Talk:Hermione Granger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bold rewrite + GAC

Hi there, I just boldly rewrote the article to make it a good article, if everything works. I firmly enforced WP:NOR and WP:WAF (bye bye, in universe cruft) and made my article so it is to at least 80% out of universe, with real life refs. Feedback and wikignoming are appreciated.

To all the in universe editors: I really assume good faith, but I am afraid that only little of your input is lastly Wikipedia-worthy. Probably the Harry Potter Wikia is a better place for you.

REMARK: a lot of refs go to "accio-quote". Technically, it may fail WP:RS, but they are transcripts of radio / video interviews. These interviews are available, but linking to them is a violation of WP:EL. —Onomatopoeia 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mercury relation?

There seems to be a little speculation (Looking for God in Harry Potter by John Granger) that Hermione and Ron's relationship is modeled after alchemy, and that Ron represents Sulfur (associated with red, ruggedness) and Hermione represents Mercury (her initials are the same as the symbol for Mercury, both the substance and planet; "Hermione" is even the feminine form of "Hermes"). While Rowling has a different story for naming her character, are these connections notable enough to put onto the page, even as a figurative footnote? -K2JMan 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, at first blush, I am thinking that because the guy actually wrote a book on it, that in itself makes it noteworthy. You need to quote the books exactly as the author says it, and make absolutely, positively sure (emphasis on positively) that none of your personal viewpoints make it into the article - as me or another Cruft Eather™ will stamp it out unhesitatingly. Do you really think the guy's comments actually add something to the article it is missing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, at first glance this lights my Cruft-o-meter right up to the sky. In its favour John Granger seems to be a well published author in the field of interpretive religion in fiction but this sounds much too much like the POVPushers who try to uncover the "hidden X" in Rowling's works (where x in {Politics, Communism, Fascism, Paganism, Witchcraft etc}). I must have heard a thousand fan theories over the years about how any given relationship or series of events is modelled after alchemy, all usually in contradiction with each other. My gut feeling would be to leave this well alone as it would be little more than swapping an editors original research for John Granger's. Aula^TPN 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed!

To review, I will say that it stable, since the rewrite is of such a high quality and radical article improvement isn't the same as, say a revert war. It is also very complete, well written, and appropriately sectioned. Your image has a fair use rationale, and overall it is a very strong article now, remarkable for such a short time!

For future expansion as you move toward Featured Status, some things to do; a section on hermione in popular culture would be great, as she must be referenced by now. Also, keep filling in the details of her development by Rowling, and as that grows, you can add some more information to her appearances.

Congratulations! Judgesurreal777 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yooohoo!! :)) —Onomatopoeia 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Cruft Eaters™ looked on in approval. Yay, they said, their faces still, eyes flitting about, seeking more cruft with which to sate their voracious hunger.. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Oh and Arcayne, you need to make a Cruft Eaters™ userbox - you know it makes sense! Aula^TPN 07:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew how. I am not Mister Artistic, but I would love to create barnstar from a design I have in mind. Interested parties shouls send me a message. I also don't know how to make a Userbox. It would be a plain white box with a deaths's head and the message: CruftEater Local 665: eating cruft since 2007, or some such thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Typing {{User:AulaTPN/User CruftEater}} will give you

File:Skull logo.jpg

CruftEater™ Local 665 Eating cruft since 2007

Aula^TPN 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Friggin' brilliant! Cruft-Eaters of the Wiki'ing World, destroy! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sic

Hermione however has "there is a lot of insecurity and a great fear of failure" beneath her [sic] "swottiness". What is the meaning of "sic" here? I am aware that "sic" normally points out a spelling mistake or grammatical error in a quotation, but "sic" should probably follow rather than precede the quoted word. The word "her" isn't part of the quotation and doesn't appear to be ungrammatical anyway. If the word "swottiness" is being referred to, the "sic" should come after it. However, the word "swottiness" is neither misspelt nor ungrammatical, so there should be no sic after it, either. The mere fact that a word is a British colloquialism doesn't warrant a "sic". -86.134.90.115 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See here for a definition of 'swot' (and other English slang). It isn't a misspelling, so using 'sic' isn't appropriate any more than the multiple (and to my reckoning utterly stupid) uses of the word 'phat'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, fixed the wikilinkage. turns out there is a Dab page for the term. Yippee. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth year

Hermione, therefore, was born in 1979. The birth year has been subject to debate by North America in particular, where a child's current grade is based on their year of birth. In the UK, however, it is based on your age as of September 1st of that year; therefore, her birth year of 1979 is in concordance with the British education system.

I know that Hermione's birth year has been subject to debate, but the statement that "a child's current grade is based on their year of birth" in North America is wrong. At least in the United States, a child's grade is based on their age as of a certain date, though what that date is varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (anywhere from mid-June to early October, as far as I know). For example, students who graduated from high school in the U.S. in 2007 were born, generally speaking, either in late 1988 or early 1989. Therefore, someone with better knowledge and citations needs to fix this statement. I don't have either. 172.131.60.92 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense

the intro is incorrectly written in the present tense. I'm not sure it should say that she IS a student at Hogwarts etc. Rowling has finished the books now, and the last time we seen Hermione she is a middle aged mother. It would probably be better to write the intro in the style " Hermione is a character who throught the course of the books studied at Hogwarts. "Wizlop 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused about this for a while, too. the consensus appears to be that events that happen before a book are referred to in the past tense, whereas events that happen in the course of the book are in the present tense. For example, Hermione was born a Muggle, versus Hermione punches Malfoy, or Hermione duels with Greyback. Hope that helps. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I think perhaps it would be useful to include a breif line in the intro such as "throughout the books...." before the bit about her studying at Hogwarts. As such it would read " Throughout the books Hermione is a Gryffindor student at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. She is Harry Potter's and Ron Weasley's best friend. " This still retains the present tense, but makes it clear as to the context of that tense - IE during her time at Hogwarts. User:Wizlop|Wizlop]] 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents: per WP:WAF present tense is the correct tense to use when writing about fiction, with occasional exceptions. But present tense is the general rule. (I've just re-read what Arcayne wrote, and we pretty much say the same thing. One thing, though: Hermione is muggle-born, but was never a muggle. If you're a witch/wizard, you are one from birth, there is no "becoming" one. :]) Faithlessthewonderboy 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty when using present tense in an introduction/breif summary is that without putting it in context it will often contradict itself. With Hermione it is valid to describe her as a Hogwarts student in the present tense- but it is equally valid to describe her as a mid 30's mother in the present tense. Without context, it can become confusing. Just a to compare- Would you say (in a general introduction) that Lupin WAS a teacher at Hogwarts, or IS a teacher at Hogwarts? The wiki article Remus Lupin correctly uses the present tense by placing it in context, and then correctly uses the present tense in context to refere to his later career. As such I feel that it would be useful to add some thing like " During the harry Potter series of books... "Wizlop 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just something I noticed here in the talk section: Wizlop, I find it somewhat humourous that you consider 37 or, at the outside, 38, to be 'middle-aged'.;)DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The story doesn't happen in the past, or the present, or anything except in a fictional setting, so don't let an in-universe perspective skew the writing of the article. Present tense is generally appropriate. The phrase "During the Harry Potter series..." would also be completely redundant, as Hermione Granger does nothing outside of the Harry Potter series. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times, and in how many different ways

does this article need to mention that Hermione is loosely based on JK Rolwing as a child? Surely we could tone that down somewhat. It makes the article a bit repetitive. Serendi^podous 09:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

I agree, it is rather over used. For example when it says Hermione's Patronius is an otter that is probably enough information- its not really relevant to know that it is also Rowling's favourite animal- that sort of trivia probably belongs on Rowling's page. In fact, most of the Hermione-is-based-on-Rowling stuff probably belongs on Rowling's page. Isn't the purpose of this page to describe the charcter herself, rather than the artisitc inspiration behind her? Alternativly, possible a seperate paragraph called "Inspiration behind the charcter" would be useful.Wizlop 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Straight A Student

This article uses the term "Straight A student." I feel that this isn't appropriate. It is basically American slang, based on the schooling system in America. In Britain the term isn't used for numerous reasons. Firstly some schools do not use the grading system for internal examples- for example the best mark might be "7". The National curriculum now aims to mark children at levels, rather than grades. Finally although GCSE's are maked with letters " A " is not, in fact, the best grade. A* is the best grade. I'm not saying that the article needs to be from British perspective, but I do think the slang term would be better if replaced with "student who always achieves top marks" or similar. Furthermore, if taken in the context of the Harry Potter world then the term "straight A student" is wrong. At Hogwarts an "A" stands for acceptable- the best Grade being "O" for outstanding.Wizlop 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) MORE- sorry, forgot to signWizlop 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I've junked it. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Rename

Hermione Weasley anyone?? 58.178.79.57 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. She's known for 6 of the books and most of the 7th as Hermione Granger. The article is for easy location and best identification. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles for women married late in the series should definately not be renamed, but how about adding their married name to the first line of the article, and setting that name up as a redirect? -- AvatarMN 09:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the redirect idea, but their names should not be updated in the opening, for spoiler reasons. Spoilers in the plot summary is fine, but should not be in the title, opening or infobox. faithless (^speak) 11:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

why would a femenist (who happens to be a lot more capable then Ron at magic) in the 90's/ 2000's take their husbands last name?

Even better question, why are we debating this nonsensical fancruft here? It isn't mentioned inthe book. It isn't mentioned by JKR. Can this topic head back to the circle jerk of the fanboards? Please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And some feminists do take their husbands name. It's tradition, not weakness. Therequiembellishere 19:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a tradition AND a weakness. Someone can be a feminist and still make a foolish mistake like taking her husband's name.

They don't actually say that she changed her name to Weasley, anyway, do they? She could be Ms. Granger, or Mrs. Granger-Weasley, for all we know.--Dark Green 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Lead does not follow WP guideline: see Lead.

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

no evidence. alot of people get married and keep there last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texib0 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Criteria

This article does not meet GA criteria: see Wikipedia:What is a good article?. The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Try expanding it some. See WP:LEAD for more information. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this article?! It was a GA just two weeks ago; now it's not very good, and a lot of information has been removed. Was there a good reason for this, or did just no one realize that the article was being wrecked? faithless (^speak) 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be reverted back to when it was passed. Judgesurreal777 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it to the GA passing version. Judgesurreal777 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not do that. A lot of people may have added in good, solid info in the interim. We are better off finding out precisely what caused the GA loss. For all we know, some clown could have had it removed because we wouldn't post some fanboy's fantasy about her. Don't be hasty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, after about 2 weeks the article has cleanup tags on it? It needs to be restored and then anything useful can be added back. Judgesurreal777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clean-up can occur without potentially removing good edits. If it needs clean-up, then clean it up. Reverting back to an earlier version is akin to vandalism, because you are tossing out the baby with the bathwater. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the baby is microscopic and the bathwater is putrid, you can always put the baby back with a few minor edits. Now we have to extensively reedit the article that's bee filled with junk, it's a waste of our time. Judgesurreal777 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Judge, I don't think i agree with your assessments about either the baby or the bathwater. In the edit,w e lose some pretty solid citations and the like. However, if you think that the only way to fix it is to revert to the GA-version, then I won't revert you again. You usually are on solid footing for your decisions. If you are prepared to sift through the edits that you will revert out to find the good stuff, please do so. I would also suggest that you ask an admin to sem0protect the article for awhile, to keep the anon IP users from cocking up the article whilst you fix it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to go along with editing the article as is, but if we get into GA review, I think it should be reverted back. :) Judgesurreal777 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not get a peer review to find out where the article's weaknesses are? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan :) Judgesurreal777 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender naming conventions.

Okay. If women take the last name of their husband and integrate them into their names, since Hermione marries Ron, shouldn't the article be listed as Hermione Granger Weasley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin mills (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1) She is generally known as Hermione Granger.

2) Not every woman uses both surnames; many simply use their husbands'.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3) Ron could even be Ron Granger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.255.194 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe she's changed her name so she's just 'Hermione,' like Cher or Seal. (giggle) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Crookshanks

Cat has no notability on its own, if Hedwig got merged to owls of HP, crookshanks should be merged too. Judgesurreal777 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone get Magical Cat Animal Control on the line, pls. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Nice. Yeah, I agree, merge it.69.109.220.172 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And I would also suggest to make that article/section for Crookshanks shorter and less detailed. Lord Opeth 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, if the recent edit by someone trying to add the Crookshanks info is any indication, the merge shouldn't happen. It is a friggin' cruft-eater's buffet! If its going to be used, incoroprate it into the existing article, not just by adding a new section about what is (at the very best) a topical concern. Crookshanks is not Artoo Deetoo; it has no vital part of the story. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. I have just read again the Crookshanks article and nothing it says is notable, except this paragraph:

“ J.K. Rowling has confirmed that Crookshanks is half kneazle, giving an explanation for his higher than normal cat intelligence and stature. Because of this, he was immediately aware that Scabbers, Ron Weasley's pet rat, was not a real rat, and that the huge black dog lurking around the school was not a real dog. Crookshanks was proved right - Scabbers was in fact Peter Pettigrew, and the dog was Sirius Black. Sirius eventually persuaded Crookshanks to trust him and sent him to bring Pettigrew to him; Crookshanks, who had been pouncing on Scabbers from the moment the two had met, evidently agreed. ”

I think that some summary of this could be added to the Prisoner of Azkaban section of Hermione's article without adding a particular section for Crookshanks. Lord Opeth 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Filtering in, not merging in.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's just merge the damn thing, and then we can trim it, a LOT. Judgesurreal777 15:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on "Crookshanks" in the Kneazle entry and it redirected me to the Hermione page. Does that mean the article's been eliminated outright? Beemer69 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess it was merged per this discussion. Judgesurreal777 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with ron, a bit over the top?

i noticed that its been removed at the moment, but i have seen it flicking in and out of the article every so often.

there is a rather elaborate section describing the relationship with Ron. trouble is, there is a hell of alot that is not proven to be genuin. for example, it noted that Ron went out with Lavender simply because he was jelous of learning that Hermione had kissed Krum. as a h/h shipper, i dont believe this for one second and certainly am not letting you h/r fans get away with anything that isnt unquestionable. he could just have easily been, and probably more likely was, hurt by Ginnys words of his lack of experience and took the chance during a party. there where a few others aswell, for example, saying that Ron seemed more effected by Hermione beeing pretrified in the 2nd film.

maybe we should tone down the excess a little bit. i mean, the Harry Potter shipping wars is extremerly sensitive. i heard on this very website of one guy saying on TV that the H/H shippers where deluded. it started a huge uproar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texib0 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. No one here is interested in "shipping" or any such nonsense. I don't think anyone here is a "h/r fan" and, by the way, Harry-Hermione shippers were delusional. There was never anything in the books to suggest a relationship between them. At all. faithless (^speak) 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, i understand that this is an encyclopedia. however, i really dont think you got the point. whether it is to do with shipping or not, its still incorrect and therefore needs changing.

i would be carefull about what you say. i dont think you understand quite how serious some people take it. the fact that you said "there was never anything in the books to suggest a relationship" proves you are not thinking of the story line from the point of view of a h/hr shipper. there are alot of things in the story that suggest a relationship, and its been noted by the biggest ship out there. but of course, if you say there was never any suggestion then it must be right.

but its besides the point. to sum up, somebody has been editting in faulse statements to support the r/h ship. its not genuine, therefore needs removal.

apologise for the dodgy spelling. Texib0 21:53 01 October 2007

Don't worry about the spelling, but there's no need to get snippy. Besides, I said right off that I didn't understand what you were getting at. Be careful about what I say? What's that supposed to mean? There is nothing in the books that suggest a relationship between Harry and Hermione and *SPOILER* Ron and Hermione get married and have kids at the end. Of course I'm not "thinking of the story line from the point of view of a h/hr shipper." Aside from being obviously wrong since at least the third novel, it was proven wrong by the last book. faithless (^speak) 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to regret asking this, but what is a h/hr shipper? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A ship in books is the term used to describe a relationship. in the Harry Potter books there are alot of them. for example, there is a Harry/Ginny ship, and a Ron/Hermione ship, and a Harry/Hermione ship. all the people who support a certain ship are called shippers. a H/H (sometimes know as H/Hr) shipper is somebody who supports the Harry/Hermione ship, like me. the 3 biggest are probably the H/H, R/H and H/G ships. its a very touchy subject and many people get upset by it, but *spoilers* in the 7th book it turns out to end as a h/g, r/h romance. Even so, people still tend to stick to there ship personally, even if they dont try and convince anybody further.

but like i said, forget all the shipping aspects. the section said that Ron went out with Lavender to get back at Hermione, which is false. Ron dated Lavender after Ginny taunted him for his lack of experience with woman.

Texib0 15:54 03 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.186.114 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, I see - relationship. Wow, Potter fans must be in a huge hurry, needing to drop off the first three syllables to get their point acorss before someone else can post. Good thing they didn't settle on the second syllable, otherwise we might be talking about the Ron/Hermione 'lay.' lol

Anyway, thanks for answering that, Texib0. Unfortunately, it isn't really notable here, because what is implied but not said cannot be included in Wikipedia. Find a reviewer who comments on it, and you're in business. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, HP fans can't take the credit (blame?) for "ship"/"shippers", I've seen the terms used often about characters in TV shows. V-train 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Change I made

I changed the bit in the Apperance section about when Hermione learned that Lupin is a werewolf. She was able to figure that out after completing Professor Snapes homework assignment on Werewolves, not during the confrontation in the Shreiking Shack Halstrom 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read the book and I guess I had the movie stuck in my head when I wrote that. Sorry. Beemer69 08:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hermione's magical prowess

There appears to be next to nothing about this in here, however if I add it will you guys be trying to delete it? It seems pretty crucial to her character to discuss her aptitude.JJJ999 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The very first paragraph includes the line, As the books progressed, she became head of her class and used her vast intelligence to help Harry Potter. From the second paragraph: The daughter of two dentists, Hermione is an overachiever who shows considerable academic prowess when compared to her close friends and classmates, and she is described by Rowling as a "very logical, upright and good" character. As far as inherent magical power, I don't think Hermione is particularly powerful. Obviously she's about the cleverest and most intelligent character, but she doesn't really display exceptional magical power (for instance, she has trouble performing some of the more difficult spells, but she is clever enough to use fake galleons to communicate with the DA). So clearly she's much smarter and clever than (for example) Harry, but doesn't possess his degree of magical aptitude (which is considerable). faithless (^speak) 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Right folks, I've worked out what's going on with the IPA changes. Two related edits are being conflated here and the anonymous editor's refusal to discuss them here is causing unnecessary confusion.

1. The editor is changing the {{IPA-en}} template to the new {{pron-en}} template.
2. The editor is changing the phonetic transcription of Hermione's name.

Regarding the first issue, this new pronunciation template is being pushed in many areas of wiki. So far the only justification for the change I have heard is the weasel-word-ridden "many people find it easier to read" but I'm guessing that debate is out of the scope of this talk page.

Regarding the second, the editor is making a point about rhotic accents. As the Harry Potter articles are all written using British English style (per WP:MOS) we should be striving to transcribe characters' names using RP accents. RP is non-rhotic which means that the post-vowel r is hardly ever pronounced i.e. Huh-my-on-ee. The previous IPA transcription had a vocalic r which is thusly incorrect - it should be a schwa. Aula^TPN 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not discussing the pronunciation issue above, I just didn't think a discussion was warranted, obviously I was wrong.

Now, what is wrong with using the {{pronEng}} template rather than the {{IPAEng}} template: /wɜːrd/ removes the cumbersome "IPA" from pronounced /wɜːrd/ and links the IPA help page with the word "pronounced". To me using {{tl|pronEng}} is an aesthetically better choice. --203.94.135.134 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal objection is for the simple reason that we can't assume that casual readers of Wiki know as much as we do. I think it's helpful and informative to let people who aren't familiar with IPA (and maybe aren't familiar with any system of phonetic transcription) know that the garbled symbols are actually from a specific scheme and that the scheme being used is IPA. Especially when there are still thousands of articles on Wiki which have used other (and occasionally totally non-standard) phonetic transcriptions. Aula^TPN 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean "real world" explanations, I'm pretty sure she have stated how it should be pronounced. Plus all the readings she's done? Chandlertalk 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I think that we should stick with IPA, though, as it is an internationally recognized standard (and therefore more verifiable). People who change templates to push an agenda are not very cool. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, all I was doing was removing what I thought was an unnecessary bit of jargon. The template I changed to was still pointing to the IPA help page and IPA was still being used in the pronunciation. I do not understand what you mean by "internationally recognized standard" and how I was changing from that standard? And finally thanks for the personal attack. --203.94.135.134 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About the r being pronounced or not, havent JKR stated the right pronunciation because of that many from the beginning didnt know how the name should be pronounced? So there must be references available? I guess i always use the "r" because i pronounce it differently (but with the r) in english and swedish ;) Chandlertalk 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, she does have Hermione explain it to Krum in GoF, if that's what you're talking about? faithless (^speak) 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I pronounce it so it rhymes with 'Bertram', which is why I think having a pronunciation key for uncommon names is pretty helpful. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chamber of Secrets

I recently watched the movie of The Chamber of Secrets and the article says Hermione herself doesn't know what a mud-blood is but it was harry who didn't know what a mud-blood is not her. I tried to change this but it got reverted. - Dethom (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the instances where the movie differs from the book. We go by the book, so to speak. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)