks a bit more natural/casual. How about one of these?

Dumbledorestudy
Albus dumbledoreglasses

Tfoc (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the images currently lacks a source, if it is found, I think a vote could be held.Rodolphus (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Which image and what are you talking about? I clicked on the images, and both have the same "licencing" thing going on. Tfoc (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The dumbledorestudy.jpg one doesn't have a category from which film the screenshot is taken.Rodolphus (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I can see the frame in question in the clip, but it seems to have come from the production of this scene. Tfoc (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much like the current image. It is more recent than any of these images proposed here, and it does not show Dumbleodre "posing for the camera", it is an in-universe, high-quality picture of him with the Elder Wand at his ready. I would also not vote for an image containing the Owl Lecturn, as I believe Dumbledore's use of that object is film-specific and not book canon. I largely prefer it to any of these images suggested here, so I will not be voting for it to be changed. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's high-quality, granted, but it's not an "in-universe" picture. It's a promo picture with a black background. Gambon's literally posing for the camera in costume. As for the thing about the owl lecturn, by that logic, I could say that the half-moon spectacle isn't in the current one, but in this one, which is book canon, while Dumbledore posing for a photo with his wand isn't. Tfoc (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The current image is in-universe, as are most promo pics; you just don't like it. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Including the promo pics on posters with WB and HP logoes? You know, the original versions of these ones with the background yet to be edited out? I vote for picture 2, btw. Tfoc (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Promo pics containing logos are of course not in universe; that is why they are not used in the main texts of articles, like this one. However, this current profile image contains no OOU logos or connotations, so it qualifies as suitable for use. It is also superior to the ones suggested here and I think most will likely agree. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that Redwizard has a point. The main image should be as canon as possible, and Dumbledore did not use the Owl Lecturn in the books. Also, if the other image is in fact from OOtP, it's less rescent than the current one. What do the others think?Rodolphus (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Rodolphus, the current image is the most recent (and canonically, it depicts Dumbledore before his death), and it is also very high resolution. These other two images, however, are of a much lower resolution. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Albus Dumbledore (HBP promo) 2

By that logic, Red, the picture is actually more canon than the one currently in use, seen as how while the owl lecturn is unique to the movies - and subsequent media, seen as how HM and HL both feature it, which both predates the books and opens a whole new can of worms, Dumbledore wears half-moon spectacles in the books and doesn't in the picture. So we have an movie poster vs a movie scene image with an element from the books the poster's lacking. But fine, how about... Tfoc (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore character portrait 4

How about this one? Uncivil Invoice (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Bump!

Uhbn

I do agree with Tfoc on the fact, the way he's posing with the Elder Wand, 'in action' and I think we should have one with natural/casual pose.

Albus Dumbledore (HBP promo) 1

I think we should change the current image to maybe on of these. These are specifically more simple, to be fair, I don't think it does justice to Albus and I think him sitting or specifically standing, 'posing', is much better for a article and character like his. Thoughts? ShawONWIKI (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally in favour of the retention of the current image. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the change to the HBP version where he is sitting on his chair. It represents his relaxed and wise nature more and has a more pleasant backdrop. Trident0101 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2023 (GMT)
I see. I still support retaining the current image, and this is quite an old debate, but not that it means it is finished. The current image is the most recent and I think the best quality. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo (in Loyalty section)[]

c/formelry/formerly/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markboonie (talkcontribs) 22:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out, though you didn't need to point it out here, you are allowed to edit the page you know, if you see a mistake, don't be afraid to fix it :) -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  00:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Abbreviations[]

The abbreviation for "Junior" is "Jr.", not "Jnr", and "Mrs." has a period. Both are written incorrectly in the article, and I don't have privileges to fix it. Faedelity (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The spellings "Jnr" and "Mrs" without a period are correct in British English, which is what this wiki uses. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Teaching posts[]

I think the war over when McGonagall was born will never be solved, but it seems a young Minerva will be in Secrets of Dumbledore too after her Crimes of Grindelwald appearance. Now...Jo's biography of McGonagall says "Minerva managed to become an Animagus under the guidance of her inspirational Transfiguration teacher, Albus Dumbledore." If McGonagall was working at Hogwarts by 1910, that means Dumbledore went from Transfiguration to DADA by 1910 then back to Transfiguration by 1943. Apwbd115 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Flamboyant" Clothing[]

The first two sentences in the second paragraph of the Personality section bring up Albus' flamboyant clothing choices, which for a wizard are arguably flamboyant at best though I believe the mention of his periwinkle robes and the plum suit in the books were a subtle poke at 19th century Dandyism and the use of purple. Regardless, the suggestion that the dress robes Sir Richard Harris wore as Dumbledore are "flamboyant attire" completely clashes with the fact that the same style of dress robes which are sent to Ron Weasley in The Goblet of Fire are called "traditional" (in the book and on screen) which is nudge at them being quite old. Furthermore, I would think that the book would take precedence here anyway and it's ludicrous that the only mention of his book clothing is to suggest that Albus getting a flower bonnet in a Wizard Cracker and proceeding to put it on somehow makes him "flamboyant" rather than the grandfather of an authority figure he is generally portrayed as. Gracefulally (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Behind the Scenes[]

"According to Rowling in 2018, we will learn more about Grindelwald's and Dumbledore's past in the upcoming films."

This seems outdated as this is an obvious reference to the Fantastic Beasts series, which has already begun coming out.PadishahEmpressofGallifrey (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)PadishahEmpressofGallifrey

By all means delete or re-write any information you think is redundant or out of date. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

30 June death date?[]

I know this has been discussed before, but I really do find that date unlikely: see Talk:Battle_of_the_Astronomy_Tower#30_June?. I do see that Pottermore outright says 30 June, but where did they get that from? It's been on this wiki for many years; it could easily have come from here. This puts the reliability of that source into question. AdamPlenty (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if it had come from here, in which case that certainly should be discussed further, do you have any in-universe reasons to think it wasn't that date? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes: see the post I linked to. I won't repeat it all here in case it's taken the wrong way. AdamPlenty (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just looked it over, and it does indeed appear that you are in the right. Good catch, my man. :-) WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this enough to change the dates, or should we wait to see if others agree with my analysis? Going by Snape's detentions, it likely happened sometime in mid-June, which also ties in with the OWL and NEWT exams that were happening at the time. AdamPlenty (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but as far as I'm concerned, Rowling's writings and your incredibly astute observations thereof speak for themselves, and should therefore negate any need for further discussion. You might want to wait a couple of days anyway, just to give people the time to read and form an opinion on the matter, just in case. In the unlikely event there is a contention of some kind, we can deal with it then. If no one else pitches in, I'd say go for it. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I reckon any contention would likely be due to the length of time the 30 June date has been on this wiki. The 30 June date is based on the widespread, if flawed, assumption that the 31 days started when Dumbledore died, rather than when his will was discovered. The fact it's so widespread makes me believe any change would need a firm consensus, but if none is forthcoming, I might do what you suggest and go for it (silence could be taken as assent, after all...). AdamPlenty (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it can. And in any event; a consensus is - or at the very least should - be reserved for when canon is sufficiently ambiguous on an issue to warrant majority opinion on how to proceed to resolve how it should be handled. In this case, on the other hand, there is no great mystery to unravel, and to be frank; how long we have been wrong about something does not change what the facts are. I would say you would be well within your rights as an editor to go ahead with the edit first thing as soon as you have given people a day or two to pitch in. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also worried that others will consider it to have already been well-established that Dumbledore died on 30 June, and my changes will be reverted. However, looking at The Will of Albus Dumbledore (the chapter) again, it's obvious that the 31 days period used to justify the 30 June date is wrong: it's outright stated that 31 days have passed since 31 July, but it's also outright stated (in the very same scene) that he died more than that length of time ago. Therefore, the 31 days must have started sometime after Dumbeldore's death. With this, I'm actually tempted to change it right now. Nevertheless, I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone else chimes in; there may be something I've missed. However, I don't think there is: the mid-June date really does fit everything that's been established in canon. AdamPlenty (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about that. The very beginning of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 30 (The White Tomb) concurs with you:

"Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny were spending all of their time together. The beautiful weather seemed to mock them; Harry could imagine how it would have been if Dumbledore had not died, and they had had this time together at the very end of the year, Ginny's examinations finished, the pressure of homework lifted... and hour by hour, he put off saying the thing that he knew he must say, doing what he knew it was right to do, because it was too hard to forgo his best source of comfort."

I think this should suffice? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. That's yet more proof that it couldn't have been 30 June. These are all the prior discussions about this I could find: 1 2 ("The will would have been turned over to the ministry the moment he passed away, as wills do in the Muggle world too. They had the will for 31 days, thus he died at the end of June."? As I've already pointed out, that's not what happened with Sirius Black's will; therefore, there's no reason to assume that's what happened with Dumbledore's) 3 4. Others have raised some of the points I have, but they also seem to have missed others I've raised. I think we can determine that Dumbledore died sometime in the middle of June. That's the best we can do, I think. AdamPlenty (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore died on 30 June 1997 (as part of the Battle of the Astronomy Tower) according to Pottermore which is a first-tier source see this). This date is reiterated in a current WW quiz. There is no amount of reasoning around facts directly given from such first-tier sources, such as how long this school year apparently lasted), that would be sufficient to override these dates - see Harry_Potter_Wiki:Policy and Harry Potter Wiki:Canon. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words, the 30 June myth has become so widespread it's become the truth? This is exactly what I was afraid of. If we refuse to admit this may be wrong, there's certainly sufficient proof to list this as a mistake at least? AdamPlenty (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I've listed this as a mistake for now, pending further discussion. The 30 June date simply doesn't add up, full stop, I'm afraid.AdamPlenty (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless some kind of indication is given that the date "June 30 1997" on Pottermore, or its subsequent cut-and-paste placement in the quiz in question on the WW website, for that matter, actually comes from Rowling herself, it would technically be a Second-Tier at best. And a contentious one at that, mind, as it wouldn't have been the first time an official source borrowed from the wiki. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention how unreliable Rowling is with numbers and dates. Didn't she actually admit that somewhere? (apparently she 'has admitted that maths is not her strong suit', but the article doesn't give a source) AdamPlenty (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I won't pretend to really get how Ironyak1 managed to conflate the presentation of facts with "reasoning" around facts, but to answer your question, Adam; indeed she did. Not that that matters much in this case: The death date of 30 June was first put on the wiki by User:Seth Cooper on 30 April 2011. His source for that was not Pottermore or anything else, it was the following reasoning around facts:

"According to Scrimgeour (and Hermione) in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Chapter 7 (The Will of Albus Dumbledore), the Ministry has the right to maintain possession of Dumbledore's bequests for thirty-one days only, in accordance with the Decree for Justifiable Confiscation. Dumbledore's bequests were delivered to Ron, Hermione and Harry on 31 July, 1997: Harry Potter's seventeenth birthday. As it is referred in that chapter that the "thirty-one days are up", Dumbledore died exactly thirty-one days earlier, in the evening of 30 June."

Later, this date appeared on Pottermore, and subsequently on WW. To not draw a distinction between Rowling's writings on the Pottermore/WW page and all the other stuff written by who knows when would be a mistake, to put it mildly. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of my points: how do we know that other sources that say 30 June didn't just get the date from here? Are we relying on Harry Potter Wiki mirrors for our info? AdamPlenty (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the current source for 30 June: It's dated to 29 Nov 2016. Cooper's insertion of the date is some four years and seven months older than the source used to re-confirm the same date. Again - who wrote the fact file? Where did they get 30 June from? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact file says Dumbledore was 'Considered by many to be one of the most powerful wizards of his time', a phrase that is very closely paraphrased from the article at the time, so it wouldn't at all surprise me if the info there came from this very article. AdamPlenty (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is such an interest in trying to "prove" Pottermore incorrect, but as a tier-one source, whatever they provided has to be considered fact according to HPW:Canon, even if they just stole Seth's reasoning and canonized it. That's how canon works - info given by canon are facts unless contradicted by higher canon, even facts that don't completely line up based on other possible reasonings.
Yes, Rowling has said that "maths is not my strong suit" which has lead to many date contradictions, both in terms of internal consistency and alignment with the real world calendar (the first week of school in GOF has 2 Mondays, no joke - the wizarding world is wild! ;) Nonetheless, if a top tier canon source says 30 June 1997, then 30 June 1997 it is, unless another top tier source modifies this. It doesn't matter whether one believes that Dumbledore's will was immediately found upon his death (given he knew he was going to die, unlike Sirius, and had all the items prepared to bequeath, it seems entirely reasonable IMHO that he would have taken steps to have the will ready and waiting to go upon his death) or that the school year may have been planned to stretch into July (the end of the Hogwarts school year has varied to be sometime from mid or late June all the way till 1 July. There also is the whole 27 July Daily Prophet stating that "Her nine-hundred-page book was completed a mere four weeks after Dumbledore’s mysterious death in June." (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 2 (In Memoriam)), which leads back to 30 June as well, and which would not add up if Dumbledore died mid-June. As you know, this has been discussed and rehashed multiple times and there is contradictory evidence leading to different results, but at the end of the day, Pottermore ultimately published 30 June 1997 and that is a canon source for the wiki so that is what we use, unless JKR changes her mind and gives us new info. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Even if they just stole Seth's reasoning, that's how canon works"? I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough.

Ignoring for a moment that neither AdamPlenty or I really need to "try" to prove Pottermore wrong since the facts speaks for themselves, what HPW:Canon actually says is that J. K. Rowling is the first-tier source. Surely, it follows from this that it is the J.K. Rowling Originals on Wizarding World that is tier-one, not the webpage itself? The fact that Rowling published more information on her universe in a tiny corner of a webpage more than half a decade ago does not mean that everything else on it, which includes the out-of-universe trivia quiz put up for the enjoyment of visitors to the website that you referred to, should get the same treatment. In the latter case, we are - after all - talking about stuff produced random, unidentified website operators whose content we have been given no indication conferred with Rowling on everything they put up. If her primary licensee don't get Tier-One status, nor should random webmasters or whatever they are called, who might not even be fans of the books and just done a quick google search to fill out a "fact file"/quiz.

As for your point about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the fact that The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore was completed "four weeks after Dumbledore’s mysterious death" does not lead back to 30 June, it just leads back to the month of June. It only seems to lead back to 30 June if you already assume that that's the correct date. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I concur with your (WeaseleyIsOurKing89's) interpretation of what's canon. There's no indication Rowling had anything to do with Dumbledore's fact file, and why should anything on that site that didn't come from Rowling be considered canon at all, let alone tier-one? Just because Rowling owns certain rights to the site doesn't make everything (or anything, for that matter) on it canon. AdamPlenty (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • To add to the above, the About Us page on WIzarding World says: "Wizarding World Digital is a partnership between Warner Bros. and Pottermore". So, even if it is canon, it's tier-two canon at best. The books are of course tier-one canon. AdamPlenty (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why there is such an interest in trying to "prove" Pottermore incorrect" Because evidence strongly suggests that it is incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time someone made something up, put it on this wiki, and for it to have subsequently found its way into Harry Potter folklore. I am of course referring to the idea that the famous duel between Dumbledore and Grindelwald lasted three hours. This is why Wikipedia has a policy against the use of such mirrors as sources. We should have a similar policy if we don't already.

"It doesn't matter whether one believes that Dumbledore's will was immediately found upon his death (given he knew he was going to die, unlike Sirius, and had all the items prepared to bequeath, it seems entirely reasonable IMHO that he would have taken steps to have the will ready and waiting to go upon his death" Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 7 (The Will of Albus Dumbledore) makes it clear that the 31 days did not coincide with Dumbledore's death, but happened sometime afterwards. Also, as Dumbledore's imminent death was striclty between himself and Snape, it seems unlikely that he would have set his affairs in order like that, as that would have been something of a giveaway.

"There also is the whole 27 July Daily Prophet stating that "Her nine-hundred-page book was completed a mere four weeks after Dumbledore’s mysterious death in June." (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 2 (In Memoriam)), which leads back to 30 June as well" If 'four weeks' is to be taken literally, that still takes it back to before 30 June, as 27 July was when it was published, not when it was written. It also doesn't say that 27 July was the date it was completed, just that it was completed four weeks after his death. I'm sorry, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against 30 June, and there's no just point in denying that. AdamPlenty (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bump. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Canon policy isn't exaclty clear on this, so I've started a discussion about that there. AdamPlenty (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion on Quora should make for interesting reading. It raises many of the same points I've made here. AdamPlenty (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement