User talk:Renamed user abcedarium/Dates in Harry Potter

I think that the spoiler warnings (especially in the deaths section) should be made a lot clearer - i was just skimming through the page and, having only just started The Half-Blood Prince, was annoyed to find out the name of a character that dies, and i'm sure many other people would be too.

well what did you expect to find in an article talking about the whole of Harry Potter? If you have not read all the books, then it is bound to contain information which you do not know. What do you suggest we do? Before each entry place a line saying Do not read the next line unless you have read past Chamber of Secrets, Do not read the next line unless you have read past Goblet of fire? And if you were 'skimming through the page', there must be a good chance you would still miss the spoiler warning (there would be dozens and dozens of them), but still see the item which has annoyed you. Sandpiper 09:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Spoiler Warning??????62.232.65.170 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the top of the page. Everyone should see it there. 62.232.65.170 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated days in Goblet of Fire

The article states that in Goblet of Fire, both 1 September and 2 September are both Mondays. This is easily explained if both mentions of "Sunday" are treated as misprints for "Saturday". This also clears up the problem where Harry refers to waking up "three days ago": he woke up on "Sunday" but is saying this on Tuesday. Please could someone check this for me to avoid the appearance of original research. —Phil | Talk 12:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Other important deaths

The murder of Tom Riddle, Sr. and parents by Lord Voldemort around the time of the latter's graduation from Hogwarts should be included in the deaths list, though I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly when this takes place.

Neville's Birthday

Just a quickie, but JKR said here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=84 that it was the 30th and I fixed it accordingly.

Broom Dates

If Harry Potter takes place during the 90s, why does Harry get a Nimbus 2000? --Phoenix Hacker 10:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Two possibilities, it is not a reference to a date, many products in the real world have taken on the 2000 or similar designations before that date! Or the obvious fact a product seems more "futuristic" if it has a name related to a date yet to come, therefore increase the items marketability! I aint a business expert and i dont think J.K. ism she probably just thought it sounded "cool" --The Pain 10:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - lots of consumer products and commercial projects were launched in the mid-late 90's with the optimistic and forward-looking "2000" as the "model number" (eg: the all-new super salad-shooter whopper-chopper 2000). --T-dot 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as an example, WordStar 2000 was introduced in the 1980s - http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v11n5/44_WordStar_2000_Plus_the_b.php carries a review of its successor, "WordStar 2000 plus" from 1985 EmCat 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

{{spoiler}}

...and, in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Buckbeak's trial is set on 20 April, but careful parsing of the text reveals that it could have happened no later than February.

Why is this exactly? I don't remember anything from the books. Thelb ⁴ 19:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter dates consensus

Reasonably, Hermione80, I think that the Harry Potter series takes place from 1997 to 2007. Here's my list of the following:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - 1997 to 1998
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 1998 to 1999
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 1999 to 2000
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 2000 to 2001
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, 2001
Quidditch Through the Ages, 2002
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 2003 to 2004
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 2005 to 2006
Unnamed Seventh Book - 2006 to 2007

What do you think? --Janet6, a Wikipedia user

What do I think? I'm thinking... "hmm, even if the books did take place starting 1997, what the heck happened to the 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2004-2005 school years? Did they just take a couple years off? and also, the "Pyramids of Furmat"... are you kidding?? That is just some stupid name that someone made up claimed that JK Rowling made it up." But thats just what I think, I could be wrong :p

Hey is the Bean Contest in the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Video game in the book or movie? --Janet6

Even though the first book was published in 1997, JKR started writing the books in the early Nineties so obviously she would have set them in that timeframe, when a child of eleven back then would have been born in 1980. She confirmed this herself by citing 1980 as Draco's birth year in the drawing she did of the Black family tree. As such, the series goes:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - 1991 to 1992
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 1992 to 1993
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 1993 to 1994
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 1994 to 1995
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 1995 to 1996
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 1996 to 1997
Unnamed Seventh Book - 1997 to 1998

-- Cosmic quest 01:31, 17 October 2006

Arrival Dates of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang

On page 235 (NA version) of Goblet of Fire, a notice states that the two visiting schools will arrive on "Friday, the 30th of October." If Goblet of Fire took place from 1995-1996, October 30th would be a Monday. Chewbacca 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 30th fell on Friday in 1998 and 1992. Goblet of Fire was first published in 2000, although she may well have been working on the text that fell on page 235 in 1998. hmmmm... --T-dot 14:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Time section

The whole issue with Slughorn's memory doesn't seem to be a real problem to me. Where is it written that only the headmaster can ban topics from the curriculum? I would think that the teaching staff could easily have a say in that sort of thing. The bit about Dumbledore being "particularly fierce" about not teaching about Horcruxes suggests to me that in fact it had been discussed by the faculty. The headmaster might have the final say, but we don't really know. Since we don't really know how subjects are banned at Hogwarts, I don't think Slughorn's memory is necessarily problematic. Therefore, it is not a particularly good example of "Problems with Time". I think this example should be removed from the article. I don't have any other examples to suggest, but maybe someone else does. I'll wait for discussion before I take it out. Kam Tonnes 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—

I agree that the Slughorn paragraph is not really needed. There is a lot of supposition and guess work to make it appear there is a problem with the timeline at this point. However at no point does the books refer to Dumbledore being the headmaster at that time. So the point raised is rather just guesswork into the internal politics of the Hogwarts curriculum, and not neccessarily a time line issue.

Actually the books does point out that Dippet was the Headmaster at the time, but probably the Heads of House's opinions were considered more important than the others. We do know that back then Dumbledore was the Head of Gryffindor, we do not know if Slughorn was already Head of Slytherin. Diana Prallon 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with this section is with the paragraph concerning Nicholas Flamel. JKR has already stated in interview that there is no connection at all between the Flamel of The Da Vinci Code fame and the one in the Harry Potter serise. Which makes these observations in the article redundant. If there are no objections I will remove shortly.

Dan 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nymphadora Tonks

Nymphadora Tonks can't be born any later than 1973 (certainly not as late as 1976!)... she doesn't know what to expect when she sees Harry, and anyone who was in school, even as a seventh year, would have seen him sorted, so she has to be at least seven years older than he is. If she were only four years older, she also wouldn't have been able to finish the three years of Auror training and have spent a year on the job by the time Harry is fifteen.

That makes a lot of sense. Does anyone know who put Tonks' birthyear as 1976 or what reasoning was used?Kam Tonnes 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a typo. I noticed Charlie's in the same year, and he definitely wasn't around in Harry's first year. I think most people put them in 1973, as per the Lexicon (and Wiki's own article on Tonks).

Any word on this? I'm kind of new to Wiki-ing, so I'm going to guess it would be bad manners to just change it, but it does seem to be a plain old typo.

Be bold in updating pages! Go right ahead and fix it. It is a Wiki, after all. And if you would, please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, which turns into your username and a timestamp and makes following conversations a lot easier. Welcome to Wikipedia, and have fun editing! H e rmione1980 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo. First edit done. Miss W 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I was wondering how to sign.Miss W 04:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthyears of Snape and contemporaries

Information derived from the novels and Rowling's statements (on her official site and interviews) leads to the conclusion that Snape, Sirius and their classmates sat their 5th year O.W.L.s in June 1975, and, hence, that they were born between September 1958 and August 1959. (Please see Talk:Severus Snape for a detailed explanation.)

The frequently-cited birthyear of 1960 (long-held by the popular HP-Lexicon) is demonstrably inconsistent with the known facts.

(However, even the HP-Lexicon seems to be slowly coming around to the evidence.) --Mercury McKinnon 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further problem. The birth year of Bellatrix Black is given as 1951 in the family tree released by JKR, meaning she went to school either from September '62 to June '69, or from September '63 to June '70. If Snape was born Jan 1959, then he went to school September '70- June '77. However, the two are stated to have been at school at the same time, by Sirius who was also in Snape's year. This is a contradiction. Something is wrong. Either there is an error in the newly published date for Bella, or Snape was actually born 1958. As far as I have been able to tell, none of the other dating statements actually preclude his having been born '58, although overall they might have favoured '59. See redhen discussion for a rather longer analysis [1]. Sandpiper 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, if Bella's 1951 birthyear from the family tree is correct, 1959 is indeed ruled out for the births of Snape, Sirius, et al. I agree that 1958 still fits the original statements. Linking to our related talk here. --Mercurio 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Headless Nick's Deathday 400/500

I wonder if we can alternately solve Nick's "nearly 400" years claim vs. the more intuitive 500 years (from the 1492 cake date), by saying Nick playfully understated his "age" (as many adults tend to in their vanity) - rather than say "that this is an error on the part of the author". I bet Ms. Rowling might buy into that as a convenient way out - if asked. Or did she already own up to a mathematical error? --T-dot 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older Weasley Brother Ages

I was editing the year for Tonks and Charlie and realized it meant moving Percy and Bill as well. Now, the years are a mess in JKR--two years from one birth to another, except that doesn't work quite right with the stated birthdates. I'm sure it's approximate and maybe there are two and a half years someplace. I aligned Bill's birthday with the Wiki article on Bill (1971), which seems to be common reasoning, but I think it should be 1970 with a November birthday, unless he's only one year ahead of Charlie in school. Thoughts?Miss W 06:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of years?

Since the recently-released Black family tree confirms that Draco (and, by extension, Harry, Ron, etc.) was born in 1980, can we put something in to that effect, since the stories definitely take place in 1991 forward? H e rmione1980 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck a bit more about how dates are derived at the start. There may be more that could be added? Sandpiper 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Delacour

This timeline says that she was born in 1984, but Gabrielle Delacour says it was 1986. Can someone who knows more about it than I do reconcile these differences? I reverted Gabrielle Delacour to 1986 from a clearly wrong 1995, but I'm not confident in that date, either. Travisl 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle was 8 on during the Triwizard Tournament so we can assume that she was born after 1986.Diana Prallon 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore dead?

About the DDIND site (see dumbledoreisnotdead.com), (which eveyone knows about) says that Dumbledore is "killed", yet we are not 100% sure. Although we think he is dead, should we include this as well even though it is speculation, as it is backed up with evidence from the book? Oli 10:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know all about that web site. As an encyclopedia, we must go with what the canon (books) say explicitely, not what some speculative HP fanatics might imagine, or wish for, or try to frantically torture out from reading between the lines, or desparately extract from minor inconsistencies in Rowling's writing, which she admits sometimes occurs, but nothing that would endanger the main plot theme.

The canon says Dumbledore is dead and buried, and he subsequently appeared in a portrait in his office, along with the other dead former headmasters. Everything beyond that is wishful speculation. Wikipedia guidelines disallow the kinds of original research and speculation in the main article. You simply state what the book says, casually mention that some fans believe otherwise, provide a link to an accepted source, and let the fanatics rave on their blogs and fan forums.

When Book 7 is published, then of course all this will be moot, and the fact of the matter will be settled indisputably; although no doubt some hardcore fanatics will decry Rowling's inconsistencies, and yet others will insist that Dumbledore is in fact still "alive" and kicking in Brasil or Honduras or something, and living it up with Professor Sprout and Minerva McGonagal, even IF Hermione goes back to the White Tomb at Hogwarts and digs up his moldy rotting bones and confirms his skeleton's identity with a full DNA analysis. Some folks can never be satisfied with the truth. --T-dot 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks for clearing it up :) Oli 10:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespans of Witches and Wizards

Is Dumbledore really 151 years old when he (supposedly) dies (if the Half-Blood Prince really happened in '96)? Do they really get that old. So how could Dumbledore have "sweeping auburn hair" (as described in the Chamber of Secrets) in 1942 when he was 97 years-old? I dunno, maybe it's just like that in the magic world, but it leaves me puzzled.The Runescape Junkie 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since witches and wizards live longer they stay healthier longer. The signs of aging are probably not as prominent until the later years. If Dumblefore was 97 year old that would be the equivalent of a Muggle in her/his 40s. Gray hair isn't prominent at that age. Throw 02:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't think we can take Dumbledore as a typical representative of the wizarding community. He seems to be exceptionally powerful in almost every way and it would make some sense if this "prowess" extended to his longevity, too.

User:Livedevilslivedevil 10:18, 9 October (Germany)

Stupid Area of Concern

Frankly, I think that wasting any time on what year a Harry Potter character was born, or died, for that matter, is inane. Who cares? Outside of historical fiction, does anyone care what year a fictional character is born? Does it matter (and has anyone tried to figure out) what were the birth years of Meg and Charles Wallace Murry, Encyclopedia Brown, the Beaudelaire children, or Matilda Wormwood? Not as far as I know. Look I love the Harry Potter books. But when I read the books, I don't see anything that says what decade—let alone what year—in which events take place. (Oh, did I miss a reference to Fudge's appointment by Tony Blair?) I think great works like this should be timeless, and just as a child of 2006 reading A Wrinkle in Time does not see it as a book of the early 1960s (despite the Cold War allegories placed for the older set), neither should a reader in 2025 see the Harry Potter as a product of the 1990s and 2000s. Get a life, folks. Unschool 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not "see anything that says what decade-let alone what year-in which events take place" when you've read the Potter series but all the subtle clues are there if you care to examine them. I do agree with you that the exercise of trying to catalog every nook and cranny can go overboard but considering the world Rowling has created, it does make it fun and it is, in part, important since this is how Rowling has laid out her series. If you feel the story should be timeless, no one is forcing you to view the series in a strict timeline. You wrote, yourself, when you've read the series you don't see any of the information cataloged in this article, so it's not affecting you in any way. Why, then, shit on anyone else who wants a clearer and thorough view of the series? Throw 04:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore dates

The article currently allocates Dumbledore's birthdate around 1845, whereas the fact that he is approximately 150 years old at the beginning of the series -see Albus Dumbledore/Early life and career- would place it in the vicinity of 1840. I will change both this article and Albus Dumbledore accordingly. User:Livedevilslivedevil 10:30, 9 October 2006 (Germany)

NOT SO FAST - The quoted interview reference was done on 16 October 2000.

Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall?

J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.)

It is not clear to me whether Rowling meant Dumbledore was 150 and Minerva was 70 at the beginning of the publishing of the book series - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (in 1997, with most HP Year 1 Universe events taking place in 1991-92), or relative to when the interview took place in October 2000, which was after "Year 4" as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was published (in July 2000 with events taking place 1994-1995) or when Harry was turning 11 (July 1991), or at the time of Harry's Birth (July 1980), or after his Parent's death and Dumbledore and Minerva first deliver the orphan Harry to the Dursleys in Nov. 1981. The previous interpretation was relative to "after Book 4", which had events which took place in 1994-95, meaning Dumbledore might have been born in 1845 as previously claimed. Just exactly what happened in "1990" that indicates that Dumbledore was 150 at that particular time, producing an 1840 birth date? --T-dot 15:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Dumbledore, but I suspect that McGonagall is due to doubt that she was at school when the Chamber was opened - since she was left baffled by it in her hospital wing chat. Personally, I'd go for the opening of the series: 1991 (either that, or her maths was off - again - with McGonagall's year). I'm going to change it back until we've discussed this. Michaelsanders 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Just exactly what happened in 1990 in Rowling's HP world, or in the "real world", where Rowling would say Dumbledore was 150 then, and that that sets Dumbledore's birth at 1840? Nothing happened in 1990. The Interview was in 2000, reflecting events of the Goblet of Fire which was just released, reflecting the 1994-1995 Hogwarts school year just completed. If Rowling meant in Harry's first year at Hogwarts, then that was 1991-1992. This gives us a realistic window range of 1841 to 1845. Potter's birth was 1980, and his delivery to the Dursley's was 1981, but there is no reason to believe Rowling was referring to Dumbledore's age as 150 at that point in the History of Potterdom. There is no rational explanation or foundation of any sort for an 1840 birth of Dumbledore. The most likely is "from 1995" (post G of F), anchoring us to 1845. But whatever is picked for Dumbledore, then McGonagall must be 80 years later, based on Rowling's statement that she was 70 when Dumbledore was 150, which to my knowledge she has not retracted or corrected. We have to go with the facts as provided by a reliable source, and Rowling is as good as it is going to get, unless and until she corrects her math or provides a definitive calendar of events. I strongly suggest posting either 1840's, or ca. 1845, for Dumbledore, because of the 1842-1845 range, and ca. 1925 for McGonagall. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True: 1840 doesn't make sense. 1841 would. I might suggest that she meant 'at the time I say this' (the 'dinner party where I know who's dead' suggests that she does, when convenient, date her statements to the time she says them), thus making him 1850 - but, with Dumbledore turning out dead, it would rather contradict the 'wizards live a long time' message in the statement. I would suggest either the '1840s' which has been used in Dumbledore's article (don't know how long), or c.1841-45, or c.1841-50. That said, if you think the statement ties it down strongly enough to 1995 - and hence 1845/1925 - then I'd go along with that (don't think it likely, but rules are rules). Michaelsanders 21:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I reverted the Albus Dumbledore article here from "ca. 1845" to "ca. 1840" a couple of weeks ago to match this "Dates in ..." article. I did this right after another editor evidently saw my defense of the 1845 date in this discussion topic, and set it to that. I scolded that editor for switching it to 1845 and causing a mismatch, after forgetting I had just defended without objection the 1845 theory a month or two earlier. So anyway while checking and updating the reference links, I discovered my own math and edit-reversion error, and I was trying to unify the two articles to the most likely date of 1845 for Dumbledore, and thus 1925 for McGonagall. Nevertheless in the interest of a peaceful Christmas Eve, let's leave it as is, and think about it for few days, and see if we can find any other Rowling quotes or logical rational to bolster a proper birthdate. By the way, I could not find any proof for Minerva being born on the 4th of October - I think that was one of those things Rowling put on her desktop calendar, perhaps on this past Oct. 4, and it is long gone now as verifiable. Anyway keep up the good work. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGonagall:[2]. Of course, there's no proof that they're telling the truth, but they're a Rowling approved site... Michaelsanders 22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events and Births

For some reason, we have birthdates (or birth years) of some characters listed in Events, and others in Births, and some in both, and some actually contradicting each other. I am removing the redundant birthdates from the Events section, and placing the others in the Births section if they are not already there. --T-dot 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me?

05:10, October 24, 2006 T-dot (Talk | contribs) (reverted. we go with what is written in the books and otherwise stated by Rowling - not what you wish to think or read on a fan site. see WP:V, WP:RS)

excuse me? vandalism? please show me a reliable source stating in the book or by Jo Rowling that Snape was the one to kill Dumbledore. You cannot because it has not been written so yet.

Rushdie: Until the events of volume six, it was always made plain that Snape might be an unlikable fellow [JK: uh huh], but he was essentially one of the good guys [JK: uh-huh] [audience: 'yes!' and cheers]. [JK: I can see this is the question you all really want answered.] Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him [JK: yes]. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is in fact a villain and Dumbledore's killer [JK: uh-huh]. We cannot, or don't, want to believe this [JK laughs]. Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy [JK: right], from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead, and that the death is a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape, to put Voldemort off his guard, so that when Harry and Voldemort come face-to-face [audience and JK laughs], Harry might have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So: is Snape good or bad? [JK laughs and audience cheers] In our opinion, everything follows from it.

Rowling: Well, Salman... your opinion, I would say, is right. But I see that I need to be a little more explicit... and say that Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I do know there's an entire website that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com, so I imagine they're not happy right now. But I think I need.... You need... All of you need to move through the five stages of grief [audience and JK laughs] and I'm just helping you get past denial. So, I can't remember what's next, it may be anger, so I think we should stop it here. Thank you.

All this provides is that Dumbledore is dead (when is unknown from the curse or the fall or other), and the book only portrays events on the tower that Snape uses the curse on him, NOT that the curse is what killed him. The body wasn't sent to a forensics expert that we know of or any corener to determine the cause of death.

Please provide reliable source stating that Snape's action WAS in fact the reason Dumbledore died, otherwise all there is is speculation based on circumstances.

Wikipedia should provide facts not guesses and currently only Rowling knows if it was Dumbledore was in fact killed by Snape's curse or something else. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - who said anything about vandalism?

Secondly - we can only print what is stated in the books, movies, Rowling's web site, and in verifiable interviews, and go with any "obvious" conclusions. We may not try to interpret or try to find loopholes in the language to bolster our doubts and then argue a point - or even to plant the seed of an argument. The book says Snape pointed his wand at Dumbledore, said Avada Kedavra, and Dumbledore died and was buried, and is snoozing in a portrait in the Headmaster's office with the rest of the dead headmasters, in spite of what the Dumbledoreisnotdead folks wish to think. We also know that Snape was under the influence of an Unbreakable Vow to complete Draco's task. I agree that some conclude differently about how Dumbledore died, but to avoid the conflicting rumour arguments, it is better to leave out controversial details, and NOT add them. Perhaps it should be re-worded to say something simple like "Dumbledore dies", and leave it at that.

As to the four remaining Horcruxes - Dumbledore enumerated the four of them, and that is what we must go with. --T-dot 10:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V in the edit summary was opened next to the WP:VAND page I was already reading. What I get for too many windows open at once. Sadly I have yet to even vist DIND website, and we don't know what that vow he made was to do exactly as we don't know what Draco's task was. That is why i added presumably. I agree, saying Snape did it is just speculation at this current date. As for the four Horcruxes Dimbledore tells Harry there may be four remaing, but later Harry himself is unsure.

…the path that he and Dumbledore had set out upon together, and which he now knew he would have to journey alone. There might still be as many as four Horcruxes out there somewhere…

Thus we again don't have factual information thanks to that note from R.A.B. it is unknown if what he/she found was in fact a Horcrux and if he/she had succedded in destroying it. Same as how Harry feels in the above passage. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledores

Where were both Dumledores born people?????

Albus' birthday is in the article: c. the 1840s. Nothing more specific has been given. No information about Aberforth's dates are known. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is Dumbledore really that old??

according to this article Dumbledore is 130 something years old.139.80.74.106 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is indeed. Please see this interview with J. K. Rowling. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-blood prince

When did Severus Snape annotate his potions book as "the half-blood prince"? I think this should be mentioned here. Madhava 1947 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in HP

I think you will find someone just speedy deleted it. The difficulty is that, having been deleted it is an immediate candidate to be speedied away. Or maybe not, I havn't checked the rules. Myself, I just messaged the guy who closed the debate to ask his grounds for deletion. I havn't had time, bu am wondering excactly what the definition of a wp:not plot summary is, and whether it fitted the description. If this was the basis of deletion, and it does not fit, then possibly the page should be taken to artciles for undeletion on those grounds. Sandpiper 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lily, James and the other Marauders

I corrected it according to Deathly Hallows information, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. We can only assume that Bellatrix was born after Sep. 1951, only beggining Hogwarts in 1963 and also failed to get some OWL that in a class she wanted to continue and had to re-take her 5th year (Snape says something like that about Crabbe and Goyle -- HBP16). Oh, Rowling, oh, Maths. Diana Prallon 05:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]