Talk:Hermione Granger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image Usability

Are we sure that File:Hermionegrangerdrawing.jpg is (a) not copyvio'd and (b) belongs on here? As it is a fan drawing, I see the possibility of abuse on this and many other Harry Potter articles (i.e. they could potentially simply become fan-art galleries) jglc | t | c 14:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Age Debate

Hermione's age has been subject to a great deal of debate, but Rowling has updated her site today with the answer: Hermione was nearly twelve years old when she started school because "you must be at least eleven to attend Hogwarts." aec 20:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, she was almost twelve, but still eleven when she started.

Time-turner

It is worth noting that her third year must have subjectively lasted considerably longer than for her classmates, and given even a conservative estimate of eight extra hours per day, she would belong in a different year than her classmates afterwards. Is there any evidence of exactly how much extra time she used? Furthermore, none of her birthdays have been celebrated on the correct date since then. Poor Hermione.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.1.152.158 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

According to Redhen, sensible calculations (which she does not source) suggest that she couldn't have had more than an extra month that year (she wasn't using it to get extra sleep, after all, and she only required the extra time for 2 - 1 by the end of the year - subject lessons). She also suggests - with little evidence - that, given that she was petrified for about the same time in book 2 (she didn't eat or breath, after all, so she probably was in a form of stasis), the Time Turner simply put her back to her rightful age. Which she hadn't been between the end of CoS and PoA. So, she should have celebrated her birthday a month later in PoA (on 31/10, maybe?). But got it fixed by the turner. Pity those others - Colin et al - who aren't celebrating their proper birthday. Michaelsanders 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: "Hermione is Petrified from 24 April until 28 May, a period of 34 days.

Regarding the Time Turner ... OotP indicates that there are seven periods in the school day, making 35 a week. (OotP is the only book in which Harry has a viable timetable that can be written down, exactly as JKR describes it, without breaking the laws of physics or using magic.) Core subjects seem to require four periods a week (except Astronomy, which probably has two for theory plus the midnight practical), and options seem to take only three. So a third-year student who takes ten subjects would spend 26 periods a week on the seven core subjects plus 9 periods a week on the options, which adds up to exactly 35.

Hermione will need an extra 6 hours a week for her two additional options. She keeps this up for 23 weeks (138 hours) then drops Divination. She continues to use the Time Turner for another 3 hours a week for 8 weeks (24 hours). She also takes an extra 6 hours for her two exam clashes, and 3 hours to rescue Sirius Black. That's a total of 171 hours, or slightly over one week.

So it seems that Hermione has lost 27 days net by the end of her third year at Hogwarts. I wouldn't worry; she seems to have made up the missed homework ..." [1]

Name origin

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, I just want to say that the anonymous contributor made a good point. I am normally an inclusionist, but the origin of Hermione's name seems to be nothing more than non-encyclopedic trivia. Harry Potter is not the Matrix or Lord of the Rings (if we limit ourselves to popular culture) and Rowling is not writing some deep work with many layers and interpretations. The books are rather shallow and there is nothing of interest behind her naming decisions. The spells betray this simplistic approach - if there was access to Wikipedia in Hogwarts, it would have commands like Pageus Aeditus. :) I checked the Hermione (mythology) page and I don't see anything terribly relevant. There is little symbolism in the books and I don't see why we should pay so much attention to the minutae in an general-purpose encyclopedia. Paranoid 14:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I already left this on your talk page, but I'll put it here too. Actually, whether Rowling is writing "some deep work" or not is a matter of opinion. I happen to think she is and I would guess that you happen to think she is not. I happen to think the Matrix isn't particularly significant and it would appear that you do, which is also a matter of opinion. How about we change that sentence to say that the name could have come from a number of classical sources and link to a disambiguation page? I stand by my revert, the origins of names are important in that series and the name needs to be linked to some potential explanation to reflect that importance. They're not childrens books, you know! aec 14:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the deepness is a matter of opinion. There can be objective measures of it. I also don't remember it being a majority opinion among literary critics that her books are very deep. Yes, they are extremely popular and yes, I've read all of them and intend to read all future books, as well as see all the movies, but that doesn't change the fact (which is not a matter of opinion) that her books are simple and shallow (even though the prose is well-written and relatively rich to my non-native-English-speaker taste).

You claim that the origins of names are important - how many examples of that exist, really? Ron? Harry? And how much of these examples have any deep connotations (calling something Diagon Alley is not deep). The Matrix is significant in many senses and again, this is not a matter of my personal opinion, but a matter of fact. Enough film critics and film scholars consider it so, a lot of its aspects were widely emulated and reused, it was also one of the few blockbuster films that tackled significant philosophical questions with considerable depth (even though not on a academic level). Matrix was also riddled with mythological, religious and other cultural conections. ALL names there have at least one, but often several layers of meaning.

I am not saying that Matrix was better than HP (I liked both), but it should be quite obvious that it's much deeper. I am not trying to badmouth Hermione either - she's one of my favourite fictional characters, as you can see from my presence in the edit history (nothing major, but still). I am just saying we should not pretend that Harry Potter books are something they clearly aren't. Not every minor remark made by JKR deserves being put into Wikipedia. Minute details of her creative process do not necessarily deserve an explanation here.

If you feel that you particularly care about the symbolism in HP, by all means, grab a copy of the texts from P2P and start an "Annoted books about Harry Potter" project on Wikibooks. There you can try to explore every minor detail and how it can be interpreted, regardless of its unimportance. But in this particular article this, IMO, is excessive. Paranoid 15:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You and I are obviously of two very divided minds on this subject. I do feel that, given the pages and pages of Wikipedia topics on obscure things like Japanese comics, mediocre bands and what I think of as special-effects vehicle movies like the Matrix, there is a place for a link (not even a new page, but merely a link) giving potential information about a character in a popular written series. I don't think that whether or not a work is "deep" enough has any bearing on whether or not we link to a page giving potential insight into the character's name. Edited to add: nevermind, THAT won't work. Well, I did offer a compromise. We link to the disambiguation page for the name and change the wording to say that the name may have its root in one or none of the sources given. aec 18:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aeconley, there is no need to lose temper over this minor detail (and much less to request arbitration). I am not bent on pushing my version, I am not a Harry Potter-hater, I am not asking to include a link to The Matrix in the article about Hermione. I am just suggesting (actually, supporting the suggestion by another user) that this bit of trivia about the name origin doesn't add to the encyclopedia. Check out Hermione (mythology). So she was some chick in Ancient Greece. Unless this is some obsure hint to who will get to shag Hermione in future books - Ron, Harry or Krum, and that one of them will get killed by another (will Harry kill Ron over Hermione? That would be neat :) ) - I don't see this reference adding ANY value WHATSOEVER to the article on Hermione.

Authors always chose names for the characters based on other works, on associations, on their friends, etc. But, unless there is some deeper meaning (hidden message) to it, we usually don't care. The Matrix Character Names give connotations with other similar characters, provides specific hints about the roles of the characters, gives hidden messages about their aspirations, destinies, etc. You can't change Neo's name without taking some of this hidden meaning away. But you can call Hermione by any other name and she would smell just as sweet.

For example, read Fictional character#Some ways of reading characters. Does knowing the origin of Hermione's name help us understand her psychology, see her as a symbol for something, see her as a member of some group of people (I see only one thing in common between them - they are both female) or is Hermione somehow compared to that obsure Greek chick?

It might look that I am really concerned about this matter, but I am really willing to reconsider my position, if you give me some good reasons why this information is valuable (that would be logical, wouldn't it?). By that I mostly mean a bulleted list of examples (as concrete as possible) about how that information may help the reader specifically. What insight in particular does that information give?

Finally, let me just say that I don't mind linking the name Hermione, so may be that would be enough. Paranoid 19:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable compromise. I'll point to other characters whose names are drawn from classical work and mean something to the character as examples of how the author uses names: Remus Lupin, for example, is linked to the story of the founding of Rome and the story of Romulus and Remus, who were suckled by a she-wolf. Sirius Black is named for the Dog Star, indicating his Animagus form of a large black dog. The name Draco Malfoy, from the constellation Draco, gave us a clue to his inclusion on the Black family tree, which family tends to use names of stars and constellations. One might also argue that Minerva McGonagall bears the name of the goddess of wisdom, war and strategy for character reasons. Sybill Trelawney's name is similar that of the title of the Oracle at Delphi, again, for character reasons. I'm not saying that Hermione is necessarily among their number. It may be that she is not and the author merely picked a pleasing name. But it may well be that her name is significant in some fashion yet unrevealed. Additionally, there are other characters named Hermione who are important (Shakespeare, for example) and linking to them is appropriate by the standards I have seen on Wikipedia. I agree that the mythology link is probably not the one, and have since my original Talk post, but who am I to judge what the author is thinking? By linking to the disambiguation page, we can give the nod to the author's habit of using classical names and allow for the potential for meaning in the name. The other alternative would be to start yet another page labelled "Fictional People Named Herimone" which, I think, would be overkill. My suggestion is to, as you say, link to the name, take out the part that says that the character's name definitely comes from that mythology source or even one of these sources, but mention that there are other characters with the same name, which may hold some significance for the character. (Words to this effect, at any rate.) Will that work for you? (er, sorry about the formatting) aec 20:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check this out! :) While we were discussing, User:67.171.180.209 sneaked in and wrote that the name comes from Shakespear. :) I wonder if he did this on purpose. Thinking about your suggestion of "mention that there are other characters with the same name", I noticed another coincidence. A few hours ago I was reading the comments to ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar' on Slashdot, where I got a link to this wonderful letter from Groucho Marx to Warner brothers about an alleged trademark violation. Quoting: "As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner."

This made me thinkg about how this "mentioning" you suggest would work. I think that it would be rather silly if done literally ("There are other fictional and real characters with the same name."). My idea is to mention that the name is unusual in the text and link to Hermione as we agreed. We can say: "Hermione's unusual name is pronounced..." or "Hermione's unusual and rare name is pronounced..." or something along these lines. Paranoid 22:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and readded the name origin information because it satisfies three goals: providing information about the invention and development of the character, capturing reader interest, and sating reader curiosity.

I understand that you do not consider the origin of the name to be important. If this was an article about the book series (as Harry Potter is), I could see the merit in your objection. However, when a single character of the series is seen by many Wikipedia users as important enough for an entire article, the author's invention and development of the character is definitely on-topic and desired. Even if it doesn't give clues to Hermione's behavior, it gives more evidence of the author's interest in mythology, which provides the basis for major elements of the series.

A lot of encyclopedia articles have minor trivia in them. For example, see atomic elements such as gold with their listings of obscure attributes like heat of vaporization, which can easily be gotten from detailed references. In fact, the whole use of pictures in an encyclopedia, by your measure, is useless, as they only capture readers' interest and sate their curiosity and don't usually add to the "deeper meaning" of an article. However, those two purposes for pictures are why both pictures and minor information are valuable.

Perhaps there should be a definite, more scholarly, section about the character's invention and development. However, even without that, I see three benefits and no real harm in including the information. 131.230.135.166 00:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The slightly derogatory term "Paranoid's POV" was uncalled for. It's merely my opinion, and not a very strange one at that. I am not saying that "Harry Potter" books are "not very deep" in the article, merely using this (factual) statement to explain my position on including (what I considered to be) useless trivia.

Anyway, I get your point, fine, let is stay in the article. But let's just do it properly, shouldn't we? "Hermione of mythology" just doesn't cut it. :) Paranoid 10:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I beileve in Conversations with J. K. Rowling it was stated Hermione was named for the character in The Winter's Tale (and it was noted the characters had essentially nothing in common.)

Indeed. Google for this and this fact is mentioned in many places. So the truth is that Rowling just liked the name. See, what did I tell you? :) Paranoid 00:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is true that many of the names in the Harry Potter books, such as Remus Lupin and Fleur Delacour, have intresting etymologies behind them, but Hermione's isn't one of them. I suppose it's because she's one of the main character and was mostly likely named before any kind of "system" for names was created.

Is it better to change all the Emma's picture to the drawings else from the book?

There are several reasons:

• 1. Emma Waston is not equal to Hermione Granger. Readers might mix up easily.
• 2. The look of Emma as Hermione Granger have a gap difference between Year1/2 and Year3/4.
• 3. Hermione Granger is a character from a fictional book. No reason to post a real Image to show us "it is Hermione Granger."

Please agree with me and post your comments on this . ^^

--Mmlcs36 14:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

True; however, Mary Grand Pre's illustrations are really no more definitive. Only about half of HP's global audience actually uses the Scholastic editions. The rest use Bloomsbury's (which have no internal illustrations) or invent their own. My main concern with using only the film versions is that it creates confusion between the novels and the movies, which are quite different from each other in many ways. Also, what is the copyright status on all of these movie images? Serendipitous 15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that the drawings from the book are probably closer however as they are based on descriptions form the books. If you follow those its pretty clear that Emma Watson is somewhat prettier than Hermione in the books. It is something that is made a point of a number of times. I don't think all the pictures should be changed, but presently the article is practically an Emma Watson gallery. I think some of the pictures should be removed outright as 5 pictures is a little excessive and one or two of them (probably just one at the top) should be traded out for a drawing of some sort. Dalf | Talk 11:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we use "Fair use" to be the reason?--Mmlcs36 09:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I belive we should use Fanart for SOME pictures. Maybe one picture oF Emma Watson, Because Hermione is Portrayed by Emma Watson.

If you want my honest opinion, we should get some illustrations for Miss Granger for Books 5 and 6. Ms. GrandPré's would work fine. OneWeirdDude 19:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures from the films are pretty iconic now, recognised worlwide as representing the characters. Whatever happened to the publicity picture which used to head this article, the provocative St. Trinians look? Did someone censor it or was there a valid reason for removing it? Sandpiper 23:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That image was (rightly or wrongly, I can't say) deleted as a copyright violation. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a shame if it was: anyone know if it a clip from the film, since it would then presumably be fair use? What we have at the moment does not look at all like Hermione, rather more an advertidement for the actress. Sandpiper 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Friends

Does Hermione Have any friends other than Harry and Ron? Well, there's Ginny (Ron's little sister). But aside from the two boys she meets on her first day (on the Hogwarts Express) who does she ever become friends with? Uncle Ed 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There's Ginny, Patil and Parvati or what ever. If you read the books properly you'll know she's got other friends too. Zhanster 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione must have other friends beside Harry, Ron and Ginny because she dosn't start hanging out with harry and ron untill after Halloween in the first book. To name some of Hermione's other friends there is: Neville Longbottom, Lavender Brown, Hagrid, both the Patil twins, all of the Professors (Not Snape) and lots more of the other boys and girls of Hogwarts school that aren't name in the books. Metz 12:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Hermione is not based on J. K. Rowling as a teenager. Rowling has written that Hermione's personality is similar to her own at a young age, but insists that she has only ever based one character (Gilderoy Lockhart) on a real person.

Friends? Probably Neville too.

Relationship Debate

Ron breaks up with Lavender a few weeks later, and although it is never mentioned explicitly, it seems that Hermione and Ron have, at last, acknowledged their romantic interest in each other.

I Don't belive that is an appripriate fact, for many reasons. First, I don't belive they have acknowledged their romantic interest in each other. It is possible, but atleast not to each other. Sensible Hermione will think the thing Harry though: What if it doesn't work out? Their friendship would be Totally ruined. Plus, I see no proof that Ron OR Hermione has come to relisation one likes the other. And Finally, I do not belive we should auto-reason Hermione and Ron get together. There is still one book left. J.K. Rowling throws us curveballs alot. I don't think we should rule out the possiblilities.

JKR has actually resolved this one with unambiguous statements (that caused a bit bad feelings in the fandom). The actual quote that caused all the stir which can be read here was:

That said, stating what the characters themselves have or have not realized when it is not specifically and unambiguously stated in the book is not appropriate for wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to have been quite afew additions to this article recently with particular emphesis on the possibility of harry/hermione and the respective jelousies that hint towards this......... seems to me a bit of shipping is creeping into this article....prehaps an admin could take a look and see what you think. Dan 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not properly an issue where an admin would have any more authority than any other editor. We admins are not generally supposed to use our authority nor our sysop tools to make judgements over content issues. I agree that the Harmonian vs. OBHWF debate has no place within this article, but I say that as someone who contributes to Wikipedia, rather than as someone who has access to the sysop tools. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry I have no idea what sysop is, I merely pointed it out for someone with more wikipedia experience than I to cast thier eye over the article to either agree with or disagree with my opinion before any changes are made, I just put admin as you are the obvious choice as a more experienced wikipedian. Dan 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

She has sunk the H.M.S. Harmony. *sniff* *brightening up* unless it was a red herring! That's it! A red herring! HA! Stupid Ron/Hermione shippers on their stupid H.M.S. Harlod or something.

Wikipedia is not a fan site

The profusion of pictures in the article, to say nothing of the POV captions, are both in contravention with normal Wiki guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Image#Image choice and placement, WP:STYLE, and WP:NPOV for further details. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected the page as its been subject to some enthusiastic POV editing as of late. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Could you also slap on a {{protected}} on it to let everyone know that it's protected? Thanks, Deathphoenix 06:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You could do so yourself, you're an admin now right? I unprotected it anyway just now, we'll see how it goes. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not an admin. I'm flattered by your misconception, though. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The concentration of phoenixes (phoenices?) on this talk page is detrimental to Wikipedia, and must clearly be stopped. Soon everyone will be infected. → Ξxtreme Phoenix {^yakł_blah} 18:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

phoenixii? ;) --Syrthiss 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Phoenices are good for you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, with one more infected converted to our cause, we are now Extreme Evil Death. Any other people to convert? --Deathphoenix 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Phoenix... in Japanese!!!111 (Don't ask how the hell I found my way here...) -- Hinotori 05:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is hilarious. --Deathphoenix 13:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost in all this, there seems to be a general dissatisfaction with the number of images in this article. How many is enough? This article currently has one image from each of the movies, I think this should, at the very least, be the maximum for the major characters in the novel (which would also include Harry and Ron). However, I'm not sure if the article needs to have that many images. What do you guys think? --Deathphoenix 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines for image inclusion. The amount of images you have in an article is largely a matter of taste. And I'm generally reluctant to get pissy about matters of taste. Degustibus non disputanum and all that.

That said, if someone ELSE wants to go through the article with a chainsaw, you have my full support. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing for for Phoenicity :D ShardPhoenix 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Images placement

I fixed some of the image placement yesterday and it was reverted, after changing the size of my browser window I can see why the revert was done. The page renders fine if you use a pretty narrow browser window size. However when viewed in a slightly larger window the imaged cascade accross the screen because the text that comes with them does not reach all the way to the bottom of the image causing the next image not to be left justified. This can be fixed using {{clear}} But that causes excess whitspace in the article for some browser windo sizes. If there is a solution other than the one I tried and had reverted that will cause the images to go left justified but the text flow around them that would be nice. Or better yet ditch some of the images. Hermione != Emma Watson I think we shold at least replace the image at the top with a drawing, I don't know about how fair use applies but one fomr one of the book covers might do. In the mean time I will add the clear tags. Dalf | Talk 22:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hermione's Teeth

I was thinking about mentioning Hermione's unusually large and prominent "buck teeth", which are repeatedly mentioned in the novels (but not so much in the screenplays). Perhaps in the context of an ironic offshoot from the point that her Muggle parents are both dentists, and moreover that Hermione ended up getting them reduced herself at Hogwarts (Goblet of Fire). But we surely don't want to upset the "wiki editing guild" here - for all I know, someone else already mentioned her teeth (prior to Ron noticing they were reduced in GoF), and The Guild later removed it.

Thoughts about mentioning Hermione's teeth ... ?

OK, I'll do it. Serendipodous 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

British vs. American spelling

Does this really matter? Can we not just accept the fact that this is an open-source document available to the entire English speaking world, and that some areas will have different spelling conventions than others? Serendipodous 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is that articles over things British (or Australian, or anyplace else where British English prevails) should use British English, and that articles concerning things American (or anyplace else American English prevails) should use American English, and it's article-creator's choice on everything else.

Given that Harry Potter is thoroughly British, I believe that British English should prevail in Harry Potter-related articles. (Though I grant you that I'm not a fanatic about it and won't revert changes one way or the other.) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall consensus is to use British English and the British book titles since that is the way it was originally written by J.K. Rowling (and to use Philosopher's Stone instead of Sorceror's Stone since every other publisher besides the U.S. publisher uses the former and not the latter, but that's beside the point). --Deathphoenix 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tally ho. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is a bit dense

I think this article, particularly the opening paragraphs, is getting a bit too wordy. It could definitely use some trimming. Serendipodous 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look now. I've broken the introduction up a bit; the wordy text is still there, but at least the introduction itself is very short. -JohnRDaily 03:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (belatedly)

Aren't the parts of this article about her roles in the books a bit too long? Shouldn't they be shortened down to a reasonable length? Emily 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

CoS ending

At the very end of CoS, when Hermione returns to the mess hall, she publicly humiliates the little red Ron by refusing to hug him, unlike Potter. What is the hidden meaning of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The hidden meaning of that is that when people have crushes, they tend to go overboard on avoiding that person as not to seem like they have a crush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.30.38 (talk • contribs) 17:57 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No! You're both wrong! It's because she loves Harry more! It's because she loves Harry more!!!!!

Delusional! 71.99.22.212 14:13, 3 July

2006 (UTC)

She definitely has a crush on Harry, but since his love interest is Ginny, she goes with Ron, who loves her anyway. Am I over-analyzing? You bet I am. Am I right? There's a very good chance.^_^Seven-point-Mystic 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is really not that relavent, though you might want to study up on classic literary tequnis and also how teens are seen as potraying when they have a crush. In anyevent you may also want to read this essay: D’you Really Think They’re Suited?: Why Hermione is Not the Right Girl for Harry. That essay was obviously written before HBP but its quite good. I think you can also be pretty sure she does not have a crush on Harry based on her behavior in HBP. Dalf | Talk 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't have a crush on him any-more, but I believe, for the first four books, she did. It makes sence. Seven-point-Mystic 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I read that essay. Great stuff, great stuff. Seven-point-Mystic 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Heroines

But Hermione isn't a fictional heroine- Harry is the hero, and she's behind him all the way. Her shining moments are when she's being the best "sidekick" possible- she is smart and clever, but she's a sidekick, nothing more. I think that's why someone removed her from that category. Don't you guys agree? Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 18:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, I was the one who reverted the edit in question, mostly because it was completely uncommented). I think it depends how loosely you want to define "heroine." I'll agree that she's not the primary character, and that she could be considered a "sidekick." However, the first definition that Merriam-Webster gives for heroine is:

a : a mythological or legendary woman having the qualities of a hero, b : a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities

And when you go to hero, those qualities are:

a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage

In my personal opinion, I think Hermione falls under part b of the heroine definition (great achievements and qualities), and under parts a and d of the hero definition (great abilities and great courage). So, it depends how you want to define it. If you want to go by the strict, literary definition, she's certainly not the primary character of the book. However, based on a looser definition, she definately seems to fit. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she's a hero(ine) in multiple ways. Some say that a story can have only one protagonist; but the "only one per story" limit seems even rarer in the question of hero(in)es, especially if a story has both a male and a female character that might get the hero(ine) title. President Lethe 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a one per story limit but a dynamics of the story type thing. If a story has a number of co-equal characters who are all "good guys" then they can all qualify. But Hermione is only a helper character for Harry, she even spent a large portion of one of the books totally removed from the story line. For me its a matter of focus, and the books do not have a sufficent focus on her or even have her charcter devloped in such a way that she would qualify in my mind as a heroine. Dalf | Talk 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this category for a third time (in about 5 months) though it usually gets added back (by one or two people) winthin a short time. I think the category in question since it refers to fiction, is a litarary one. In terms of litrary criticism Hermione is by no streach of the imagination the heroine of the books. I Would like anyone wishing to re-add it to come up with some sort of reliable source that says that Hermione is the herione of the books. There have been many books writeen (well a few) about Harry Potter, if it exists I suspect it will not be hard to find. Dalf | Talk 07:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral judgemnents

I have altered the article slightly, due to some rather biased personal opinions creeping in about Hermione's "justified" actions in physically attacking Ron with canaries. I don't think it is the place of an encyclopedia to make moral judgements on the actions of characters, especially where opnions differ so much - it is an issue which should be down to the opinion of the reader.

Weasel word

"Many at the school have teased her for her looks, including, on one occasion, Professor Snape."

Exactly how many and who? I can only think of Draco Malfoy and Pansy Parkinson. 70.52.228.43 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about something like: "Many have have teased Hermione, either about her looks, including once by Professor Snape (GOF ch 18 after Draco's Densaugeo curse is deflected away from Harry towards Hermione), or about her sometimes bossy, know-it-all demeanor..." - which would also cover most of the teasing Hermione undergoes from even the non-Slytherins. Just a draft revision to kick around... --T-dot 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) 70.52.228.43 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Joanne and Jo-Anne

Regarding the removal of 'Joanne' as being derived from 'John', because it is reputedly short for Josephine Anne, I quote 'Oxford Minidictionary of First Names': "Joanne: (F) Old French Feminine form of 'John', which gave rise to the simplified English spelling 'Joan'. This form, with its markedly more feminine spelling, was revived in the early 2oth cent. It has to some extent been influenced by the independently formed combination Jo Anne."Michaelsanders 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a pic missing?

I think I remember that some time ago there was a pic in here from Hermione wearing her beautiful dress from the Yule ball. Where has that gone? It was the best of all the pix! --Maxl 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Interesting" and otherwise jolting parenthetical insertions

One of our otherwise faithful editors has repeated inserted the following in the main introductory paragraph, and I for one do not understand why it belongs:

Of all the given birthdays of the students in her year, Hermione's is the only one in 1979, making her the oldest (interestingly, she was born around a month before Harry Potter had even been conceived).

I have repeatedly removed the parenthetical insertion for the following reasons:

• It is unencyclopedic - "interesting" little trivial factoids that are otherwise unimportant do not belong in an encyclopedia. How is this trivia interesting? How is it important?
• "Interesting" is a point of view - in violation of the Neutral point of view policy.
• "It is interesting" is a form of weasel wording in violation of Avoid Weasel Wording. Interesting to who? Why?
• If it is not interesting universally, then it is not a true statement, in violation of verifiability. It is not interesting to me, therefore it is a false statement. I cannot verify that it is interesting to anyone, other than one editor.
• It is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. How is Hermione's birth date relative to Harry's conception relevant or important to either of them. Where are we going with this? What does it even mean, and how is it important in the novels or in the "real world"? Is it some kind of a reincarnation - karma thing that is interesting and important in some cultures? Or is it sort of like the birthing relationship between Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, where John came first, baptizing folks into repentance and "laying the groundwork" for Jesus' coming ministry? Is that what Hermione is doing with magic somehow? The phrase "...around a month...": is it like a lunar-month thing with the full moon coming into play, or perhaps the alignment of menstrual cycles or something bilogical like that? Or perhaps was there a race bet between the Potters and their dentists as to who was going to have a baby first, and the Grangers won? Or, wait - are we implying that Mr. Granger went rambling for a mistress while Mrs. Granger was recovering from childbirthing injuries suffered while delivering Hermione, and Lily Potter was a whore, unfaithful to her fiance, and that Harry is the spawn of Granger instead of James? Now THAT would be interesting, but it is probably untrue, and violates verifiability, reliable sourcing, and original research policies, so it still does not belong here. I cannot even imagine the fanatics on the HP fan forums would even care about Hermione's birthdate a month before Harry's conception.
• Unexpected parenthetical insertions of this sort are improper style in the main article of encyclopedia. Very short ones, used to modify the main thought or provide an exception, may be acceptable. This one has the form of a POV comment or editorial appended to a fact, which is not proper. Either use a comma, or start a new sentence (because unexpected parenthetical insertions like this one are distracting and look like POV editorial commentary rather than facts, down playing the importance of the previous thought, which was fine on it's own without it. (It is almost like saying: Ignore the previous sentence, this added section is what is really important right here!)). See how startling and distracting that is?

I am cleaning up this section, trying to make it encyclopedic, and removing the "offending" material. This is NOT a personal attack on the editor, who has otherwise been a very faithful and productive member of the HP "editing staff", and who has been removing vandalism and such. But please do not re-add parenthetical dangling personal commentaries and observations of this sort to sentences in the main article, without clearly explaining why they belong in the encyclopedia. Thanks! --T-dot 13:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just found it an 'interesting' (would 'striking' be more to your liking?) example of just how much older Hermione is than her friends, in particular Harry: that, despite their being friends, she was born when he was nothing (in contrast to Rowling's original idea, where she was only around two months younger than him). I did enjoy the ideas about the Grangers and the Potters (don't forget that the Granger sister is actually Harry's unknown sister who mysteriously appears in half-a-dozen fanfics near you! Usually with a name like Daisy.) Michaelsanders 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK perhaps now we are onto something! If Rowling stated, and we can prove with a verifiable link to a reliable source, that Rowling originally intended for Hermione to be two months younger than Harry, but then later made her to be ten months and twelve days older than Harry instead, perhaps in order to give Hermione some kind of "older, more mature, and sensible sister" status, which she frequently displays, then we can include that as part of a larger discussion of how Hermione's character "evolved" as Rowling developed the story. I believe I read in Rowling's web site scrap book "easter eggs", or elsewhere in the FAQ's, that Hermione also had at least one alternate last name, and she may have originally "had" a younger sister, and perhaps her parents had different occupations and some connections to the wizarding world - concepts that Rowling later abandoned. These "interesting factoids" certainly are germaine to the Hermione article, and can be included in an appropriate "points of interest" section. But I still think it is not the sort of thing that we should put in the main introductory section as a "by the way" dangling parenthetical comment, and just leave it there like a dead broken branch hanging off a tree. Thanks for the insight. --T-dot 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that she was originally supposed to be the youngest, and 'should' under that conception have been assigned to Ginny's year rather than tp Harry's explains why she is good friends with Ginny (two years younger than her in canon), and why it took until book 6 to have her 'angry phase'. Rowling apparently said that Hermione was the youngest of the Trio in March 2004, and that her intelligence and her parents managed to get her into school a year early. And then shot this down a few months later by stating that Hermione was the oldest, and that children can only begin Hogwarts once they pass their eleventh birthday.

As for the sister, Rowling said in 2004 at a World Book Day interview that she had always wanted to give Hermione a younger, muggle sister, but that it was too late to do so (I would bet that the child was called Perdita) [2].Michaelsanders 10:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would bring pictures up again

Does it bother anyone else that:

1. There are more pictures of Emma Watson on this page than there are at her own article.
2. There are no images of Hermione in the article that are not pictures of Emma.

Dalf | Talk 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - agreed this is a problem, and thank you for bringing it up (again). Trouble is there are so many young fans of Emma-as-Hermione, that as soon as the veterans delete a superfluous image, it becomes orphaned, and whoever uploaded it gets informed of that fact on their talk page, and they promptly post it back to avoid "losing" their favorite "screen shot".

I suppose we need to work out a special "style guide" with the Harry Potter project members (as was attempted with the nameplate color coding of character's "loyalties"). My view is that 3 images should be sufficient for any HP character. If we could figure out a proper "fair use" criteria, we could theoretically scan a suitable "canonical" Hermione image from one of the books - and that one should be the "primary" image illustrating the article, since the books came first. Then one fair use "studio - publicity" shot of Emma Watson posing as Hermione, perhaps showing her in robes with a wand; and then one fair use "action" screen shot showing "Hermione" doing something, perhaps along with with Harry and/or other major characters (I personally like the PoA one with her wand in Draco's face). Anyway if we can come up with a style-guide criteria to be used across all the important HP character articles, then we might converge on some kind of standard format that can be "enforced", when the newbies and fanatics come along and start posting the latest picture they found on a web site or forum somewhere, and thought it was the best picture yet, regardless of its pedigree. --T-dot 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very annoying, particularly as many fans of the books don't acknowledge Emma Watson as Hermione. It's a shame more fan art can't be added instead. And who keeps adding that photo of Emma in that hideous dress? It doesn't even resemble how the dress is described in the books. --Cosmic quest 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand the opposition to including user generated art to illastrate the article, assuming it coudl be properly sourced with a non-fairuse tag. There are a number of articles (even/especially in the sciences) that are illastrated with user generated images. It has been pointed out that this is a specal case for WP:NOR in those articles. Dalf | Talk 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone submitted their own art then there shouldn't be a problem. There must be an HP fan out there who has drawn some nice images of Hermione that could be used for the site. Maybe then, kids will see there is more to Hermione than Emma Watson and what is shown about her in the films --Cosmic quest 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

when rumours are all we have...

I was about to remove the last anon add to the article,

 Many rumours are that Hermione and Ron may indeed get together!

but decided to leave it, since it is referring to book 7, and it is ALL rumours at this point. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I removed it. There is a difference between deductions from clues given in previous books or by Rowling herself on what might happen in Book 7 and rumours (especially those with no citation). ArthurWeasley 07:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • All speculation needs to be removed, I shouldn't even need to give a reason. Mainly the Hermione jealousy concerning Fleur. John Reaves 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hermione the Cat image

Would it be necessary to upload the image of Hermione Granger that turned into a cat after drinking a potion, although her cat appearance ONLY appears in the Chamber of Secrets and put it under the Chamber of Secrets headline. --PJ Pete