Talk:List of Harry Potter characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Class Start on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click Show →

[edit] Update

Since the realese of the Halfblood Prince, Harry and his fellow friends are in their sixth year. Is this to be updated?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackeru (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't say what year Harry and his friends are in. It just notes the relative ages of students in Houses. For example, Percy is listed there but he's long graduated from Hogwarts. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill & Charliie Weasley are indicated to be in James Potter span (1968-1976) at Hogwarts. Doesn't seemt to be correct. They did graduate less than a decade previous to the current date! Also, McGonaggal appears in Tom Riddles Hogwarts' Era. True?? Ain't she older than most of the other Death Eaters and Tom himself?

[edit] Magical Beasts

Do Firenze and Grawp really belong here, or elsewhere? Rosemary Amey 00:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think so, but Buckbeak, Croakshanks, Scabbers etc. belong somewhere else. Of course, Firenze doesn't even really have a page, so someone probably should add one at some point.

[edit] Armando Dippet

Content originally contributed by user:Jcsutton in a different article which has since been nominated for deletion. This notice preserves GFDL attribution.

[edit] Missing sorting hat names?

I just added some sorting hat names from books 4 and 5, but I haven't been able to check the first three books for missing names here. Someone please check those books for such characters that may only be mentioned briefly.

[edit] Are wizards such as Fred and George Weasly still considered students?

The sub-category "Older Gryffindors" should be rearranged.

They were students for most of the series. This list should reflect all the books, not just the current situation after book 6.

[edit] "Elfs" or "Elves"?

Isn't the plural of "elf" "elves"?

Thanks for the correction, I wasn't paying much attention

Either is considered to be correct.

[edit] Alphabetical Order

I know that not many people now edit this page anymore but I am posting this message anyways. We should list this page alphabetically instead of by groups. This can solve a problem of "overlapping" where a character appear more than once. We could start a temporary page Alphabetical list of characters in the Harry Potter series so we needn't erase this page. --Mozart2005 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How about we split off the group lists to their own articles? "List of Death Eaters" &etc. --Maru 19:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defence Against the Dark Arts Teachers

Year 6: Severus Snape – Fled Hogwarts after killing Dumbledore. Since this is a pretty big spoiler for the series, can we edit this down a bit? The other years, I think, are fine but seeing as book six just came out it seems more of an issue. Thoughts? --Toddbloom7 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voldemort

Do we have a canon precedent for referring to Voldemort as a Death Eater? Njál 01:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive that Voldemort is ever mentioned as being a Death Eater, just that they follow him. --Jh fireboy I'm listening 11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about listing Voldemort under "Dark Lords"?

[edit] Film character

Should characters introduced in the films be listed here? They aren't really canon, are they? --Damsleth 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not canon. This is a list of characters in the Harry Potter books. The boy in PoA is named Bem, and he and Nigel from GoF are not in the books. They're probably kids who won a part in the movie or something. I'm going to take them out. -Fbv65edel 22:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-canon

I do not think we should have the list of characters only mentioned by JKR. It is like Damsleth a list of characters in the Harry Potter books. - Jonathan235

I'm in agreement with this. if this is to be specifically an article about characters from the books, then witches and wizards that have only appeared on Jo's website shouldn't be included. However, this might be considered unencyclopedic - in which case, is there an argument that the article needs to be re-titled as something like "List of characters in the Harry Potter series"? (which would also enable any oddments from the films to be included). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batsnumbereleven (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Bugger, forgot to sign it again! --Dave. 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters that have been provably created by Rowling, whether for the books or her website or interviews, etc, should be listed. Those that aren't provably created by her, e.g. in films, games, etc, should not. The title could be changed, but it seems rather unnecessary - the context will convey where the characters have appeared, and 'series' surely only refers to the books anyway. Michaelsanders 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muggles

Do we know if all of the so-called "Muggles" are actually muggles? From my knowledge of the books, it doesn't say that they are non-magical.

[edit] Duplicate name

Patricia Stimpson is mentioned both under "Gryffindors" and under "House Unknown". Which is correct?

I've fixed that. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table?

While the table of the students is a nice touch, that many images will make the page HUGE and difficult to navigate. I think we have to discuss this here before proceeding. We don't need notes about a character. We just want to find characters, and get to main articles about them, if any. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I got a bit caught up, so it appears Treebark did it for me, but I reverted all of Jhfireboy's edits as per the comments I left here. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it would just make the page be more accessable in alphabetical and not in categories as I find them a bit confusing. If anybody would like to see a taster of the table look here. Also I would like to comment that I think the notes would just make it easier to place people in the books as some are only mentioned once and I do not know where they are and in what book. Jh fireboy I'm listening 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would probably help to have notes just for the minor, minor characters, as you say. No offense, but I think the table makes it look cluttered. If somebody is looking for a last name, and they don't know which category it would fall under, they can just search the page (Apple+F/Ctrl+F). But this way, it organizes characters by importance and category, which is more essential when linking to the page. Just my two knuts… --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I see where you are coming from and why that would hapen as it does. Also to add to my points above some names are mentioned in more than one area and I thought that we are trying to get a complete list of characters without duplicates and in alphabetical order this is possible. -- Jh fireboy I'm listening 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you search the page like I mentioned, you could find out the different categories your character falls under. But I understand the need to get one mention of characters with multiple categories listed. Still, I think this is the most convenient and neat way to list them. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I read on the Harry Potter Portal that one of the "things to do" is to tabulate the people on this page. I had a quick go with the students at the top of the list. I think the tables are better than the lists as you can more clearly see how people are related to Harry age-wise. I'm quite new to all this wiki-ing so I'm not convinced the tables are the best they can be. If you can make them prettier to look at then feel free Kelly elf 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I just read the rest of this talk page and I see that there is already a table thing in progress. If you want to revert my tables and stick to the one suggested above then ok Kelly elf 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly elf, I'm surprised to see that on the To do list on the portal, because that's a major change for which no consensus was ever reached. As you can see above, jhfireboy was interested in tabulating it, while I thought it would look cluttered. I would strongly suggest that this be talked about a lot before anything continues to be done. I would bring it to the WikiProject, but, despite the number of members there, it seems pretty dead. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle names

Is there a reason why the trio's middle names are included? 65.92.204.139 03:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they are the only ones that are known.--Dacium 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing middle names is fine, but can we please stop making up middle names for characters? Not every child is given his father or mother's first name as his or her middle name, and, as far as I know, it has never been said that Draco's middle name is Lucius, Lucius's middle name is Abraxas, Tonks's middle name is Andromeda, etc. - Charity 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up attempt

I will be attempting to clean up the article. The main point is to get each character listed ONCE in the list under the major section that describes the character. There are far to many indescrimite listings of the same people because they could be a members of the order, also a past students, also a past gryffindor etc. etc.--Dacium 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that not done on the basis that a character can be found under all the relevant headings, allowing the reader to find them more easily (rather than having to decide if Umbridge fits into teachers or ministry workers, or whatever it is)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes you are correct they should be under certain headings. I will be attempting to fix the categories up more also.--Dacium 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snape a Death Eater?

I removed the bit that said Snape is a "known Death Eater" because we still don't really know that for sure. Personally I think that he acted as he did at the end of Half Blood Prince out of self preservation, as any Slytherin would. Remember, he did agree to take an Unbreakable Vow without knowing what exactly he was committing to until it was too late to back out. Rosemary Amey 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Personally I think" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Let's focus on what we know - he is a Double Agent for most of the books (meaning he needs to be listed there), and at the end of book 6 he kills Dumbledore and runs off with the Death Eaters, to cries of 'stop, Death Eater', etc. Michaelsanders 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree "personally I think" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but this is the talk page. The events at the end of Half Blood Prince can be interpreted different ways, so the encyclopedia article should not state that he is definitely a Death Eater. Rosemary Amey 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the Severus Snape talk page, and ask them to comment. Michaelsanders 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he is on Voldemort's side or not, he is a known Death Eater, since he still works for them, even if its on the Order's benefit. Not to mention that he surely sued to be one. Diana Prallon

He has the dark mark... doesn't that count to anything? Saverem 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Can someone familiar with this article add spoiler notices where appropriate? We don't all need to know who died in book 4. Brian Jason Drake 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs some serious revision

If this is going to be the main article for describing the characters in the Harry Potter books (and since the Harry Potter articles character section now consists of a link to this page, it appears to be so) it needs to be drafted so that it would make sense to someone who had never read the series. Why should Harry and Hermione be listed after Euan Abercrombie or Dennis Creevey? Would someone who had never read the books either know or care who Euan Abercrombie was? There at least needs to be an opening section describing the main characters in the series. Serendipodous 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't care if soemthing is there doesn't mean it isn't important, I mean you don't particularly want to have an article about dust in an encyclopedia if you are looking for an article about the berlin wall, but it's there all the same.

[edit] Vandalism

I think there has been some vandalism at the bottom of the page where it talks about Muggles in Little Whinging, and Little Hangelton. Thief Lord 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Veela

I know that it's incredibly minute but seeing as the section on veelas mentions Fleur's Grandmother, shouldn't whichever parent that carried on the veela blood to Fleur be mentioned under the heading of half-veela (I don't know which parent it is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.12.103 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Minister for Magic

Although the spelling in the articles about Harry Potter is mostly British English, I notice that the American version "Minister of Magic" is used. In the British versions of the books he is however called the "Minister for Magic", although the Ministry is called the "Ministry of Magic" on both sides of the Atlantic.

Since these Books were written by an British woman and are set in Great Britain, I feel one should use the British orthogrophy. – Mikeweasle 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lucius malfoy

lucius is not that old he was in the time of james potter if you care to disagree show me rock solid proof and i mean something like j.k rowling her self stating that lucius was in the time of riddle

Who are you arguing with? His wife narcissa was born 1955 according to the black family tree. Sandpiper 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In Deathly Hallows they show a memory of Snape being sorted into Slytherin. He sits down next to Lucius who is a Prefect, which would put him in in year 5, 6, or 7 when Snape, James, Lily, etc. started first year at Hogwarts. --74.100.209.232 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main characters and Secondary characters

I disagree with the list for main characters and secondary characters. I mean Ludo Bagman as a secondary character in the entire series? He was only in one book and his role in the story is less important than Krum's (who's name is not even on the secondary character list). I say we follow the Harry potter characters template and put Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore and Voldemort for main characters. Secondary characters are not really needed as it is hard to to classify secondary characters and also, the names are repeated elsewhere. 24.109.246.123 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. Fred and George Weasly are as important as Neville L. or Luna L. --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snape a headmaster

I might have missed it in the books, but when was Snape a headmaster? Right after Voldemort's ascension, but what does that mean? I'm certain it wasn't in any book yet. I have however left it in. I could have missed something here.

sounds like a book 7 spoiler, i'm taking it out but it can be put back in once the book comes out.harlock_jds 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I thought so too, which is why I said yet. It might not mean anything since the book release is only a couple days, but it's been in there for quite a while in wiki-time. And yeah, sorry I didn't sign. Mentor397 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animagi

In the list Victor Krum appears as an animagus. I think this is not correct. Krum used some spell to partly turn himself into a shark for the second task in the Triwizard Turnament but that doesn't mean he is an animagus! The text says, Harry turned, and saw something monstrous cutting through the water to them: A human body in swimmming trunks with the head of a shark ... it was Krum. He appeared to have Transfigured himself - but badly. (page 434 of the HP4 Bloomsbury edition) No mentioning there that Krum is an Animagus. --Krawunsel 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burbage

Shouldn't someone add Charity Burbage to the list of past teachers? —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 13:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure... But I don't know if there's even the slightest information about her, with the exception that she was the Muggle-Studies teacher. But some lines might be but in. That she was killed for her views, and that she into the end wanted to proclaim that Muggles/Muggle-borns should not be discriminated. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... btw, she's already in here. And in here Minor Hogwarts Teachers#Charity Burbage :) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

It looks like 206.67.164.104 has been Rick Astley Rolling (or whatever that has called) to this page for a week on and off, and then when he got bored he moved on to delinking other things. Can someone knowledgable on who should be listed keep an eye out for older vandalism to correct his, and document each time he pulls the stunt so it can be brought up on his page and moved up the food chain? Thanks. Old64mb 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies

I notice that Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange are not included in the list of Past Students. Which "Time" do they fall into? I presume they are from Slytherin.

I also notice that Dobby's name falls under both the "Order of Phoenix Members" and the "Other Second War Deaths".

And is Amelia Bones a member of the Order of Phoenix? --Tjmj 08:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinks = Draco Malfoy?

In the section on Rowling's character notes, it says: Spinks (Unknown, possibly an earlier name for Draco Malfoy).

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how "Spinks" and "Draco Malfoy" relate to each other? Is there something in the books, or a subtle detail I may have missed? Gay15boy 12:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated, this bit came from some preliminary personal notes that Rowling showed off in 2001 during a TV special while discussing the evolution of the characters. It may be inappropriate and unencyclopedic speculation for "us" to go on to assign Spinks to Draco Malfoy, unless there is some evidence out there to prove it. I would suggest a "citation needed" tag on that comment, or just delete it outright: "Spinks" and leaving it at that. Guessing who Spinks might have turned out to be, without any sort of proof, constitutes original research, which is fundamentally forbidden by policy. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article

is simply atrocious. Incredibly crufty, characters are listed repeatedly in several different sections (sometimes repeatedly in the same section. I propose to just have one long alphabetical list, and forget about the pointless sectioning off of the article. It's impossible to maintain and just plain ugly. So just a list, with a (very) short explanation of the character, like:

Cho Chang - Ravenclaw student, Quidditch Seeker, girlfriend of Harry Potter
Cornelius Fudge - Minister of Magic
Rubeus Hagrid - Care of Magical Creatures professor, Keeper of the Keys and Grounds of Hogwarts, Order of the Phoenix member
Gwenog Jones - Quidditch player (Holyhead Harpies)
Scorpius Malfoy - Son of Draco Malfoy
Irma Pince - Hogwarts librarian
Rita Skeeter - Journalist for the Daily Prophet, Animagus

Anyone have an opinion on this? Not many people edit this page it seems; I'll wait about a day and if no objections are raised, I'll go ahead with it. faithless (^speak) 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised, I'm going ahead with it. It isn't very aesthetically pleasing, but I feel it's far better than what was there before. The article is divided into two sections; in one, I've sorted characters alphabetically by last name. In the other I've listed characters with no or unknown last names (again, alphabetically). With each character I've noted important relations, organizations and events with which they are connected. The article needs some wikilinking, the article was ridiculously over-linked before. I have not included characters from the movies or video games, and have included only "canon" characters - those from the books, JKR's official website, characters from the chocolate frog cards (which JKR purportedly designed) and characters mentioned in the "Daily Prophet" (the newsletter of the official HP fan club, available (I believe) only in the UK and only in the late 90s. I think I've done a pretty thorough job, though it's possible I overlooked someone. Also, if consensus is to include and/or remove any characters, fine by me. If, after I submit the change, an IP editor reverts to the old version, I will undo that edit. If a registered editor reverts it and it's decided the old version is better, I will abide by that decision, but I ask that if you do change it that you explain your reasoning here. Furthermore, I suggest that the name of the article be changed to List of characters from the Harry Potter series. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

faithless, GREAT job! just one idea, that would be more in my liking (maybe not in others liking) Listing characters "Surname, Firstname". I think it looks more structured, example:

Black, Alphard – Son of Pollux Black and Irma Crabbe...
Black, Andromeda – See Andromeda Tonks
Black, Arcturus – son of Phineas Nigellus Black and Ursula Flint...
Black, Arcturus – Son of Sirius Black and Hesper Gamp...

Alphard Black – Son of Pollux Black and Irma Crabbe...
Andromeda Black – See Andromeda Tonks
Arcturus Black – son of Phineas Nigellus Black and Ursula Flint...
Arcturus Black – Son of Sirius Black and Hesper Gamp...

instead of what's inplace now, I wont change it unless there's support. Just a idea (Don't know if there's a policy or preferred style in list of ppl or characters.)

And one other thing, i think its pretty unnecessary to have some characters (the main characters from what I can see) full names, "Harry James Potter", "Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Weasley". And I do not think its necessary to list the girls(women) who got married after "1997" with their husbands names until JKR verifies who took those names. This includes Ginny, Hermione, Hannah Abbott and probably someone I've forgotten. (I don't know if its you who have made these "changes" because I dont have time to go through all history versions :p but i just wanted to get it out there.) Chandler talk 04:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chandler. :) Regarding your concerns (in reverse order):

As far as including "Ginny Potter - See Ginny Weasley" "Hermione Granger - See Hermione Granger" etc., I did that mainly as a stop-gap measure to try to appease the types who go around and change the names of the characters. I figured it was easier than constantly reverting vandalism (whether it will actually work is another story...).;
As far as listing their full names, personally I like having their full names listed. But if consensus says to get rid of it, so be it.
I'd have no problem listing the characters last-name-first. It doesn't matter enough to me to make the change myself, but if you or another editor wants to make the change, that's fine by me. It probably would make the article a bit easier to use. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing with full names are, for me at least. Ok, I know Harry's middle name is James, Hermione's is Jane etc. But when someone who might not know that much about the world stumbles upon Ronald Bilius Weasley, they might get confused ;) As they're almost only known as Ron (and Ginny) wouldn't it just be easier to leave the rest in the articles. Same with Dumbledore and all his names ;) Chandler talk 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid we just don't agree on what action should be taken. I think it would make things easier for non-HP fans, but I also think we should strive for accuracy here, not ease-of-use for n00bs. :) Well, we should strive for both, but we shouldn't "dumb things down" just to make it easier to understand (isn't that what the Simple English Wikipedia is for?). Besides, if you can't tell that Ronald Bilius Weasley = Ron Weasley or that Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore = Albus Dumbledore, then you probably have bigger problems. :P Oh, and Hermione's middle name is Jean. Or at least it is in Deathly Hallows. And I believe that Jane was only given in an interview, so I kind of figure that it was just mis-heard by whoever transcribed the interview (my theory is that the same thing happened when we were told Dumbledore was 150 but then turned out to be 115). faithless (^speak) 08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on the Jean, I did write the wrong thing, didn't think at the time i wrote, probably. Though on the age thing (and i know JKR has said numbers isnt her strongest side) isnt there a lot of contradictions in the books? or at least things that just feels wrong when it comes to some of the older characters age, especially Dumbledore. Stuff like Dumbledore is over 100 at least, and was tested on his NEWT's by a witch still alive and doing tests (and friends with Neville's grandma, who COULD be like half her age if only she and her son got their children in their thirties)? :D how long do they live. Bah when you sit here and think of this stuff, you just want JKR to release that encyclopedia so you can swim in all the info you want. Chandler talk 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the list of all the Blacks from the family tree is useless. Most of these characters never made an appearance in the series and never took place in the main plot. Lord Opeth 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I'm suggesting moving this page to List of characters from the Harry Potter series. It would be more accurate, as there are characters listed that don't appear in the books, and would perhaps alleviate Opeth's above concerns. Many of the Blacks don't appear in the books, so he does have a point. faithless (^speak) 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, because it is not only the Blacks, but also some other characters like Bathsheba Babbling, Rolf (Scamander?) or Mafalda (the Weasleys' cousin). Lord Opeth 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Opeth. Since this page doesn't get very much traffic, therefore making it unlikely many more people will comment, I'm going to go ahead with the move. faithless (^speak) 07:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go with List of Harry Potter characters, as was done with List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Trek characters. Seemed the way to go. faithless (^speak) 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. The list of Star Trek characters is more like a table, and a table with all the HP characters would be really annoying. The list of Star War characters I think is only for those that have an article or section, isn't it? This would be ok to the HP characters but there are hundreds of characters that are not listed anywhere else. I still think that a great number of characters in this list is completely useless, for example "Yvonne" (Petunia's friend) or "Ali" (the flying carpets seller). Lord Opeth 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming, but also agree with Lord Opeth that many of the "characters" in this list are only mentioned in passing so are really more NAMES than CHARACTERS, many of them not able to be classed as MINOR CHARACTERS and uninfluential on the plot itself. This said, I don't know if we should delete the non-notables or leave as is. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlus and Dorea Potter

My edit summary was cut off on my last edit, so I'll finish my thought here. An editor is trying to insist that Charlus and Dorea Potter weren't married. As I was saying in my edit summary, as the change has been disputed, it is up to the other editor to gain consensus for his change before reinserting it. To try to avoid an edit war, I'll go ahead and start the discussion here. So, what do you think? Should Dorea Black be listed under her married name of Dorea Potter? Or, since it is never specifically stated that "Dorea Black married Charlus Potter and took his last name" should we abandon common sense and assume that they had a child out of wedlock? I'll bring this up on the HP WikiProject to try to get more opinions. faithless (^speak) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I say stick with common sense. There are no other examples in the series to show that not taking your husband's surname is done by wizards. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

nor is their evidence they always take the husband's surname. the safest asumption is that wizzard culture is like non wizzerd culture and it varies depending on the people getting married, some keep their names, some change names and some combine both names into one. Without proof we can't guess which way they went harlock_jds (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Faithless, you're just wrong. Dorea Black was never identified in any of Rowling's canon work as Dorea "Potter". Period. She only appears as Dorea Black. Thus you have to justify this entirely new and original surname. You're the only one here writing something that did not appear anywhere else. And as the verifiability rule says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", you'll have to prove Dorea is indeed called "Potter", a statement that I have challenged. I don't have to prove anything, you have to.

I'm not saying Dorea and Charlus were or were not married. I'm saying that we don't know, but that you're assuming they are, and in absence of any concrete element, this is original research, and WP doesn't allow original research.

It's as usual, faithless, whether you like it or not, your own personal opinion on the HP world just isn't a reliable source, we cannot take your own assumptions as facts.

There's not much to discuss, really. It's not a matter of "community" decision or anything like that, don't try to change the focus of the discussion. This is all about you being asked to substanciate original claims, it has nothing to do with "consensus". Bring concrete elements from Rowling's work showing that Dorea is indeed called Potter. If you can't, then just leave the original surname (but anyway, stop edit warring, now).Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation, insult other Wikipedians, engage in edit warring and harm the project rather than improve it. It is exactly as usual. faithless (^speak) 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This information has been here for who knows how long, and no one has thought to challenge that. Did you stumble upon something that no one else noticed? I think it's far more likely that this is a case where something wasn't stated directly because it was so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out. Besides, why this particular example? I don't believe that it's ever stated that Rose and Hugo are the children of Ron and Hermione. And the whole Black family tree, for that matter; it just seems odd to single out one couple like you have. faithless (^speak) 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I "can't hold a civil conversation" ? I "insult other Wikipedians" ? So, according to you, removing original research and asking you to provide a source before reintegrate it is "uncivil" and an "insult" ? You're the only one who've engaged in an edit war, not respecting the rules of Wikipedia and trying to own the article by imposing your own personal opinions. Also, I can't see why qualifying my edits as "vandalism" just because you're unable to provide the source you're asked to provide, would be civil.

Why don't you want to understand that there are rules here, and that even you must respect them ?

Throwing random false accusation when you can't find any justification for your edits is also not a behavior approved by Wikipedia.

I've asked you to provide a source for your original research, you've refused to do it, instead you have disrupted Wikipedia, reverted, without any justification, you've personally attacked me...But I still see nothing substanciating your edits.

I can't see why the rules would not apply to you and your edits. Original material has been challenged and removed, and if you're trying to "add or restore" this, then "the burden of proof lies with you and you have to "attribute it to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". You've not done this, I don't see why you would impose your content on WP, just because you find something "idiotic" or "odd". Your own opinion is not a reliable source.

Beside, you try to argue that all this would have something to do with "consensus", but obviously, you're not waiting to have one to try to impose your own views.

I've said everything and there's nothing to add until you decide to source or edits. Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Faithless, try to practice what you preach. Telling Folken he's being uncivil and saying that he always does this is, in my books, being uncivil yourself. Please note, people, it is never explicitly stated in Rowling's works or post-DH interviews that Ginny and Ron take the names of their husbands either. Yet, we do it because it is common sense to associate a married woman with the prefix "Mrs" and the surname of her husband. I think this may be one of the times necessary to invoke IAR, and keep her listed as Mrs Potter. Otherwise it's goodbye to Mrs Weasley (as in Hermione), Mrs Potter (as in Ginny), Mrs Abbot (Hannah's mum), Mrs Lovegood.... The other thing is, the Daily Prophet, a fan magazine, is listed as a source at the top of the page and presumably accounts for some of the people I've never heard of. For that matter, I've never heard of the magazine either. Is this a reputable source? Or is it like the dreaded film characters, Nigel and Bem? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know spit about Harry Potter, but controversial claims require extraordinary sourcing. Regardless of the article topic or subject at hand, assertions require sources. Policy at WP:V makes this extremely clear. IvoShandor (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark lord, there is no detail on Dorea except one single occurence in a family tree from Rowling. It's really too light to make any assumption on her marital status. On a side note, if we start talking about other characters, to stick to your logic, we would have to rename the "Hermione Granger" article "Hermione Weasley" ? I already find it OR-ish to assign new surnames to characters that weren't clearly said to have changed names in the books, but speculating on characters not even part of the main story is too much.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We use the name which the character had for the majority of the story. So any females married during the story retain their maiden name, those who are married before the series begins use their married name. Have you ever seen anyone on a family tree who wasn't part of the family? Nor have I. As for Ivoshandor, this isn't a controversial claim. As for Trombonator's question, yes, that probably is where some of the names you've never heard of comes from. But it wasn't quite a "fan magazine," as you put it, rather it was the newsletter of the only official Harry Potter fan club which has ever existed (to my knowledge). I would say that it is a legitimate source, but if it isn't all we're losing is those characters no one has ever heard of, so it's not a huge loss. Back to the matter at hand: do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were actually married? Perhaps not. But to not use common sense in this case would hurt the article much more than leaving in a tiny piece of un-sourced information, and we should always work in the interest of the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

i think the issue is you are requiring multiple 'common sense' jumps (that they were married and that she changed her name) that have no foundation. I don't think either option 'hurts' the article so WP:IGNORE should be ignored and the article should stick to what is undebatable.. aka the name as presented in the book. harlock_jds (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So, faithless, if you say yourself that we only use the more commonly known name of a character throughout the books and canon material, you'll agree that without any occurence of a "Dorea Potter" anywhere, we cannot make an entry on this name...

Then, I'm sorry to disagree, but considering the discussion that stemmed from all this, yes, it's a controversial claim.

Remember, WP only reports, it doesn't improve or update the primary sources we're working on. Articles are not made to be a continuation of fictional characters' lives, which would be original research.

I'm sorry but "common sense" is not considered as a valid source for Wikipedia, particularly when it's far from obvious or far from being shared by everyone.

As for WP:IGNORE, I don't see anything in the use of the "Potter" surname instead of "Black" pertaining to an "improvement". Therefore we return to what this debate is about: blatant original research, which cannot stay in the article in absence of any source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why we have to double-feature characters in the list. I think that there is no need of a "Hermione Weasley" or a "Narcissa Black", "Molly Prewett", "Dorea Black", and many more. If Dorea is connected to Charlus, then we should name her as "Dorea Potter (neé Black)", and I propose the same with all the other married characters that were introduced as such, for example Molly Weasley (neé Prewett) (who was always refered as Mrs Weasley), or Bellatrix Lestrange (neé Black), Narcissa Malfoy (neé Black), Andromeda Tonks (neé Black), all the Blacks before Sirius generation, etc. HOWEVER Hermione, Fleur, Ginny, Nymphadora, etc. should be listed with their paternal surnames instead of their husbands'. Lord Opeth (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be assuming Dorea and Charlus are married and that Dorea changed name. Which is OR in absence of more details.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whomping willow

Do you think this should be mentioned as a character? At least it is a magical creature (of sorts) that plays a minor role in "Chamber of Secrets" and a major role in "Prisoner of Azkaban". Simply south (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you would suggest it, but I'd say no. Unlike some of the animals mentioned (Crookshanks, Hedwig, etc.), there's nothing to suggest that the Whomping Willow is a sentient creature. I'm not saying it definitely shouldn't be included though. Any other thoughts? faithless (^speak) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lego versions of the characters???

There's an external link to the LEGO HP chars. Are we really sure this is necessary? Angelica K (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Jammy (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So, can we remove it? Any extra text removal would be a good thing in this very long article. Angelica K (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible suggestion

Since this list is so lengthy, it may be better to have separate articles for different classifications of characters. One for human characters in cannon, humans not in cannon, talking non-humans, non-talking non-human. There would be lots of different ways it could be broken up, but the article is so lengthy its not very useful as it is, in my opinion. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean along the lines of Death Eaters, Hogwarts students and Hogwarts staff? This article is merely be an exhaustive list of every character in the series, and many are so minor that they are not mentioned elsewhere. faithless (^speak) 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)