Talk:Harry Potter (character)

A friendly hello!

Hi folks! I just wanted to let you know that I'm doing a copyedit of this page. I might do the whole page, or I might not. I'm defining copyediting as:

1. Improving grammar and syntax
2. Minor rewrites of certain sections
3. Small amounts of trimming
4. Fact-checking by reading through certain cited sources
5. Correcting any mistakes in citations (such as missing info, dead URL or outdated formatting)

I wanted to give you a heads-up, so you know my intentions and aren't surprised by my many edits. I will be careful to limit the number of edits per day, to give everyone a chance to review them. If ever I'm going too fast, please don't hesitate to let me know. I will propose edits on the talk page that are larger or don't fall into the categories above. It makes me happy to see that lots of work has been put into this page already!

Wafflewombat (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Trimming

Hello again! I've noticed that some of the summaries of the novels, and some of the Charaterisation sections, are very long. Would anyone oppose me doing some trimming of these sections? Wafflewombat (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Protagonist

I want to solve this particular issue as quickly as possible, so I have to ask: does Harry really need to be the described as the "main protagonist" of his series. "Main protagonist" is tautological. By describing him as the protagonist, you're already saying he is the main character. What should we do about this? Leader Vladimir (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I changed it 😊 OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kaito-san, I did not mean to edit war with you! I didn't realize you had reverted this change in the past. Could you please point us to the WP guideline that recommends using the phrase "main protagonist"? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It was only after you posted that I saw WP:IAPD. Oops. But anyway, I reverted the edit making sure to follow WP:3RV. That is, you can only revert on a single page up to three times within 24 hours before penalties incur. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 21:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

To add clarification, by "reverted the edit" I mean add back "main protagonist" before you reverted my restoration, not the current version. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

Hello all! I just wanted to register my disappointment with the lead image change. The new image is blurry, and if you zoom in at all on the page, it looks terrible. It also doesn't do a good job, in my view, of depicting the appearance of Harry. It's in black and white, and it's not a screenshot from a film, so technically it's not showing how Harry is depicted in films. It's a photo that was snapped while Radcliffe was filming, but we don't know if the cameras were rolling. Essentially, it's Radcliffe in costume as Harry, but we don't know whether he is actually performing as the character in that moment. Finally, it looks as if Harry is using a cane in the current image, and the character does not use a cane (it's actually a shovel, but you can't tell).

The previous image was in color, showed Harry in his Hogwarts robes and was taken directly from a film. I understand it was a non-free image, but I believe it was justified. I feel the current image does not adequately portray the character. Please let me know your thoughts. You can see the discussion here which resulted in the previous image being deleted. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

To put it very shortly, File:HPatDH - Panache - b&w Harry and camera.jpg is "free". When there is a free alternative, non-free can't be used on en-WP, it's the rulez. Modern-ish fictional characters rarely have "free" pics, but this seems to be an exception. Pics like at Paul Atreides are more common on en-WP (and that one had some extensive discussion). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

I noticed that the image has a source listed, but that link is dead. Should somebody be made aware of this? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem per "This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2010042410018615." But adding an archived link probably wouldn't hurt, couldn't find one though. I don't know how Commons thinks on this, you can ask at Commons:Help desk if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: I'm inclined to agree. It's a blurry, cropped, black and white image of Radcliffe squinting, presumably between takes. Not representative of the character at all, especially one of this scale and notability. As there seems to be little to no response, I've uploaded and inserted another image for now, at least it could bring in more input. QuestFour (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute input at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 22. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting previous similar discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_1#File:Harry_Potter_character_poster.jpg. More filehistory at . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

New Xfd at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_April_1#File:Harry_Potter_character_poster.jpg. If that one is closed as keep, fine. If not, I think a "Should we allow a non-free pic despite the free alt?" WP:RFC is a reasonable next step, but that will have to wait until after the Xfd. Or editors could just accept the free alt, of course. I do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, anyone who wants can try to contact Rowling and ask her to provide a pic we can use, she might like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Seriously, why can't we get a colored picture? A picture with Harry in his Hogwarts uniform? That is his most famous appearance. Leader Vladimir (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_1#File:Harry_Potter_character_poster.jpg, pretty much. "Other pic prettier" doesn't help much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Appearances of characters in Cursed Child

Hello!

I've been having a conversation with another editor about whether or not to mention Harry Potter and the Cursed Child as the "last appearance" of various Harry Potter characters in the infobox.

My view is if a character appears in the play, it should be mentioned as an appearance. @B.Davis2003, you are welcome to explain your opposing view here.

I will ping a few people who have been involved with discussions of Harry Potter articles recently.

Please offer your thoughts! Thank you. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not the source material. Why would you count their last appearance outside the novels? Once the TV show starts, are we going to list their last appearance, which will be the same as their first? I am just reverting changes to previous approved edits. The info box for the characters should reflect the novels and source material. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Similar discussions:

• Talk:Harry_Potter (character)/Archive 4#Harry's last appearance
• Talk:Ginny Weasley#Last appearance
• Talk:Hermione Granger/Archive 4#Last Appearance
• Talk:Ron Weasley/Archive 2#Ron Wesley's last appearance

Reading those discussions, people simply want Harry Potter and the Cursed Child excluded because of canonical reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not Fandom, articles are written from an encyclopedic perspective following MOS:FICTION. If these characters will read "First appearance: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997) / Last appearance: Harry Potter (2026)" in a few months, it is not a Wikipedia problem. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 09:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I was part of some of those linked discussions under my old account Wafflewombat. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I see no WP-good reason why Harry Potter and the Cursed Child wouldn't "count" here. When the tv-series comes, that will "count" too, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

So it will read, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 1997 and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 2026? That's redundant. The examples you've highlighted show the consensus is to keep to the source material as that is CANONICALLY accepted. As someone said, "Some kind of consistency is required on this subject", and having some info boxes based on the novels and others on other material is not streamlined or correct. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's redundant since one is a book and one is a season of a tv-series. Also likely to change at some point, and who knows, they might change the title of the season yet.

Another way, since the infobox is for simple, undisputed stuff, is to drop last appearance from the infobox, like for example Hannibal Lecter and Paddington Bear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The quote you referenced reads in full:

"Some kind of consistency is required on this subject. I personally would say Cursed Child counts as an appearance. Deathly Hallows is shown as the last appearance for all three in the trio but Ginny's page says her last appearance was Cursed child?"

Also, none of the archived discussions linked above establishes consensus. They are all unresolved discussions. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It will be up to editors to find a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this. At the time of writing, we can find WP:GA:s that on this aspect

• Sticks to books, like Charlie Chan.
• Go beyond books, like Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland).
• Skips last appearance, like Jon Snow (character).

The third option seems good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support simply removing "last appearance" from HP character infoboxes. With the TV series set to be releasing new content for the next seven years, I imagine editors might debate the last appearance many more times. This would be a simple solution that would save lots of people lots of time and hassle. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

edit conflict

The Harry Potter article starts with "Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels", so my first idea was to follow that "Canon" suggestion and feature the last novel rather than sequels/adaptdations. But I think the better solution would be to just include both! Why not have something like: | last = ''[[Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]'' (2007, novels)<br>''[[Harry Potter and the Cursed Child]]'' (2016, play) That would make thinks bulkier, but would also give the reader a more complete picture while also honoring the novels as the core of Harry Potter, and therefore be a compromise between the two sides of the discussion. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If the consensus is not to follow the books and source material, I would also agree that the third option, removing the "Last appearance," is most appropriate, given the series is going to continue for another 10 years now. B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This thread began with a disagreement between myself and B.Davis2003, but we are both now in agreement that removing "last appearance" would be the best option.

I suggest we move in that direction—and I'm happy to do the grunt work of making the removals—but I don't want to stifle further discussion either. Please let us know if there are any objections to going this route. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be no consensus for using a non-free image. Discussion of which free image or images should be used can continue below closed section. agr (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Current and only free image, VRT-checked on Commons.

Fan art

The previously used, non-free image () was deleted through a FfD discussion in January, on the grounds that a free alternative is available per WP:NFCCP#1. Should a non-free image of the subject of the article be permitted if the currently used, only free alternative available is considerably lower in quality and less representative of the character? QuestFour (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the purpose of lead images is the identification and representation of the subject and to assure the reader that they have arrived at the right page. The current, in-use image is a blurry, cropped, black and white photo of Radcliffe holding an out of frame shovel while squinting—it is in no way representative of the character and therefore does not serve the former encyclopedic purpose, and as such should not be considered as an equivalent as per WP:NFCCP. It is also unclear if the photo was taken during filming, and thus with Radcliffe in-character, or not. MOS:LEADIMAGE further states that lead images should be appropriate representations of the topic and should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. QuestFour (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• No This RfC is disruptive forum shopping. This exact dispute has already been decided at FfD, which is the correct venue to determine whether an image should be used. QuestFour needs to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This RfC was suggested by another editor in the discussion above regarding this, who reiterated their suggestion on your talk page. It also does not specifically concern the image deleted previously through FfD; it is only given as an example and a frame of reference, as it was used in the article for years prior to its deletion. How exactly does that make it disruptive or forum shopping? QuestFour (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Xfd:s will by necessity be about specific pics. This rfc could very well be useful in determining if free pics can be used at all in this particular situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (invited by the bot) If a discussion on this has already occurred elsewhere, that would be useful information for this discussion, so please link to it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I altered the question to include it. QuestFour (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also and . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Question Would Harry Potter.jpg be a reasonable alternative to use in place of the FfD-ed image? It looks like it is used as the lead image on the French version of this page. This image is also already in use on English Wiki on the Paranormal fiction page, so if we have doubts about its use here I would wonder if it should be reconsidered there as well. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 02:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  IMO, no, fan-art fails the spirit of WP:USERG and WP:PROPORTION, it's just the artistic vision of one netizen. Fwiw, fan-art was briefly discussed at Talk:Paul_Atreides#RfC_on_the_infobox_image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• No. The available photo is recognizable enough and not sufficient reason to go non-free here. If Rowling would like to make a nicer one available, she is very welcome to do that. Noting that there's been 3 xfd:s for leadimages in this article so far this year , so I think this rfc is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The last two file uploads were definitely a mistake on my behalf, as I was not aware of policies WP:F7 and WP:G4; also, in the second FfD, an editor supported the restoration of the screenshot deleted after the first FfD, and I mistakenly took that as enough to restore it, and as such leading to the third FfD, as opposed to starting a deletion review. QuestFour (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

...so you disagree with me that this rfc is reasonable? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that the best approach would've been starting the RfC instead of uploading the images; so very much not. QuestFour (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes: the non-free use guideline says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This photo is of sufficiently low quality (blurry, black and white, with nothing representative of the character except glasses) that it does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose of visually representing the character that a non-free image would. Ladtrack (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure about the legal details here, but the Wikimedia Commons page says the work has been released, so can't we just use the higher resolution version of the work? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure either, but my first guess would be that the license applies to the low-res pic, and not any version of it we happen to find elsewhere. Note that the version you linked is marked "All rights reserved". A question to be asked at Commons, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I know it says all rights reserved, which is why I said I don't know the legal status on this one, because on one hand yeah it's a different file but on the other hand it's the same "work". I just don't know copyright law so I'm going to have to ask there I suppose. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  You can ask at c:COM:VPC to make sure (I believe this matter has been discussed there several times before, and those discussions are now buried in somewhere in the page's archives but also see c:COM:Same work), but an image released under an acceptable CC license covers all resolutions as far as Commons is concerned. A copyright holder certainly may decide to release a low-res versions of their work under a less restrictive CC license and a high-res versions of their work under a more restrictive CC license, but if the if the work is essentially the same then the less restrictive license also applies to the high-res version. Of course, copyright holders may argue otherwise and some court somewhere might feel different for a particular, but the general principle seems to be same work means same license regardless of resolution, absent any other changes to the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Good to know! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• No. This may be lower quality, but not to such an extent where it actively detriments reader understanding. This has already been decided in two prior discussions, and per above a higher quality version is available of the already used image. No real reason to have this discussion again. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding of the question. The bar is not “does the free image detriment reader understanding?”, so much as “does the free image sufficiently aid reader understanding?”… and yet I think there’s good reason to think that this image meets not only the lower standard for omission, but also that higher bar for exclusion! The shovel in the image does detriment reader understanding. It is not a fundamental facet of the character’s design, and could even be misunderstood as a wand, thus misrepresenting a crucial element of the character and story. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Are these really the only options? If so, the fan art is more indicative of the "Harry Potter" character. Daniel Radcliffe narrows the scope of the page too much. He should be included in follow-up sections about the original WB movie franchise, but an artist rendering (preferably cover art illustrations from original publications) would be superior, so much so that a non-free image should be discussed from that vein. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well, if you consider fan-art an option (I don't), you can of course make more fan-art with a WP/Commons usable license. I was actually also thinking about (if the rfc close with "sure, non-free is fine") HP from the first book-cover as an alt, see for (almost) example Willy Wonka. But my guess is that if we get to that point, Radcliffe will be the WP-choice, he dominates as portrayer at present. In a few years, it might be the new kid, like at Paul Atreides. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I really don't think fan-art is an option: hence my non-vote. But it is the image that most closely illustrates Harry Potter "character" and not Harry Potter "film". I genuinely don't know which image is the lesser of the two. If we had a clear, high-quality commons photo of Radcliffe, I suppose I would be in favor of that, but we don't. So as long as we're advocating for non-free images, I think the clear choice is to go with cover art from the OG British publications. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes per QuestFour and Ladtrack.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, barring commentary from legal. This image of Radcliffe does nothing to actually help reader understanding. It communicates almost nothing visually important about the character except his hair colour (debatably) and his glasses. His scar, wand, robes and other prominent character design elements are missing entirely. And although unlikely, the oddness of including a photo of the actor holding a shovel could even confuse naive readers who might read it as a wand. — HTGS (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I thought he was holding a cane (being a big Potter-head myself, but not so much the movie franchise-buff). So, I see your points. Any other lead image page discussion I've seen would be embarrassed to have this pixelated, niche image. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 14:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment since I've already voted. If a non-free depiction is allowed, would it be alright to select a different one? If that's okay, I'd like to suggest this. I think it's a bit better than the previous photo (which, as I detailed above, is already significantly better than the current photo). Most notably, you can see in this photo that he's wearing robes, he's looking directly into the camera, there's a wand, and you can make out the scar on his forehead, which is covered by hair in both of the previous photos. Plus, it matches with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, which is nice because then the articles would be consistent with each other. Obviously either photo is better than the current one, but perhaps this might be a good alternate choice. Ladtrack (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, QuestFour and Ladtrack make compelling arguments that the current image isn't recognizable enough. A better image would be a non-blurry one in color with his glasses and scar visible, and either in Hogwarts attire or with a wand in hand. ESB5415 17:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• No because per WP:NFCCP, a free image exists, even if it is of lower image quality, for this encyclopedia. NicoR8 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NFCCP says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine). The encyclopedic purpose of having an infobox image is to communicate to readers the character's visual appearance. Wouldn't a sufficiently low-quality image fail to do that? Ladtrack (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Eh, but "low-quality" is a slippery fish, no? If readers can still recognize the character, then the image is still doing its job. So it can still meet the encyclopedic purpose. And honestly, I find that some of these policies cut both ways depending on how you interpret them. NicoR8 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Recognizing depends on previous familiarity, I would say. I look at that photo and I can go "yeah, that's Harry Potter" because I already know he was played by Daniel Radcliffe, and I can tell that's him at about the right age even through the poor photo quality, and that the character wears glasses. So, in some sense, this is a sufficiently recognizable image for me. But if someone didn't know who Harry Potter was, and came to this page to help get an understanding, what would they get out of this photo? They'd see that he's a youngish, probably white (the black-and-white obscures this somewhat, although you could make a decent guess) man with dark (not clearly black) hair and round glasses, holding what appears to be a cane. You lose Radcliffe's detailed facial features, as well as the character's standard outfit, house colors, wand, and iconic scar, and also potentially mislead readers on details that are lost through the properties of this specific photo, like hair and skin color and (lack of) cane use. Would a new reader be able to derive a good understanding of what Harry Potter looks like through this photo? I'm not sure. Ladtrack (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• No. The only reason we have copyrighted images used on Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger is because we don't have any free or public domain images for their characters. We have one for this article, so that is what should be used. Counterarguments involving the encyclopedic quality are valid but also not a bigger concern than a potential copyvio. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 01:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• No per the logic of User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. There is free image that exists and its quality is not poor enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. desmay (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Yes , the alternative free use images are of very poor quality and so it is not sufficient alternative per NFCC.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, per the arguments of QuestFour and Ladtrack. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• I requested a closure of this discussion over at WP:RFCL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Re-opened per User_talk:VortexPhantom#RFC_closure_at_Talk:Harry_Potter_(character)#Request_for_comment_on_infobox_image, asked for closure at WP:RFCL again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Yes to using the image linked in the RfC question. The present image is of the actor on-set, with no indication that he was even in character at the time, and the fan art should not be considered as a viable substitute for an actual photograph of the character as he is known via film. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  IMO the info at indicates that he was in character at the time (maybe not that particular second, but broadly speaking, it's not his day off), or at the very least dressed as character for the purpose of being in character. But it's an interesting argument that that is not close enough. We'll see if the next closer buys it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm putting the previous closing-comment by VortexPhantom here, for visibility:

"There is consensus for not permitting usage of non-free image if equivalent free image for representing is available, even if there is some reduction in quality, that may still be used for purposes including representing the character as per WP:NFCCP, due to possible copyvios" - VortexPhantom

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Where in the film is Potter carrying a shovel? The present shovel-handle image of the actor gives no indication that he is representing Harry Potter at that moment. Since this page is about Harry Potter and not Daniel Radcliffe, the shovel-handle image doesn't quite match the page title. Since no free images of Potter are in Commons, the image linked in the opening of this RfC covers the topic without guesswork. The former close, posted above, seems based on the assumption that it is Potter, not Radcliffe, carrying around a shovel, but that's just a guess. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Haven't seen the film, so I can't help you there. My educated guess would be that he's taking the class Basic Necromancy - Correct Use of a Shovel. Possibly the scene was cut. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure either but the picture was taken during the filming of the Deathly Hallows chapter and a quick search tells me Harry Potter buried Dobby Part 1 of the filmization of that novel. Our GA Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 says ..Dobby is fatally wounded, dying in Harry's arms. Harry buries him.. so I suppose we could say it's representative of that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You can find the scene on YouTube, shovel and everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah that has got to be the scene they were filming when the picture we have was taken. Both our picture and that scene has the long grass. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.