Talk:Andromeda Tonks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Where did the info about her hair colour, eye colour, and house come from? Rosemary Amey 04:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Her blood is "Pure-blood" - all Blacks are, like Bellatrix and Narcissa.
  • No info on her hair or eyes, though it is possible

her hair is mousy-brown, because that is Tonks' natural color. But we are NOT SURE.

  • Her house has to be Slytherin because all the Blacks were in there.
(Slughorn says he regretted not getting Sirius Black in slytherin house, because he wanted a complete set, but I don't know if this is relevant to his cousin? Also it might be after slughorn retired?Sandpiper 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
Certainly not. Andromeda is older than Sirius was, and since Slughorn was a teacher since Voldemort's day he must have taught her.

Contents

[edit] Blood traitor

Someone appended this to her "Blood purity" entry: do we really need this? If so, a proper explanation should be provided. --Phil | Talk 09:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


  • How do we know that she is a member of the Order of Phoenix? She is in the list of members. But as far as we know, she is still alive, so why haven't we seen her yet?

Isn't she only first mentioned in OotP? I don't think there is any mention of her in GoF.

[edit] Edit War on the house Slytherin

Can we get all the citations out of the book before we go on editing the Slytherin bit again and again? There is no point editing something that will be reverted by someone else, so please use this page to justify yourself before you continue the revert war that was started. Lag 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that even after Sloghorn's claim, there is insufficient proof for Andromeda's house. Rowling may have intended another house, but forgotten about Andromeda when she wrote the quote by Sloghorn. So please don't add the house field. Rain74 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, it's the only clue we have on her house, but I agree, it's not a strong clue. Not only may JKR not have been thinking of Andromeda, it's more than possible that Slughorn himself dismissed her entirely--she was from a secondary branch of the family, and if she wasn't in his club or his house, I could see him not even paying attention to her. It may even be that he was only referring to the "royal line" of the Blacks; after all, if he's talking about everybody, he'd be talking about the Potters and Weasleys as well, since they descend. Miss w 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
But Ron isn't surnamed Black. And since Andromeda, along with Bellatrix and Narcissa, attended Hogwarts before Sirius, I think he'd be likely to include them. Bellatrix and Narcissa were both memorable and beautiful, and Bellatrix at least must be fairly gifted if Voldemort was willing to give her any sort of tutelage in the Dark Arts, so they are likely to have been in the Slug Club - meaning that he would remember their house - and that of their sister. More to the point, what does he care about secondary branches - he isn't a Black, after all, and their ability to succeed through his patronage won't be affected at all by their 'only' being members of a cadet branch of the family (in pureblood circles, they would be members of one of the elite families, and that would be more important than how close they were to the main fortune - especially given the family tendency to disown members, which, for example, allowed Lucius Malfoy's son to become the collateral heir of the family. They'd be worth patronising for that anyway). And why would he dismiss the beautiful Black sisters because they were from a secondary branch of the Black family? Lily was a muggle-born of entirely unremarkable lineage, and he raves about her, so if he remembers her, he'd remember Narcissa and Bellatrix - and, by extension, Andromeda (who, even if she wasn't notable enough in school to be particularly remarkable, would have made waves with her 'scandalous' marriage to a muggle-born).
But indeed, there does seem to be a remarkable amount of weaseling around on this issue. Slughorn makes a statement which seems obvious in its implications - "The whole Black family had been in my house, but Sirius ended up in Gryffindor." Only a definitive statement that Andra was not in his house or that she was could make the issue clearer (and come on, there aren't that many Blacks on the tree born between 1847 and 1980 - and if he is able to make that sort of authoritative statement, any Blacks who were not in Slytherin would have been memorable by that fact alone). But the implication seems clear: before Sirius, there had not been any Blacks that were not in Slytherin house (or at least, not after Slughorn began teaching, any time after 1858). He would remember if another member of the Black family had not been sorted into Slytherin only five years before.
And what is there against this reading? An absurd amount of drivel. Has Rowling given any indication that Andra was NOT in Slytherin, that she 'may not have been thinking' of her? Not to my knowledge. What qualifies you to judge that Rowling wouldn't have intended her to be in Slytherin, that she may have forgotten about her? If you have been appointed continuity editor, or have some deep knowledge of Rowling's ideas and intentions, then share them, please! But if not, why do you think you can write off a statement which is not cast-iron but nonetheless solid enough to be taken as fact until Rowling says otherwise (and it is highly unlikely that she will, given that Andromeda has so far been no more than a few references, is not - to our knowledge - in the order of the Phoenix, and has not been mentioned as appearing in book 7 - according to Rowling, we'll see an already met character in more depth, or something like that, but I also think she said that we wouldn't meet any new major characters), because you think it wasn't what the author intended? Are you next going to claim that, because Katie Bell wasn't specifically mentioned as a new recruit in book 1, despite being a second year, there isn't enough evidence that she had only just joined the team, despite the much publicised 'no first years rule' ("well, Rowling hasn't specifically stated that Katie was new to the team, so maybe Rowling just forgot about her when she wrote that kids could only join past second year!"). How can you possibly justify not listing Andromeda Tonks, nee Black, as a Slytherin?
I ask you 2 questions. Do you have any reason to believe that she wasn't? Do you have any reason to want her not to have been? Michaelsanders 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any particular reason to suspect she wasn't, but if we're trying to go by the facts of the books, I don't think it's sufficiently proven that she was. In terms of the Wiki, if there's any question, I'd be inclined to put down "unknown" as opposed to extrapolating from a line which may have referred to something else. We don't know what Sluggy's frame of reference is--he's talking to Harry in terms of the brothers (imho, most likely in order to remind readers, one of several times in the book, that Sirius has a brother named Regulus Black), and the cousins aren't mentioned, same surname or not. He doesn't say, "Yes, I had Regulus and their cousins, and I would have liked the whole set"; it's reasonable to make either assumption. Therefore, with no definitive proof, it's best to avoid giving definitive statements--it's the fiction equivalent of original research. (Personally, for that reason, I'd avoid putting estimated birth years on the Marauders, either--it's not because I agree or disagree, just because it involves extrapolation.) Miss w 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would describe two brothers as a 'set': it's a pair. Nor do I think that I would describe one brother as 'the whole family'. As for your charge of OR: if taken strictly, Wikipedia becomes pointless, since it generates into a few obvious points and little else. So far, however, there has been little coherent reason for not citing Andromeda as a Slytherin, other than the horrendously convenient charge of Original Research. Narcissa and Bellatrix are listed as Slytherins - is there any confirmation from Rowling there? Because if not, I don't see the difference between them and Andromeda. Unless - and I'm sure I'm totally wrong here, so correct me by all means - you simply find it inconceivable that anyone could be in Slytherin house without being a Voldemort supporter. In which case, I refer you to Professor Slughorn, who is anything but.
Slight correction: We know Bellatrix was in Slytherin. Though you would probably disagree, pointing out that we know that 'the Lestranges - they're a married couple' were in Azkaban, and that we don't know for sure that Bellatrix and Rodolphus are those two (maybe it was Rabastan and his wife, and Rowling forgot to tell us that?). Really, though, it does seem as though you are being affected by a severe amount of 'will to believe' that Andromeda was NOT in Slytherin (come on, the House has already had a horrendous representation by Rowling - very nice, daubing a quarter of a school as evil - why are you now trying to shoot down a reference she made to a - presumed - nice person?). Michaelsanders 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that Bellatrix wasn't in Slytherin, just that Slughorn's comment didn't mention the cousins at all. It would have been an opportunity to say that he had everyone surnamed Black with a very simple mention that he had the cousins, since that is, more or less, established by the comment about the Lestranges. I have no interest "shooting down" anything; I'm not sure where you're getting that from. On Wiki, you don't do "original research." That means not extrapolating. I will admit that I wrote Andromeda in a different house, but as soon as the Sluggy comment came out I changed it where necessary and ignored it elsewhere. As a working theory, I'm willing to accept it, but in a Wiki article, you don't do "working theories." Slughorn's comment is suggestive, but not definitive. Without a statement from JKR or a mention in the books, this is information we do not have, which is therefore not appropriate for an informational article. You seem determined to insert your position that she must be the mythical "good Slytherin" (despite the presence of Slughorn, who we know is a good Slytherin, and Phineas Nigellus, who appears at worst to be a neutral one) at the expense of having an actual verification of this. My position about stating it in the article has nothing to do with my own opinions on the subject. It's just a question of the OR prohibition on Wiki articles. Miss w 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely not saying that Andromeda is a 'good Slytherin'. On the contrary, given that she has given her child a name which is very typical of the female names in the Black family (Callidora, Elladora), I would be rather dubious about just how far behind she has left her attachment to her family, and hence her belief in its values. Nonetheless, I would find it distinctively odd that editors think it inappropriate to list Slytherin as the house for a woman who is viewed positively amongst readers due to her marriage, and have no problems at all with allocating her generally disliked sister Narcissa to the same house. Nor do I see why Slughorn would bother to clarify *which* Blacks he had in his house: quite apart from the fact that he will not expect Harry to know of any of the sisters apart from Bellatrix (and the less said about her the better - if she WAS in the Slug Club, she would have been its star - and hence, her DE fanaticism would be as embarrasing to Slughorn as Riddle's descent into darkness), making mention of them pointless: he had no need to mention them. Because, as he told Harry in terms which you cannot seriously disagree with, he had them ALL. Except for the ever-rebellious Sirius. And, given how long he has been teaching (as long as Dumbledore), that would be a quite a few Blacks: enough to remember, but enough to make recitation tedious. Furthermore, it is you who seems keen to conduct OR, doing your best to explain why JK Rowling clearly DIDN'T mean what she wrote. And very poor theories they are too (royal line of Blacks, indeed!). And just as an additional comment: I have no interest in 'mythical good Slytherins'. If Rowling shows a quarter of a school as evil, or vicious, it needs a proper explanation (or apology), not tokenism (which, imoho, is largely what Slughorn was about. And, given that he was one of the few sympathetic characters frequently referred to with reference to his weight, not just about the morality of her Slytherins). Michaelsanders 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not actually proposing any theory, which is where your argument falls by the wayside. You are arguing that she is in Slytherin, based on a flimsy line from Slughorn (much as, right up until JKR released the family tree, people were insisting that Bellatrix had to be in Snape's year because she was in the crowd of Slytherins that Snape ran with, according to Sirius... oops). I'm not arguing that she is or isn't, only that Slughorn's single line isn't sufficient proof one way or the other, as it can be interpreted in several ways, just as the aforementioned line about the Lestranges being in Snape's group could. Doing math to figure out the Marauders' birth years has turned out fruitless, trying to juggle the ages of the Black sisters so that Bella was youngest turned out fruitless, and I suspect that, until there is a definite statement from JKR, naming Andromeda's house is fruitless. You have to err on the side of caution. It's one thing to argue theory against theory--in that case, the Slytherin connection very definitely has the edge. It's another to state it as fact.

As to the "royal line," I used the term just as a handy way of referring to the 12GP Blacks who keep the family tree. They seem to be descended from the eldest brothers (provided said eldests didn't die early or get disowned). So they'd be the center of the family. Slughorn worked there so long that he probably taught great-grandparents of his students, and could well think of it in terms of a line of direct descent. I'm not saying it is so--which is where we appear to be differing--only that there is, to use a legal phrase, reasonable doubt as to whether or not he's referring to the cousins.Miss w 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that most of the time, I am suggesting that we give some thought to an issue whilst everyone else insists that we take the authorial statements at face value; whereas here, I am suggesting that we simply accept what the author has told us, whilst everyone else is insisting that the author must be wrong. Is this meant to be some sort of joke? Because, I can assure you, I am not laughing.
Nor do I understand your views about the calculations regarding the birth years of Severus Snape et al. It is based upon what Rowling has said. You appear to see great difficulty in accepting even the most basic of statements from the author, even when there is no reason why they should be doubted. I don't even understand why you are suggesting that the mathS used to calculate the dates was fruitless. They were born between 1st September 1957 and 1st September 1958: it's the only school year which fits in with everything Rowling has said. Seems pretty fruitful to me.
I'm going to be blunt. You are the one pushing OR, not me. This is JK Rowling's conception, her world. You do not have the right to suggest that Rowling does not mean what she says, you do not have the right to claim that a fact stated by Rowling is not a fact. That is why, for example, we accept in the blood purity article, we accept that magic is carried on dominant and resilient genes, even though that is genetically impossible. We can debate it all we like on the talk page, we can point out that it is genetically impossible in the article, but we have to accept that what Rowling says is, in her creation, true. So, you are welcome to discuss here whether she really was a Slytherin, or to point out in the article that it wasn't explicitly stated. But this is how it stands in canon so far: "The whole Black family had been in my house, but Sirius ended up in Gryffindor." That means, according to Rowling, the whole Black family was in Slughorn's house (Slytherin), with the exception of Sirius. Not excepting Andromeda, because she hasn't been mentioned as being exempted. Which means according to Rowling, until she says otherwise, Andromeda was a Slytherin. And that's that. Accept it. Or don't - you are welcome to argue your case that Rowling didn't know what she was talking about here if you wish, but it stays enshrined as a fact until the author says otherwise.
Nice to have talked to you. Probably best to work out just what Original Research is next time. Suggestions that 'Rowling forgot about one of her characters when writing a book' or 'Slughorn obsessively follows who in the Black family stands to inherit' are OR. Suggesting that we follow canonical statements until told otherwise is not. Michaelsanders 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense--I'm not suggesting a house at all. I'm not proposing any theory whatsoever. I'm saying, "Hold off until there's a direct statement," and in the context of conversation, suggesting several different things that could undermine your theory, not saying that any one of them is true. You, on the other hand, are saying, "Yeah, because of this line, this MUST BE THE CASE." I happen to agree that it's probably the case. But there've been enough cases in fandom of people making assumptions based on "probably" that I think it's foolhardy to plant a flag on the theory. Miss w 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to warn you - it'll be a bit before I can give a proper reply. You can't expect me to pick up a topic again after a month of silence with ease. Michaelsanders 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Right then... I do not have any theory. I am following the rules regarding articles for novels. These make it clear that clear authorial statements, whether through the mouth of a character or direct from the author, have to be accepted as true - even if you don't agree with them. Thus, Dumbledore is dead - regardless of inconsistencies raised by those who believed he wasn't. Magic is carried on dominant resilient genes, even though that statement is self-contradictory. And Andromeda is a Slytherin, even if you don't believe it. These rules do not apply if the author has left the matter ambiguous, either deliberately or accidentally. For example, Dumbledore's house: 'they say he was in Gryffindor' is a mushy imprecise statement (who says?), and so we accept Gryffindor as the 'official' house, but have to point out that there is a reasonably high level of uncertainty (thus, his infobox reads 'tentatively Gryffindor'). In the more controversial cases, consensus takes over. For example, most people agree that the statements of Sirius and Snape regarding their peers must be taken with a pinch of salt, regardless of assertiveness. Snape's loyalty is another matter - the sheer complexity of his loyalties means that, by consensus, his article is not subjected to a generalised rule, but instead considered by individual points. Such is not the case here. Andromeda is not controversial, and there is no reason to regard the statement regarding the Black family's house as ambiguous. You are also unlikely to get many people agreeing that her article needs special consideration - except from those who have POV they wish to club others with.
You, by contrast, have a theory. It is that Rowling did not necessarily mean 'all the Blacks were in Slytherin' as an assertive statement, and that YOU think that the matter is dubious - which it isn't. Furthermore, you have already admitted that you are a (fanfic?) writer who wrote Andromeda as not a Slytherin, and tried to fudge the issue in your work after HBP. Claiming that you don't have a bias is laughable. You have been scurrying around like a rat in a cage desperately trying to find any excuse for Slughorn, and by extension Rowling, not having meant what he/she said.
You could, of course, say that the policy is wrong. Maybe Slughorn was lying to impress Harry, and in fact only two members of the Black family were Slytherins. In that case, is there anything else you wish to question? Are you sure Lily and James are dead? Is Hagrid actually a polyjuiced Professor Quirrell? Maybe Slytherin et al didn't come from fen, glen, etc - maybe the Hat was lying to rhyme, or to suggest a royal line of some sort, and actually the founders came from a two bedroomed semi in Stockport?
Or maybe you don't understand wikipedia policy. Michaelsanders 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made any changes in the article, nor do I have a theory that Andromeda wasn't in Slytherin that I'm trying to defend, and your response is puzzling to me on that front. Not once have I suggested putting in the article that she was a Ravenclaw--I remember getting an indignant note from someone when I failed to put her in Ravenclaw, since "everybody knew" that Andromeda was a Ravenclaw, based on fannish speculation. I used to theorize that she was a Gryff ahead of Sirius, and that's how she got to be his favorite, but the likelihood is that she was in Slytherin, so I dropped that thread. The question is entirely about the reliability of a single statement by a character not identified as an authorial mouthpiece (JKR identifies Dumbledore and Hermione as reliable sources). After several debunkings of perfectly reasonable fannish theories (eg, Charlie's age) based on statements by characters (years since the winning of the Quidditch cup in PoA), it just seems prudent not to make definitive statements based on things that require even a little extrapolation. If Slughorn had said, "Andromeda Black was in my house," then it would fit the requirement of a statement made in canon about her. But since it was kind of "Yeah, I had all the Blacks"... I just don't think it's enough to call it a definitive canon statement. I honestly don't have any issues with Andromeda being in Slytherin; when I turn out to be wrong--or probably wrong--about something, I generally shrug and change it, and I sort of like Slytherin!Andromeda as something to play with. But in terms of the Wiki article, I don't think Slughorn's comment is really specific enough, since it means making assumptions about whether he's being precise, or just sort of generalizing, like movie!Ron with "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin," which is disproved with Peter, a Gryffindor who went bad. I expect that, if we ever meet her on the page, it will be established that she was a Slytherin, but there's enough wiggle-room that a sure-fire theory based on it could still end up being shot down, so it seems wise to temper it. There are enough arguments going on in this fandom based on things that end up being completely shot down that it makes sense to approach any of them with caution and not state that "everybody knows" or that something is certain until it's said in so many words. Miss w 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Charlie thing is entirely different. That was based upon an ASSUMPTION that Gryffindor would have won every year he was on the team. As for Slughorn's statement: it is a solid enough statement. There is no reason to suggest, as you claimed, that "Rowling may have forgotten about Andromeda" or that "Slughorn only pays attention to the main line of Blacks" (you claim to be a writer - how do you feel when people tell you that you couldn't possibly have meant what you said?). And Wikipedia policy IS to accept such statements as canonical fact until the author says otherwise (unless there is reason to be doubtful - eg. the author has phrased it in an unassertive manner ("around 36 or 37", for example), or consensus deems it worthy of further consideration. Thus, the change in the death date of the Riddles (which, prior to HBP was listed as 1944, but altered due to new info there). Or the hopping in the Weasley age debacle. And in the case of Hagrid's 'all evil wizards were Slytherins" - well, had Wikipedia existed back then (I don't know, but I think even PoA predates wikipedia), it would have to be accepted as fact that 'all evil wizards were Slytherins'. And the change would have come with PoA, when not only was Pettigrew revealed to be oh-so-evil, but it was clear that Hagrid had known about 'evil Gryffindor Sirius, Lieutenant to Voldemort' even as he said it - meaning that the statement would have to be demoted to 'exaggeration', since the author had deliberately destabilised it. So: if in book seven, Andromeda is revealed to be a Gryff, or Claw, or Puff, or member of the secret fifth house, or home schooled, or sent to Eton in an accidental swapping with Mary-Sue Whatsit, then that is more authoritative, and stands as canonical fact. Until then, Slughorn's statement is canonical fact.

I have to confess myself baffled. You clearly have no grasp of this issue, instead maundering on about why you don't like extrapolation, but do like explaining your unique understanding of Rowling accidentally forgetting about a character. Of course, if you have access to Rowling that we don't, and thus know that we are wrong to trust the Slughorn statement, because actually Andromeda was Tom Riddle trying to redeem himself, then share by all means. If not, go away, get a proper grasp of wikipedia's ongoing novel policy, and stop wasting my time by airing your fannish speculations and doubts about something which only yourself and the previous fool who thought s/he knew Rowling's level of forgetfulness think at all doubtful. Go and stick your doubts on some board where they will actually be appreciated, because wikipedia only deals in what is known. In this case, that "all the Black's were in Slytherin". Michaelsanders 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not about trust or not trusting. Let me explain my issue--people get really involved in these arguments, for whatever reason, and go wild over anything they take as "proof." Like the Wiki. Then, when something happens that contradicts it, the people who've staked a lot on those claims feel cheated (as with Charlie, or the people making the assumption that Bella was in Snape's year because she was part of his "gang of Slytherins"). I admit, I had a lot invested (and still do) in the OotP statement that Ted Tonks is a Muggle-born wizard, but I think, for the sake of fairness, that Rowling's jotting down that Andromeda married "a Muggle" on the family tree ought to be included in the article on Ted, unless (until, please until) JKR puts up a note on her website explaining that the Blacks would think of a Muggle-born the same as a Muggle, or that it was a typo, or something of that sort, because the confusion exists, and there are people who have said from the start that Ted was a Muggle, despite the naming of him as a Muggle-born in OotP. I'd say that there are two contradictory pieces of evidence there. With Andromeda, I'd say that it's likely from Sluggy's statement that she's in Slytherin, but it hasn't been confirmed. It happened to be Andromeda's house that I started talking about here, just because I was dropping a note to agree with Rain74 that I didn't agree about Slughorn's statement being definitive, and that's what you challenged, so I presented ways that such a statement may not, in fact, pan out to be true if Rowling mentions Andromeda's house in book 7. I'm not trying to read Rowling's mind or guess what she thinks of Andromeda; I'm just trying to say that the first mention of a thing in canon is not necessarily reliable unless it's absolutely specific. It prevents let-downs later. If people are staking their entire arguments on one line, and that line has the potential to be shrugged off, then it's better to say that it's probable but not definite, rather than playing a guessing game. I love extrapolation in arguments; that's half the fun of them. Is this possible? Is that possible? Maybe you stake a position and get a chance to crow when you turn out to be right. That's fine. Fun, even. But in an article trying to nail down the actual known details of a character we haven't seen, a vague "all" statement probably isn't absolutely conclusive on the subject. That's all. I really wasn't trying to make a theoretical argument for any alternate position, just point out that the question could still be open, because it hasn't been addressed specifically WRT to Andromeda. Miss w 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a conciliatory service. Its policies are not geared to prevent disappointment due to the progress of information release. It is designed to present the relevant facts as they are known. And I don't care if anyone is disappointed by whatever her house may turn out to be, or whatever Ted Tonks may turn out to be. I couldn't care less if she is not a Slytherin. I have no interest in being 'proved right or wrong'. What I care about is writing up what is in the books in an encyclopaedic and formal manner, so that readers can easily see what is known about the subject at this moment. That includes Andromeda's House. And if it turns out that Rowling has yet again led us up the garden path, it is the work of a minute tops to change the house reference. I for one won't particularly care, because it will have been changed to keep in line with the canonical facts. We clearly have different attitudes to wikipedia. You are effectively taking the fannish, "It isn't such and such until we can't deny it!" I am taking, here at least the, "Speculation or second guessing is irrelevant, we stick to what the author has told us" route. It is the latter which wikipedia bases novel articles upon. Therefore, I suggest you drop the issue. You are entirely right that, as with many issues, Rowling has left herself room for a 'get out' clause. That does not change the issue as it stands in canon (compare with Dumbledore. She initially left enough wiggle room for him to have faked his death. But wikipedia policy was, rightly, to stick to the canonical fact that he was dead). If you don't take this attitude, many of the HP articles will fall apart precisely because there is enough room for doubt in many 'facts'. Its the same with OR - there is inevitably a certain amount in all articles, because otherwise it could only be a few 'obvious' superficial points. Therefore, just accept for now that as canon stands, Andromeda was a Slytherin. And if Rowling says anything to the contrary, then that will become most recent fact, and hence canonical. And you will be welcome to crow. Michaelsanders 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The question, though, is whether it's known to be true or assumed to be true. I think our basic disagreement is about whether an objective article is one that has things "true until something else happens" (your position) or "probably true unless proven otherwise" (my position). It's a subtle distinction, which is probably why we're talking past each other. We both accept that JKR is still free, within the parameters she set, to put Andromeda in a different house. You said yourself that you would change it if she did so. I think that means that her probable house affiliation should be couched as "probable" in an objective article (rather like suspects are referred to as "alleged" murderers/thieves/whatever until they are convicted, even if everyone and his dimwit full-giant brother knows they're guilty; it's just a way of not expressing bias on the subject); you seem to be taking the position that it is so until proven otherwise. There may never be a definitive statement one way or the other--Andromeda is a character who doesn't even appear in the books (so far), after all--in which case, the formal and objective style would be to say that the text suggests such-and-such at X point, leading to the conclusion that [whatever], rather than that it says so, per se, unless it actually says so. I would go with something along the line of "Horace Slughorn's statement, [exact quote here], suggests that she was placed in Slytherin House, though she has not been specifically named." Miss w 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
...Apart from the quote itself, that is basically in the text. That information was never excluded. This debate began over the house listing in the info box - where, unless there is good reason to doubt the veracity of a statement, facts are not accompanied by explanations. But in any case, novels on wikipedia aren't set out like that. Pettigrew, for example, did not have a trial for his killing of 12 muggles, and never confessed. Therefore, by your standards, he is merely an alleged murderer, or manslaughterer. But that is not how it is set out, because if you turn everything into a case of legalities and technicalities, wikipedia can't function - or at least, the HP project cannot. Michaelsanders 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That Peter did that isn't in canonical question, though--we know that he did. He may not have been convicted of it, and Sirius was, but those aren't really facts in question. Those were specifically addressed in PoA--Peter sliced off his finger and blew up the Muggle street, and Sirius took the blame for it, and that's a major plot point. Andromeda's house was only addressed with a kind of sideways blow that still only leaves it probable. I guess I'd be more comfortable with not listing her house in the box at all than with listing something that still has the potential to change in the last book, rather than listing her probable House based on Slughorn's statement, and just mentioning in the text block that it's most likely, but not confirmed, to be Slytherin. There are other people whose Houses we can't possibly list because there are no clues at all, after all. That's really all I'm saying, honest! :) Miss w 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but did he intend to kill them, or just cause confusion? Could be vital in a Court.
Can we just agree to leave the article, in this respect, basically as it is (excluding minor changes, perhaps adding Slughorn's quote)? Agreeing that, as soon as anything more becomes known (which I actually doubt to be honest), that will be incorporated into the article - whether it supports or destabilises Slughorn's claim? We will also make clear, if she turns out to have not been a Slytherin, how the confusion arose. But until then, can we please just keep the article in line with canon. Thanks! Michaelsanders 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure--that's why I didn't actually change the article! I'd actually hoped that the conversation would include more than the two of us, to see what the general consensus is. I'd still feel more comfortable not listing her House in the box, but if that's the general consensus ruling, despite the fact that I don't think Slughorn's line is really enough to establish it canonically--it's just not certain enough to state it as a fact--I don't have objections. And no one other than us seems to care! Miss w 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, it is a pretty trivial matter. Andromeda hasn't even been in the books, so she'll hardly get people riled regarding her house placement. However, if that's all, I think we can safely leave this issue until, either someone else intervenes, or Rowling gives us more information. Until then, I think we've pretty much finished this off. Michaelsanders 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair colour

It's stated that Andromeda's hair must be mousy brown because her daughter's is, right? Can't be - her sisters have blonde and black hair, respectively. Unless one of them is a half-sibling, she must have either blonde or black hair. Tonks probably gets her hair colour from her father. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.0.230 (talk • contribs).

Conversely, she could just be unconsciously mimicking Remus's light brown hair that year. But it's distinctly possible, genetically, for Andromeda to be a brunette. Narcissa got seriously recessive genes, but if one of the parents had brown hair (and blond/brown genotype) and the other had black hair (black/blond genotype), then it's quite possible that she got a brown and blond gene and ended up a brunette. Miss w 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
She seems to be brunette (DH5), but as Teddy Lupin is a metamorphomagus, as his mother, she could be one as well, it does seem to have something to do with genetics. Diana Prallon 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance in the series

Why does Andromeda have her own article? She has not even appeared in canon. Lord Opeth 00:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tragic Character

Poor Andromeda, first she gets disowned from her family for the man she loves, then years later she loses her husband, daughter, and son-in-law in war.She truly is a sorrow-stricken character.

Sorry, but this is not a forum (WP:FORUM). This talk page is designed to discuss information concerning the article, not the character. Please take this kind of comment to a forum for more open discussion. Also, please sign your comments. Kochdude388 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

This is yet another article on a character that barely has any impact on the book, much less the real world in which we all live. There will never be enough secondary sources to establish this character's notability, so it should be merged to the minor characters article. Natalie 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree...the articles concerning Teddy Lupin and Victoire Weasley are also unneeded, as they provided very little to the story. Kochdude388 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)