Shouldn't we remove non-canonical information. -- 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


"The shrunken heads were additional characters for the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and never appeared or were mentioned even in the previous Harry Potter novels."

However, below, it states that in Chamber of Secrets (book) some shrunked heads appeared. So this doesn't make sense. If it appeared in book 2, then they were not new for Movie 3.--Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 22:19, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

There's a brief mention when Harry is in Knockturn Alley (page 53 of the Scholastic edition). However, the talking heads only appear in the film (although JKR did like the idea). - Nick O'Demus 22:25, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


Shrunken heads are mentionned for the first time in books in HP2, while Harry is in Knockturn alley. In HP2 film, while he is at Borgin and Burke, there is small heads. They are not in the list of appearances, it's not the talking heads we enconter later in the films, but are they considered as shrunken heads too ? --   Famini    talk    contribs   08:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

technically I would say yes, maybe some heads talk and some don't, or they just weren't talking at the moment, hard to say. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest(Accio!) 14:14, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

In DVD2 of Prisoner of Azkaban, Dre Head says the head that was shown at Knockturn Alley was his cousin Heady. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


Is the species infobox really appropriate? I thought that shrunken heads were enchanted objects, similar to the Sorting Hat.There seem to be families of shrunken heads, though.--Rodolphus (talk) 12:13, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Bumping.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:54, June 21, 2016 (UTC)


Is it really right for us to say in the 1993 section that Ron and Hermione were prevented from entering by the shrunken heads? That's movie material that goes against the book - in the book, they went in there, no heads to stop them. I think that really ought to be in a behind-the-scenes, yeah? ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:06, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The film contradicts the book, so the 1993 section should only cover the latter. -- Kates39 (talk) 16:16, March 8, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.