Talk:List of supporting Harry Potter characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bathilda Bagshot

I think that Bathilda can be considered a mayor character, her role is very important in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, she is more important than a lot of characters that doesn't appear in this list. --200.75.94.42 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No she's not, she's a minor. Especially if you consider the whole book series, she does not even appear (until after her death) she's only mentioned. And as characters like Krum or Dung are here, she is absolutely a minor character. Chandlertalk 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that in The Prisoner of Azkaban, as Harry's under his covers while writing a report on the history of witch burning, a different History of Magic author is given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.40.54 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The major characters are obviously Harry, Ron, Hermione, Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore, Draco Malfoy (though Malfoy is, already, an "on the edge" sort of case for being a major character). Then we might add, perhaps, Hagrid and Ginny Weasley; even characters of undoubted somewhat importance, like Neville, Luna, Mr and Mrs Weasley, the Twins, Prof. McGonagall, Sirius or Bellatrix Lestrange are not so really major characters, to be silent of a Bathilda Bagshot.--2001:A61:20FC:7B01:E80B:CDD9:66DD:18A0 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I am of the opinion that this article, despite it's status of stub is comprehensive and if merged would need to be watered down, Arabella Figg does have a significant role in the fifth book and perhaps sh should have her own article? AiselneDrossel 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am unsure about Figg (although her significance is minimal), but I do believe that Gabrielle Delacour should be Merged with this article. -Inventm 04:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I definitly don't think that she has a big enough part in the book to have her own article. The reason there is a Harry Potter Wiki is to take care of all the minor cheracters. If not just deleting all info, we should just merge her into this article.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

inserting anyone here is no reason to delete information about them. If there is too much information to fit comfortably here, then they need their own article. Sandpiper 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that we should merge Gabrielle Delacour, she is a minor character. -Lemonflash^talk 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge everyone but Tonks. All the others are minor enough to be here. Tonks should be up for further discussion. Valley2city 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge Tonks or Mundungus. They are pivotal characters in Deathly Hallows.

Andromeda Tonks is a minor character and should be merged. Her daughter (Nymphadora Tonks aka "Tonks") is notable. I disagree with the merge proposal for Nagini, though, especially since she was a horcrux. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

7 Letters...

I'm just noting that the entry on Bridget Wenlock is confusing: it says that JK Rowling has 7 letters in her first and last name, while in reality she doesnt: Joanne has 6 letters. Is this referring to Bridget Wenlock, (7 letters in both) or just a mistake?62.108.16.246 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've edited to read "Even Bridget Wenlock's name has ...". I think its much clearer.62.108.16.246 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wizards of the month.

I was wondering if Wizards of the month should really be mentioned here. Although they can be presumed to be characters in the Potterverse they aren't really likly to show up in the books. E-flah 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is 'minor Harry Potter characters'. Not 'minor characters from the Harry Potter books'. The presumption is on the character originating from Rowling, not on appearing in the books - all information she releases is as much part of 'the canon' as the books themselves. Michael Sanders 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But there are so many minor characters. If we put them all, the page will soon become too long. The Lexicon has nearly 100 characters, we can't possibly put them all here. Would it be all right to put this link on the bottom of the page? http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/wizards_list.html It has every character in the Potterverse world.Therequiembellishere 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the page ever gets too long, that would be worth considering. Until then, there is no need to change it. Michael Sanders 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But considering that people who want a complete encyclopedia keep adding characters, the page will be way over the limit; I actually agree that we should limit this to characters to at least appear in the series.Therequiembellishere 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. This really isn't a major issue - this article is perfectly manageable at the moment, so there is no need to restrict what is included. If and when there comes a day when it is out of control (possibly as soon as the new book), we can decide what to do. But until then, it is more unnecessary to restrict article inclusion, for the sake of "what if?"s. Michael Sanders 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One possible compromise is to list all the wizards of the month in bulletpoint form in one single section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. Therequiembellishere 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the time has come that the page has become too long. I am a big Harry Potter fan, but most of the characters on this page don't have dialouge from the book and the book would still be the same if the characters were taken out of the books. If you're really think about it, most of these characters belong on the Harry Potter Wiki, not Wikipedia. This page really needs some major cleaning.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just removed the Wizard of the Month section because I beleive it to be very plainly against WP:NB and/or WP:NOTE. These 'characters' are not even in the book series and have no dialouge in the books. If these charcters were taken out of JK Rowlings books (If actually in any of the books...) there would be no significant change to the books. If you look at a universal stand point, not just within the Harry Potter universe, you can see that these fictional characters are not near notable enough to have mention in this article in Wikipedia.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stan Shunpike.jpg

Image:Stan Shunpike.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stan Shunpike?

I thought that Stan Shunpike, while chasing Harry and Hagrid at the chase scene, was acting upon the Imperius Curse, so he wasn't a Death Eater? (I may be totally wrong, however)

That's only what Harry believed, there is not evidence either way 86.141.170.82 11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldnt state that he was imperiused. There is technically NO evidence that he was. Harry wants to believe it but that doesn't make it true? If I don't get a response, I'm gonna toss the imperiused part off his profile in a couple days. Alamar2001 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added more to his entry, pointing out that Stan was known to give Fenrir Greyback "a bit of work", meaning handing over muggle-borns for bounties and that it calls into question whether he was Imperiused or not.

Importance

This article has many people in it that have no part in the book at all. One example is 'Andros the Invincible'. This person doesn't have any dialouge or anything in the book. Wikipedia should not take care of these characters, they are less than minor. That is what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. I'm going to try to take some of these characters out of the article, as they do not belong here.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amount of Information

Some articles that are being considered merged with this article have a large amount of information. It would be stupid to shorten the information and merge the articles (I always say 'the more information the better'!). (Unsigned)

I disagree with 'the more information the better', especially when the information is original research or poorly written (or even just a plot summary). Also, please remember to sign your articles with four tildas (~). CaveatLector^Talk 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is enough information on Nagini that Nagini should definitely stay as a separate page. Subsequent editors often fix problems with poor writing styles, or find more research to support points of view in the articles. Userafw 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point about the Nagini article and other articles that needs to be made, it that these characters are not important enough to have their own article. Certainly in the series Nagini was important; it was a horcrux. But if you look at it from a universal standing point, Nagini isn't that important. Right now there are so many HP related articles that belong in the Harry Potter Wiki, not Wikipedia and I think Nagini is one of them.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pius Thicknesse

I put him in the Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter article, because this is, where he belongs. Neville Longbottom 17:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cadmus Peverell

Although it is obvious that the resurrection stone was passed down to the Gaunt family, it is also clearly stated that Cadmus kills himself to join the woman he never married. The fact that he even summoned her from dead implies that he wasn't married and died before he could pass it on. Thoughts?

I pointed this out on a discussion forum after reading the book but someone pointed out that it's just a fairy tale, and although the Peverells were real we don't know that the tale accurately describes what happened to them. 91.105.32.187 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Celestina Warbeck

As she is mentioned as a popular singer in the Harry Potter wizarding universe, shouldn't she be added here? Simply south 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead! ;) --89.49.134.171 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Victoire Weasley -- Placement

Why is Victoire in the Minor Harry Potter characters section? She is in the Grandchildren of the Weasley Family section as well.

SapphireSprite 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns - Wizard of the Month

Do we know the provenance of the information from these? The art is fan-art, and a lot of the site is populated by fan-cruft. I think we need to clearly be able to prove that this info is coming from JKR herself, or it needs to be removed right quick. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Florean Fortescue

I followed a link on the Diagon Alley Page. It said Florean Fortescue but when I got here there wa no mention of him. Could somebody fix that because I haven't got a clue how to!! 90.194.220.14 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting Mr. Fortescue in the article, but somebody keeps removing him, without explanation. Perhaps because all the available information is already in the Diagon Alley article. That would be acceptable, but the explanation should be given, really. Erudil 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) . It is not "unsigned." Erudil=Das Baz. Erudil 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The user who has removed it has given a reason. Please review the history. faithless (^speak) 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the book authors and owners of stores are incidental characters. Florean's former section is larger than his appearances in the book (and the section is about 2 lines). This article about "Minor characters" features characters with some involvement or participation in the plot but that do not fit in other articles (students, staff, dark wizards, ministry, etc.) Maybe we can edit the link from the Diagon Alley article to redirect to the List of HP characters or remove the link itself. Lord Opeth 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Augusta Longbottom and Stan Shunpike

Somebody please ask Mistress Jo Rowling whether Augusta survived the battle and whether Stan was evil or imperiused. Thank you. Erudil 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that, until this is claryfied, we should remove both questions. Lord Opeth 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Teddy's full name

Did Jo say that Teddy's full name is Ted Remus Lupin? Because, on page 515 of the American hardback edition, Lupin makes a toast "To Teddy Remus Lupin" — that, to me, indicates that Teddy is Teddy's full first name, not Ted. — Charity (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If the boy is named "after Dora's father", then Teddy is just a puppet name for Ted. Lord Opeth (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A person can be named after someone without being given the exact same name — a girl named Caitlin could be named after her grandmother Catherine. Furthermore, Ted Tonks's real name could have been Teddy, or even Theodore. It just doesn't make sense for Lupin to make a toast to "Teddy Remus Lupin" if his real name is Ted Remus Lupin. That would be like making a toast to Bill Arthur Weasley instead of William Arthur Weasley. — Charity (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image removals

The images on this page have been removed per Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images. One user who put them back cited Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images, I assume citing point 5 specifically. While that might seem valid, it is further modified by what I cited. Yes we can use screenshots. For example, we could use one on Lord Voldemort (which does). That's acceptable. But, the use of the images here on this character list is not acceptable. Please do not re-insert the images as this violates our policies on minimal fair use usage and the guideline descendant from it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have not yet given an acceptable reason for removing the images, as far as I can see. As you said, use of screen shots is permissible, and they are often used. Why would you say that it is acceptable for the Voldemort article and not here? BTW, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Still, until a reason is given, the pictures should stay. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AS said in Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images, any fair use image is not allowed to be used in any sort of list, as a list of charcters or such is not notable enough to be covered under fair use. ~ Bella Swan 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII achieved FA status - it is a list of characters and uses images too. Lord Opeth (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in these types of cases, what is said at Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images sort of trumps (for lack of a better word) Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images. Specifically, where Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images says

The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements is generally unacceptable because it usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8).

I have emphasized the word 'usually' here, as I believe that a list of fictional characters is one such example of when using non-free images (in this case, screenshots) is acceptable. And as Lord Opeth pointed out, there is precedent here, with at least one such article even attaining FA status. faithless (^speak) 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'trumping' going on. If there was, we could just as well state that the unacceptable part trumps the acceptable part. They work in concert, not at odds with each other. Both parts of the guideline are important to understand how screenshots can be used. They may NOT be used on character lists. See the unacceptable images part as previously cited and follow it. A group image is acceptable. Individual images per character are not. If the edit warring continues to attempt to force these images back onto the article, I will recommend blocks. Note that upholding our non-free content criteria is not subject to WP:3RR restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here has until now been able to discuss this rationally and civilly, and I would encourage you to modify your tone. Threatening people with blocks is not only uncivil, but is downright ridiculous in this case, as there has been no edit warring. Again, precedent is against you here. I admit that this is an odd case, as the guideline contradicts itself. But you're ignoring one part in favor of another, when, again, precedent is to do otherwise. Aside from the FA article mentioned above, I give you List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters, List of minor Star Wars droids, List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters, List of minor Star Wars characters, etc. And that's just a few articles for one series. Not only does the guideline allow for the use of screenshots, but there is ample precedent for allowing them in these sorts of articles. Hammersoft, I urge you to remain civil, as everyone else here has done, and not to remove the images again without consensus. faithless (^speak) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No edit warring you say? Please have a look at [1]. Since I removed the images according to policy 31 hours ago, the images have been re-instated three times. Edit warring has most emphatically been happening. My comments were aimed to stop that from continuing. As to precedent, the existence of images on lists like this does not make policy. The foundation's mission, resolution, and our local edp policy and guideline stand against this usage. You insist there is disagreement in the guideline. There isn't. As I noted above, they work in concert to best describe the application, not at odds with each other. I'm quite aware there's plenty of articles that are in violation of this policy. I can cite you just as many where the images have been removed under this policy. Consensus already exists to remove the images. If they are re-instated against policy, I will remove them and recommend blocks. This policy is no different in that respect than any other policy. Acting against our policies here is not acceptable editing and will not be tolerated. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you have been asked not to re-introduce your edits without consensus in this Talk page and you did it again. Please, until we manage to get a result out of this discussion, the images should remain. Faithless and I have provided links to other lists of fictional characters using image. We can use that screenshots to illustrate the characters we are refering to. Unlike many other lists (e.g. List of James Bond henchmen in GoldenEye), we are using only one image per character. --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please consider this your first warning for incivility. A couple of civil reverts does not an edit war make. Please stop threatening to have other editors blocked for disagreeing with you. Yes, since you removed the images multiple editors have reinstated them. Perhaps you should step back and consider why this has happened. You have been reverted by more than one editor, shown the specific guideline to support those reverts, and shown that this is common practice on Wikipedia. A look through your talk page history shows that you have been at this for some time now, going from page to page trying to remove images from Wikipedia, and not having much success. Also, please format your discussions properly; do not insert an asterisk before your comments. Other editors have expressed their suspicion that you are a sock, and this practice suggests the same to me. And contrary to what you might think, sock puppetry is not acceptable. If, as you claim, consensus exists to remove images from articles such as this, please do show it to us. Until you do, the images stay. faithless (^speak) 05:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it several better. I'll consider it the final warning and note that is it not relevant. WP:3RR specifically excludes upholding non-free content criteria from 3RR. Those of you arguing in favor of these images are failing to see some crucial points. First, the Foundation specifically proscribed the use of fair use images except within narrow limits. Across the various character pages for this fictional universe, there's more than 150 fair use images. That is completely unacceptable. No amount of argumentation can make a case that this 150+ image use is "narrow". That's just the beginning. I've cited policy, precedent, ongoing efforts. You've cited articles that simply haven't been cleansed yet. As I noted, I can cite just as many articles for every article you cite. Looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists, the only article there that has "characters" in the title has not a single image on it; List of Metal Gear Solid characters. The images have been gone from that article for three months, removed by User:Danny, a former employee of the Foundation. I could go on for a long while here. As to consensus, it has already been achieved. Having to achieve consensus every time policy is applied is tantamount to making policy meaningless. For a related debate, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair_use. If you want to change consensus on this, begin by taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, which will provide for centralized discussion to stop this sort of removal from happening all over the project. Having a discussion on every talk page of every article where this happens is counterproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, please stop threatening your fellow editors. This has nothing to do with a content dispute or 3RR (which no one has broken), but rather with your incivility. If you make another baseless threat against another editor, I will block you for incivility. Everyone else here has been perfectly calm and polite; please respond in kind. Furthermore, you have been asked to format your conversations properly, and apparently refuse to do so. I have no idea why you insist on inserting your little asterisks, nor do I care. But it is disruptive, and I have asked you very politely not to do it. You have also been asked repeatedly to not insert your changes until this discussion has concluded. This you have failed to do. Wikipedia works on consensus. Regardless of who is right, there is a dispute, and we need to sort out consensus. You may very well be right, but do not ignore policy and simply insist you're right, edit war and make threats to others who dare question you. It's just bad form, and that sort of behavior will lead to a block in itself. I will join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and hopefully soon a consensus will form (it most certainly has not yet). Let me make this clear - if the consensus is to remove images from these articles, that is fine with me. Really, I don't care it all, I'll join in removing them. But that has not yet been decided. A discussion at WP:AN does not equal policy, and the applicable guideline, as it is currently written, is vague at best. Most importantly, however, I urge you, Hammersoft, to remain civil when engaging in discussion with other editors. Everyone else has been able to, there is no reason why you can't also. faithless (^speak) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Then block me now. In so doing, please point to precisely where I have been uncivil. I *have* noted that revert warring over this issue is a blockable offense, and my continued efforts to keep fair use images to a minimum on this page is protected by WP:3RR. I've noted that I believe twice now. Yes, that does constitute a threat to end the revert war. Since that threat was ignored, and since more than one person was quite happy to revert war over this, I requested page protection and gotten it. So by all means, please go ahead and block me for incivility, but be very careful that you make it very clear where I was uncivil and outside the bounds of policy. I would strongly discourage you from blocking someone for using an asterisk in their comments. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another thought about this...I'd be exceptionally careful about using your admin powers against me since you've been involved in the edit war on this article. Admins have lost their admin status over such usage. Just a recommendation, not a threat. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My involvement in this article has been the only reason I have not blocked you yet. Since it was me you were threatening repeatedly to have blocked, I was able to shrug it off, knowing I hadn't done anything even approaching block-worthy. But a man can only take so much. There comes a time where the threats become to numerous to ignore, and you've been fast approaching that, evevn though I have repeatedly appealed to you to remain civil. faithless (^speak) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have remained civil at all times. Revert warring is a blockable offense. I have made no insult against anyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, since you've been so adamant to remove asterisks from my formatting, would you please explain why you did not remove asterisks used in formatting from three other editors in Talk:Minor_Harry_Potter_characters#Merge? Looking at WP:AN, perhaps you'd like to engage in 'correcting' the edit formatting of users User:Carcharoth, User:Mangoe, User:Mr.Z-man, User:Avruch, User:Masem, User:Ddxc, User:El C, User:Rspeer, User:Slakr, User:James086, User:Uncle G, User:JzG, User:Stifle, User:KTC, User:David Underdown, User:Bearian, User:Bovlb, User:hbdragon88, User:Wassupwestcoast, User:Kendrick7, and on and on and on and on. I haven't even gotten through a third of the current length of WP:AN and found 20 editors who use asterisks, not including myself. Whether you like it or not, the use of the asterisk is common. The guide only recommends against the use. It does not demand it, and it is not policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In some contexts, using asterisks is the norm. This is not the case on talk pages. Continuing as you are just shows your contempt for your fellow editors. You want me to show you exactly where you've been uncivil? Just scroll up. The discussion was perfectly amicable until out of the blue you began threatening users to have them blocked, never mind that no one had done anything even approaching being worthy of a block. Also daring admins to block you is usually the fastest way to get yourself blocked. I don't believe in blocking people I'm having a content dispute with, even if there are legitimate reasons to do so, such as incivility. I also am not a fan of shifty moves like requesting page protection to seal in your preferred version, when multiple other editors have reverted you and asked you to defend your edits. Until you are able to produce a policy or guideline which supports your edits, please stop the edit warring. faithless (^speak) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just showed you WP:AN, which is not covered at WP:TALK, as an example of how common the use of asterisks in discussion is. I listed 20 editors who use asterisks there. Yet, I'm in the wrong. I'm the one showing contempt for users. I can't believe this. For the sake of easing your attacks against me over asterisks and threatening to block for same because it's some form of contempt of my fellow editors, I'll stop using them on this page and any other page you edit, so I can best avoid you. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I find it in incredibly poor taste that Hammersoft would change the article to his preferred version, and with his very next edit request full page protection. This is edit warring at it's worst. Therefore, I will revert to the previous version. Hammersoft, as I've said before, if you can show a policy or guideline that supports what you're doing, I will jump in and join you. However, so far as I can see there has been no consensus reached; indeed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content shows that this topic is still being hotly debated. Until the issue is settled, please stop the edit warring. faithless (^speak) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What? What?????? WP:RFPP had, when I edited it, 2 requests backlogged ahead of mine dating two hours before mine. What I did was the right course of action since more than one person was involved in the edit war forcing images back onto the article. I could care less what version it got sealed in. But asking for protection was the right course of action. I could have asked for and probably received at least warnings against you and Opeth for edit warring against policy. But, I instead I chose a middle road that avoided that in an attempt to stop the war without raising the heat of the debate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Opeth and I have done nothing that even approaches being in violation of policy. You have come perilously close to breaking 3RR, have made several threats, and have made what is at the very least a questionable decision in asking for page protection just after editing an article. Here, let's try to start this all over; I'm going to state my case as clearly as I can, and I ask that you try to understand where I'm coming from and consider the possibility that I might have a point (I realize this might sound patronizing, I assure you that that is not my intent at all; I'm just trying to reach an agreement here :)):

Hammersoft, you have come along and removed images from this article, stating that fair-use images are not appropriate for "list" articles (though it's worth pointing out that this isn't List of Harry Potter characters; such images would certainly be inappropriate there). Your edits have been challenged by two regular editors to the article, and we have asked you for a policy or guideline to support your edits. You so far have been unable to provide this. The closest thing you've shown us is Wikipedia:Non-free content; you might have something there, but that particular guideline is extremely poorly worded, no matter which side you're on, so much so that we have both used it to defend our position. I think we both make good points when referring to this guideline, but the language is so muddled that it really does neither of us any good. The discussion at WP:AN is esentially worthless, if it doesn't lead to a change in a policy or guideline. The Foundation policy you cited in one of your edit summaries is similarly of no use here. That policy pretty much states that the use of fair-use images is up to the discretion of the individual projects. That pretty much puts us back at square one. As I've said several times, if it is ultimately decided to remove the images, that is fine with me. Really, absolutely don't care either way. But you need to show us the specific policy or guideline that supports the removal. So far, the consensus on this talk page is to leave the images where they are. Obviously, that doesn't mean diddly if there is a larger, community-wide consensus which says otherwise, and in turn leads to a change in the guideline. But until that happens, or until you show us where it has happened, I believe you're in the wrong here. Now, I don't even doubt that you are more well-versed in image policy than I am, as it's always been my weak point. I'll go so far as to say you're probably right about all of this. But we need proof! If you give us that, I'll remove the images myself. But like I said in an above post, Wikipedia runs on consensus, and as it stands at this moment, I haven't seen any consensus to remove the images. And come on, let's play nice, there's no need for threats of blocks. It's only the internet. :) faithless (^speak) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to debate this further with you. Thank you and good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we still need to resolve this problem, and neither of you are cooperating, I would like to point out that WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles say explicitly that

Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. In general, using zero, one, or two images of major characters is likely acceptable, while using more than five is likely unacceptable.

So, now we have a limit of zero, one, or two images reserved for the characters who have the biggest minor parts. ~ Bella Swan^? 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd far prefer, as the guideline suggests, having a single montage image of some of the supporting characters. There's plenty candidates from various screenshots from the movies. Identifying specific supporting characters as being more major than other supporting characters is problematic at best, and is highly subjective. A montage image sourced from the copyright holder would do fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Grindelwald

Ok, why is he under the Minor HP Characters section? First, he had his own page. Second, he was under Dark Wizards page. But now, he's on this page. What's the deal?DeathMark (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He isn't considered notable enough in the series to have his own page, and the Dark Wizards page was redirected to Death Eaters. He isn't a Death Eater, so he was put on the Minor characters page because it was the best place he fit. ~ Bella Swan 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the DH book again.DeathMark (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read the Wikipedia policy about Notability. He was somehow important in the story, but not as important as a main character, and an article for him is not notable for encyclopedic purposes. --Lord Opeth (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The page for religious debates over harry potter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter says that Rowling intended for Dumbledore to be gay and in love with Grindelwald, doesnt this warrant a mention here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Andromeda's house

I don't know that we can really say that Andromeda was definitely in Slytherin because Sirius said that his "whole family was in Slytherin" - this could have been an overstatement, i.e. "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" (Hagrid). Characters' words are not necessarily canonical. Frickeg (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right, but that's speculation. Sirius said his whole family was in Slytherin, and there's no reason to doubt that. faithless (^speak) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Slughorn said that. He said that he had all the Blacks in his house except Sirius. I provided references for both statements. --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was more that neither reference mentions Andromeda; both characters could conceivably be exaggerating. Frickeg (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they could be, but without any evidence, there's no reason to assume they are. faithless (^speak) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Split

I think that any of these characters are notable enough to be in a separate list. I am not meaning create articles on all this characters again. I am just meaning split the more notable characters into List of recurring Harry Potter characters

Probably debatable but i was particularly thinking:

• The Fat Lady
• Viktor Krum
• Augusta Longbottom
• Narcissa Malfoy
• Olympe Maxime
• Mr Ollivander
• Madam Rosmerta
• Stan Shunpike
• Rita Skeeter

Simply south (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can rename the article to "Supporting Harry Potter characters" including those that are already listed, to avoid having 2 weak lists. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Walburga Black

Walburga Black was an extremely incidental character in the series, and the inclusion criteria in this article (and for all of the characters lists) is for characters with some involvement and several mentions, which Walburga failed to meet because she was never named in the series, and her only appearances were in her portrait screaming stuff. No information is lost with this redirect as almost all her article is covered in Sirius Black's, mainly in the Family section (the former Black family article redirects there).

The first paragraph is information from the Black family tree:

Walburga Black was the matriarch of the House of Black, and unlike most members of the Black family, her name is not related to a star or constellation. She was born in 1925, to Pollux Black and Irma Crabbe, her brothers being Alphard and Cygnus Black. She married her second cousin, Orion Black, and was the mother of Sirius and Regulus Black, and also paternal aunt of Bellatrix Lestrange, Andromeda Tonks, and Narcissa Malfoy.

The second paragraph was about the removals from the Black family tree, especially those of Sirius, Andromeda, and Uncle Alphard.

After her son Sirius ran away from home, Walburga blasted his name off of the family tree that is displayed on a decorative tapestry in the ancestral Black family home at Number 12, Grimmauld Place. She also removed the name of her brother Alphard, who bequeathed money to Sirius, and that of her niece Andromeda for marrying Ted Tonks, a Muggle-born (her daughter Nymphadora Tonks, was never added).

This information was obtained from the Black family tree, and Sirius' Early Life section also mentions that:

At age 16, Sirius finally broke with his family and took refuge with James and his parents. His offended and outraged mother burned his name off the family tree. Sirius' Uncle Alphard left him a large inheritance, causing Walburga to also remove Alphard's name. Sirius was left financially independent by his Uncle’s generous bequest.

The next paragraph contained stuff about Sirius and Andromeda rather than Walburga, and also some stuff covered in the family section too:

Sirius hated his mother and the rest of his family for their fanaticism. He and his cousin Andromeda were rarities in the Black clan, as Sirius once said that the Black family rarely produced people who were even "halfway decent". Walburga was a bigot who viewed Muggles and Muggle-borns with disdain. She supported Lord Voldemort, but changed her mind after she discovered what he was willing to do to get power. However, it is assumed she held the belief that Voldemort and the Death Eaters "had the right idea". Even so, it was implied in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix that she was kind to her house-elf Kreacher, earning his reverence even after her death.

The Black Family section explains that: The Blacks believed in Voldemort's idea of "purifying the Wizarding race", but many, such as Sirius' parents, refrained from outwardly supporting him once they saw what he was willing to do for power.

The last paragraph was for mentions about the portrait:

She died in 1985, but her portrait remained at Number 12, Grimmauld Place, attached to the wall with a Permanent Sticking Charm, where it screamed insults at the various members of the Order of the Phoenix, including her son Sirius, after they made the house their headquarters. Walburga also kept giving orders to Kreacher. In the portrait she appears as a hysterical woman in a black cap, her eyes rolling and her yellow-skinned face stretched taut.

To avoid cruft and repeated information, Walburga Black now redirects to Sirius Black#Family. --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwenog Jones

I have written a section on Gwenog Jones several times, but every time a Gwenog-hater erases her. I give up (for now). The Gwenog-hater wins (for now). Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(moved discussion to bottom of page) That's because Gwenog is not a "supporting Harry Potter character". She is mentioned, ONLY mentioned, once or twice throughout the course of the books. That makes her a... uh, I dunno what the technical term is, but she's not meant for this page. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Trombonator, she is mentioned three times in the books, twice in the Half-Blood Prince and once in the Deathly Hallows. If she is not a supporting character, what is she? That is what she is, until you can come up with a better term. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) Sinebot is wrong. The comment is not "unsigned." Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Three mentions is hardly more than one or two mentions. Let's do not forget that we can not include EVERY Harry Potter character. There is already a list for all characters. And also there is a Harry Potter wikia and a Muggle's Guide. Gwenog is an incidental character. She is barely mentioned in the series, she has no plot involvement, and she has no physical appearances. This list of Supporting characters features prominent characters that have no place in other character pages like Rita Skeeter, Viktor Krum, Gellert Grindelwald, Narcissa Malfoy or Ollivander. We can not include characters like Gwenog, and Florean Fortescue, Madam Malkin, Ernie Prang, and the lady with the trolley in the Hogwarts express, because they are characters with little importance, and little notability. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Lord Opeth, for that bit highlighted in bold. Of course, now we must fear the creation of Incidental Harry Potter characters. :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Opeth says there already is a list for all characters. Well, where is it? We certainly want to see that list, and the List of Incidental Characters as well. I still say that three is more than two, but I admit that "Incidental" is more accurate than "Supporting" when it comes to Gwenog the Welsh Witch. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of all characters is here: List of Harry Potter characters. Gwenog obviously appears there, with all the information about her: "Hogwarts student before Harry's time, captain and Beater for the Holyhead Harpies Quidditch team, J. K. Rowling's Wizard of the Month for June 2004". What else should we add to this? Is that line worth of a whole section? That statement covers ALL her background. Being a character with only three mentions and no plot involvement or importance at all, a whole section along with characters such as Rita Skeeter or Viktor Krum is completely needless.

As for a List of Incidental Characters, I strongly oppose. We were working with notability some months ago and that's why important characters like Lupin, Bellatrix, McGonagall, Umbridge, etc. do not have individual pages. A list of incidental characters in the HP story like Gwenog, Florean, Madam Malkim, Cecilia, Colonel Fubster, etc. would never meet the criteria required for notability in fiction, and would certainly be deleted two days after its creation. --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to re-direct Florean Fortescue, Gwenog Jones, etc., to the List of Harry Potter characters instead of their being re-directed to an article in which they are not mentioned at all? This is a most reasonable request, I think. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea. Gwenog already redirects to the List of characters though. Florean redirects to the section of his ice-cream shop. All his background is covered there. --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about Gwenog; thank you very much. What article has a section on the Fortescue Ice Cream Shop? Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The ice-cream shop is listed under Places in Harry Potter. --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Peeves

Can Peeves be considered part of the Hogwarts staff or should he remain in this article? --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep him here; I don't think he's on the payroll. :) faithless (^speak) 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Millicent Bulstrode

I can't find anything on Millicent Bulstrode here as well as a lot of other minor characters. Where have the informations on minor characters been moved? --89.49.134.171 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of fair use images

The use of per-character fair use images on articles such as this has long been deprecated. Please see the policy stating "minimal use" and the guideline covering list type articles (which this is). There are 23 characters on this page (counting things like The Weird Sisters as one). You can not have one image per character. This is simply not permitted. I've watched this page for a long time, and had no problem with it while the number of images were low. That is no longer the case, as we're now up to six images and this continues to rise. Decide which characters are the most important, and trim the number down to 2-4. This is why the {{non-free}} tag has been added to this article. Fix the problem, don't simply revert. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You make it look as if all the 23 characters mentioned in the article have an image to them. That's not true. There are exactly 6 images, making it one quarter! This is not too much, as several editors of the article have stated. That can hardly be called overuse. But at least you've finally made your point here instead of just adding the tag whenever someone has taken the liberty to remove it. --Maxl (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The point is indiscriminate inclusion of images. There could be 23 images if this were allowed to continue in the indiscriminate manner in which images are being added. Based on repeated patterns on other articles and consensus seen there, six is too many here. I recommend deciding which 3-4 characters are the most important and limiting the images to those characters. Alternatively (and preferably) find a group image that shows many of the supporting cast. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You come here making a patently false claim (as Maxl says, there are only six images in the article, not, as you suggest, "one image per character"), citing a hotly disputed guideline (the NFCC policy and the 'minimal use' criterion are irrelevant here) and giving a completely arbitrary ultimatum that you have seemingly pulled out of thin air, and you expect others to do as you say? I'm sorry, but no. faithless (^speak) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I choose not to respond to you because of very poor relations you and I have had in the past. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a response to me, but perhaps I'm wrong. Regardless, I'll remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative project - this isn't really the place to be if you're unwilling/unable to work with others. The bottom line is that a disputed content guideline is hardly a hard and fast rule, and therefore no good reason has been given to remove any images from this article. faithless (^speak) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft: Maybe there's a misunderstanding but I understood the "minimal use" guideline in a way that the same non free image should not be used in too many different articles. You seem to completely - and falsely - turn it around. But where else should those images be used if not there. It's the appropriate place. 6 is not so much more than 4. I believe it's exactly right at this time. By the way, your rude behaviour towards Faithless is not appropriate. I'd suggest an excuse would be in order. --Maxl (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can assure you that this is not a false interpretation. 6 is not much more than 4 might seem like a valid argument, but it isn't. Where do you draw the line? 8 isn't much more than 6...percentage wise it's even less. Of course, 10 isn't much more than 8 either. The problem is the indiscriminate adding of additional images. There's no line in the sand, no stopping point. Without some decision regarding the most important characters, the same argument to up the images to six can be used to up to the images to 23. Have a look at the following pages (selected at random from Category:Lists of television characters and Category:Lists of film characters: List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, List of Farscape characters, Characters in Blade Runner, List of Cars characters. Note the absence of more than one image in any of those articles. More examples; featured lists. See List of Naruto characters, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, List of Metal Gear Solid characters. Two of those have three images, one has none. My interpretation of this is not in the minority; it's common practice. I'm simply following that common practice.
• There are plenty of policies at Wikipedia that are disputed. There's more than 50 people who have transcluded User:Hotspot/userbox/Fair use images in userboxes into their userspace. That's more than 50 people who feel the policy forbidding the use of fair use images on userboxes is wrong. Certainly that policy is disputed. That does not mean the policy should not be enforced. A policy in dispute is still policy, until consensus changes that policy. Consensus achieved the compromise at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, and this article violates that interpretation of policy. The images here are not being used judiciously as asked by that guideline. They are being used haphazardly without any consideration of which characters a visual reference is most needed.
• With regards to Faithless, I was entirely polite. I did not accuse him of poor behavior, only that we interact poorly, not laying guilt on either him or myself. I recognize that he and I do not work well together, and I have no wish to continue to engage him because of that. I see no reason to apologize to him, nor do I feel I was in any way being rude. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think user page poliy applies here. That thing our discussion is about is still discussed. It's not a firm and established wikipedia policy. Nevertheless you want to use it as if it already were. You can't enforce a rule that hasn't been firmly established. You see, you want to enforce that rule and suddenly it's possibly dropped alltogether. What would that look like? That's a bit as if the law enforcement were enforcing a suggested law while it is still discussed in Congress, isn't it? By the way, you haven't quite answered about my interpretation on the fair use policy. As far as I know a statement must be made on the picture explanation page (or whatever that is called) why it is fair use to put the picture in a certain article. As long as this is done I believe the number of images in an article is not limited. Anyway, 6 images on 23 characters isn't very much. And then, the characters won't appear alltogether on one image. I don't think such an image exists, so your suggestion to use a group image won't work out. Now, we have these six images here. Maybe we can make it like this: Let's remain at these six and let's put a remark in that for the moment no more images ought to be put in the article. If, and only if, a decision is finally made about how many fair use images may be used in an article and if the number decided is less than 6 it will be necessary to take action. As long as this has not happened I believe we can leave it as it is.--Maxl (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The userpage policy is an example where plenty of people oppose the policy, but it's enforced anyways. Just because something is opposed, doesn't mean it doesn't get enforced. Want a mainspace one? Fine. There's plenty of people who oppose the idea of not allowing fair use images on the main page. But, that policy still gets enforced too. I'm not particularly interested if a policy is disputed or not. I'm interested in whether its policy or not. This is. If the policy were dropped, I'd stop working to enforce the dropped policy. Easy. If you want to have 23 character images on this page, then get the policy changed and you won't have to worry about me doing anything about it. You are incorrect that the number of images is not limited. Minimal usage is codified in the policy, and it is also codified in the Foundation's resolution on the matter. You say six images isn't very much. The guideline disagrees, plus saying it isn't very much can just as well be said for eight or ten. Where do you draw the line? It's indiscriminate adding of images. That's the problem. As to agreement to less than six, look at the articles that I cited, especially the featured ones. There's already general agreement. If you want this to change, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Using this forum is counter productive to you and to me; repeating the same discussion on multiple article talk pages isn't productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, that's your intrerpretation of a policy. If you are so concerned about the excessive usage of images, you should take a look at the "Category:Lists of minor fictional characters", there are articles there with images for almost every character. Even individual character pages like Darth Vader, Sailor Moon (character), Gandalf, Mickey Mouse, and many more, though clearly notable, have still more non-free images than this character list. --LøЯd ۞pεth 02:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know, so many people try to ignore this policy by saying "That's your interpretation!" I'm sorry, but it doesn't fly. Reducing the overuse of fair use images is common practice. I have yet again restored the {{non-free}} tag and will continue to do so until the images are reduced per policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is actually very straightforward using our non-free image policy. Per WP:NFCC#8; "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.". Do these images significantly increase reader's understanding? For some unusual-looking characters they might, but for these they don't. I have removed them all. Please don't re-insert them without explaining exactly how they pass our non-free image policies. Note that referring to other articles isn't useful, because those articles probably fail the same policies. Black Kite 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With all respect Black Kite, that argument is not going to fly at all. Your opinion that these characters aren't unusual-looking is no reason to remove the images. It's completely arbitrary and could be applied to any fictional character. For example, Luke Skywalker isn't the least bit unusual-looking. faithless (^speak) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You aren't reading the policy. It's very clear. Unless you can explain how exactly these images "significantly increase the reader's understanding" then they cannot stand. And you're doing exactly what I just said - referring to other articles. We aren't talking about other articles here. Black Kite 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it increases the reader's understanding of a subject to actually see a picture of it? If that's the case, why does Wikipedia allow fair-use images at all? Or images period, for that matter? faithless (^speak) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• If that's the argument, then why not have one image for each character (all 23) on this list? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think you really need to go and read WP:NFCC. When you can justify the images per ALL the tenets of the policy, then please feel free to re-insert them with a justification on the talkpage. Meanwhile, I am removing them again. "Minimal" use does actually mean zero, unless those images can pass all parts of NFCC. Black Kite 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, enough - drop the condescending attitude. You have not given a single valid reason for removing the images. Obviously, it is accepted practice on Wikipedia to use fair-use images of fictional characters to illustrate them - it's done so in hundreds (probably thousands) of articles. Why? Because it increases the reader's understanding of the subject, which is the point of fair-use images. While I disagree vehemently with Hammersoft, he at least has put forth a logical argument. You have yet to do so. Removing the images because you think the characters look too average? That is complete nonsense - please show me where it states, "Fair-use images are okay, unless the character is plain looking." I'm guessing you can't. faithless (^speak) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending, but you don't appear to understand the concept of fair-use. Your attitude appears to be "well, there are fair use images in other articles, so they must be OK in this one". You are also misunderstanding my argument and putting words into my mouth - my point was an example that if a character was so unusual looking as to be difficult to describe in text, then there would be an argument that a fair use image would be reasonable per WP:NFCC#8 to increase the reader's understanding. (To quote the policy WP:NFCC#1 "As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself ... "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer ... is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion") In the end, though, my reasons are quite valid because they are Wikipedia policy. Black Kite 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I'd also point out that using an automatic tool to rollback edits made in line with Wikimedia policy is really not a very good idea. Black Kite 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of what makes something unusual-looking is completely arbitrary - what you consider normal others may consider quite odd, so your opinion is irrelevant. Your reasons are not at all valid, because they are not Wikipedia policy. And yes, you hit the nail on the head - there are fair-use images in other articles because Wikipedia allows them. It is standard practice to illustrate articles on fictional subjects using fair-use images, something you can't seem to grasp. As for your little addendum, you can save your protips. You're engaging in an edit war and are unable to justify your actions; using the undo button instead of the good-faith rollback button (which was used exactly once) isn't going to change anything. faithless (^speak) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is only one person here who is engaging in an edit war, and that is you. The images fail at least two Wikipedia policies - WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. You are re-inserting them without explaining why they pass those policies despite the fact that it has been explained to you numerous times why. Forget the "unusual looking" point - it was an attempt to explain it simply to you, and you have just taken it the wrong way. You are editing against policy. Is that clear enough? Black Kite 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. First off, it takes two to tango. More to the point - WP:NFCC#1...surely you can't be serious? You're saying there are free images of these fictional characters? By all means, please share them with us. That would put an end to all of this. And you're still sticking to WP:NFCC#8? Really? So you still can't grasp how actually seeing something rather than just reading about it can significantly increase one's understanding of any given topic? For the last time, these images are appropriate because they do "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Just like the thousands of other articles on fictional subjects which contain non-free images. Just because you don't find them necessary doesn't mean others won't. Whether you like it or not, fair-use articles have a long and unchallenged history of being used in Wikipedia, and that isn't about to change. Clearly, you disagree - you don't think these images significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. But it isn't about you, and you can't go off arbitrarily and unilaterally removing images that you don't think are necessary. That isn't how it works. faithless (^speak) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reply at length, but ThuranX below has phrased it better. The first part of your answer above indicates you still don't grasp the concept of fair-use on Wikipedia - WP:NFCC#1 doesn't only talk about free images, it also indicates that images can be replaced by text, which is the case here. As for the second part of your message, well - that's just plain wrong. Fair use images don't actually have a long history on Wikipedia, and they certainly don't have an unchallenged one, as you can see from the many that are deleted every day at IfD, or the very many - hundreds - of article that used to contain fair-use images but now don't. If I find an article with fair-use images whose use is borderline, then I'll tag the articles with an overuse or non-free tag, but if they're as clear-cut as this then that isn't an issue, and the images can and will go because it's Wikipedia policy. The problem is that editors of such articles tend to think they're being "picked on" because there are hundreds of other articles with lots of non-free images in them. So there are - in fact, here's a very out of date list of articles with multiple copyright abuses - but progress is slow, especially when discussions on the nature of fair-use are ongoing. Black Kite 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason for any one of the 6 images here. Not one of the images is of the character as drawn for the books, but as they look in the films. Not one of the characters pictured is written about in terms of their portrayal in the film, in real world terms. For example, had there been a section on WHY the costumer chose a 30's/40's look for Rita Skeeter, or simply that she did, it might validate that image. Had there been mention of the camera work used to make Madame Maxine look like a giantess, then her image would be acceptable. Had the illustrator spoken/written about, or been written about, and that interview/article talked about her interpretation of a character for a chapter heading spot illustration, then that spot next to the character in question would be needed. However, not one of the images up for discussion has anything that ties it to the real world content of the article. People who want to know more can rent the movies, or read the books. Images should support significant real world matters. As the starring main character of seven films about HP, Daniel Radcliffe should absolutely be in the HP article; he's eminently notable for that topic. However, every bit part and minor supporting actor shouldn't be up there. They need Real World Notability. For now, I'd accept ANY real world notability about the actors for supporting their image's inclusion, if only to offset the nil ratio of Real World to nonsense content. Each of those entries is a mini-plot full of fan armchair psychology. it's a bad list as written, worse with unjustifiable images. it needs real world content. Lots of it. Then it can have a few (3 to 5, IMO) images to support hte best real-world sections. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's a bad list as written" you say? What have you done to improve it then? Or are you just like some other editors that have never add a single comma and yet are the first to come and attack the work of other editors? I suppose that every single article you have created or contribute to is now FA? If you are not going to suggest any good and/or new idea to get this article better, it would be nice not to come and trash other people's contributions and work. --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lord Opeth, this is the second time in as many days that you've attacked another editor. ThuranX does not need to justify his editing here just to be able to voice an opinion on this page. If you can't respond to people in a civil manner, please take a deep breath, count to ten, walk around the block, what have you until you can respond civilly. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Especially as practically the whole of ThuranX's piece IS explaining how the article could be improved ... Black Kite 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article List of students at South Park Elementary is smiling at you :) --LøЯd ۞pεth 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the fair use images from that article. That was another case of blatant abuse, similar to how List of Springfield Elementary School students used to look [2]. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I still do not know why the image about Crabbe, Goyle and Pansy was removed since it shows at least three supporting characters of this article. If you say groupal images are allowed, then that image should remain. I am also trying to look if there is some other featuring Rita Skeeter, Cedric Diggory and Viktor Krum from the Triwizard Tournament photoshoot in the fourth film --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• ThuranX did a good job of answering that question. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He did not. After all, the books aren't illustrated (with the exception of the covers) therefore his statement is sheer nonsense. And, as well, the characters appear in the film AND the book and therefore the article is about both. Therefore his arguments were trash as trash can. --Maxl (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Based on some other minor character "lists", such as List of Code Geass characters, is there any sort of group images that could be used rather than individual character images? For full disclosure, I warred over this on that page in past but have come to understand that BK and the others have good concerns on this issue. Could such a compromise be reached here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• For an example, see List of The Batman villains. Note that montage images count as multiple images, not a single one, though. Black Kite 17:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that it is shameless and really coward the way in which Hammersoft and Black Kite acted. Asking for protection because of "edit-war" just after the article was changed into their preferred version? Pure bad faith and cowardice. Keep your examples for yourselves. --LøЯd ۞pεth 02:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The request for page protection was actually by User:Kyaa the Catlord (link). Please get your facts right and try to restrain yourself from personal attacks. Thankyou. Black Kite 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• I specifically recommended against protection. Lord Opeth, please get your facts in order first before making accusations of bad faith and insults of cowardice. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, you should have restored the images before protecting the article This way you're preserving the wrong state of the article and that looks very very much partisan. Establishing facts that way is not only undemocratic but also unfair. You and Hammersoft are trying to box your personal views (and not Wikipedia policy!!!) through in a very underhanded way! And Kyaa the Catlord, I have mentioned above that it's highly unlikely that there will be a group image with a significant number of the characters mentioned in the article since they're appearing in different movies and scenes. Please reinsert the images and preserve the article that way! And Hammersoft, after insulting Faithless you've now also insulted Opeth by accusing him of not getting his arguments right. You owe both an apology! --Maxl (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maxl, you're making the same mistake that Lord Opeth made. Black Kite did not ask for protection of the article. User:Kyaa the Catlord did. Black kite didn't protect the article. User:TexasAndroid did. The images are not going to be restored. They are against policy and not acceptable. I'm sorry you dislike this. You are not alone in your feelings. That doesn't change policy. If you want to change the policy to allow per character images for identification purposes, then please submit a proposal to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Lastly, as I explained I made no insult of any kind to Faithless, and would happily repeat my statement if need be in the future. I also made no false accusation regarding Lord Opeth. He, like you, has made a claim that Black Kite asked for protection of the article. He didn't. Neither did I, though he claims such. You made a claim that Black Kite protected the article. I've shown that he did not. I stand by my statements. They are factual, and no apology is necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Protection is allways on the Wrong Version. :)

That said, LO has requested on my talk page that the page be unprotected, saying he'll search for a group image to use instead. Is this a generally agreed to compromise? I'm a bit hesitant to unprotect, as Maxl's comments just above do not leave me with much confidence that this is a compromise accepted by him. If I unprotect, and the edit warring starts right up again, then no progress has been made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that this group image thing is impossible because the characters never appeared altogether in the same scene. And second, the deletions were also made before the discussion was resolved. Therefore, they were wrong. Anyway, Hammersoft started the whole thing and deleted the image. Others, like Faithless, only tried to put the article back to normal and reverted Hammersoft's vandalism. I tried to explain to Hammersoft that he misinterpreted the rule about the non free images. It's not about the number of images in one article, it's about the explanation given on the picture's page. If there's a sensible explanation why the image needs to be part of the article the image can be used there. Hammersoft, however, doesn't understand this. He deletes the images anyway. Here, though, is the text from the fair use of non free images article:

:: ===Enforcement===

• An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.

Hammersoft isn't right. He's just obstinate. --Maxl (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find he's actually right. He didn't delete the images, he removed them from the article, exactly as the text you've posted above actually says. Black Kite 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it doesn't matter who's fault it is. Proving someone wrong or right in this case won't do anything, as neither sides are willing to give in. As for solving this problem, I definitly think we should use some fair-use images in the article. Here it says, "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic." So now we are presented with the problem, what image(s) should we use that do not violate policy? I do think that the previously inserted 5 pictures that the edit war was over are too much. The one picture that contained Crabbe, Malfoy, Pansy, and Goyle should be included, as it is covers four people's pictures. I would then think that we'd go for the next most important person's photo. In that case, I would go with Cedric Diggory or Krum's picture. Lastly, we can, as stated here, insert a free-use image of an actor that potrayed a character, instead of a screenshot of the actor, if the actor's appearance and a character's appearance are similar. Hopefully this can help us resolve this problem. ~ Bella Swan^? 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. That's judicious use. To indiscriminately continue to add per-character images without having any thought towards reducing fair use image usage and/or identifying the most important characters of a set is flat wrong. That's what this article was doing. So, I agree with you Bella Swan. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Faithless did what he saw best and so did you. No one was excatly right or wrong in this case, and trying to provocate more arguments will do no good. If nobody opposes this idea within a day or two, I'm going to add the picture of Crabbe, Malfoy, Pansy, and Goyle, and the picture of Diggory back to the article. ~ Bella Swan^? 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point Bella, however I think that Rita Skeeter is more important than Cedric and has more real-world stuff in her section (the comparison with JKR's conflict with the press and stuff). --LøЯd ۞pεth 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, Rita was also in more books than Cedric was. In that case, we can swap Rita for Cedric. ~ Bella Swan^? 12:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

{unindent} I am minded to say that the Crabbe/Goyle etc. image is reasonable, and the Skeeter one might just about squeak in (though it might be worth including more in the text about her looks etc.) but I think you'd struggle to produce a reasonable case for any others. Black Kite 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While looking for a beter photo, I came across this screenshot, which might be better to use instead of Rita's picture since it has at least 7 characters in it. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that image is that only 1 character is listed as Supporting HP character, which is Madame Maxime, the rest are split into separated lists or individual articles: Dumbledore and Snape have their own articles, McGonagall is in Hogwarts staff, Karkaroff in Death Eaters, and Barty Crouch in Ministry of Magic. I think that it would be really hard to find an image decipting more than 3 of the supporting characters together, as it is not an organization like the Order, the DA or the Death Eaters. --LøЯd ۞pεth 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't bother to look and see if they were all in the article. In that case, you would be right. ~ Bella Swan^? 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Stone vs Philosopher's Stone

As the original book title in the UK (where it was first written) was Philosopher's Stone, I am changing mentions of Sorcerer's Stone to that - if it's a wikilink, it redirects anyway! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

lay-out

can't we arrange the characters as theyve done at the Dutch wikipedia There they've made very much little page with three or four charactters. Like the children of Harry aand Ginny and Ron and Hermione. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

fmaily trees

On the Dutch wikipedia there are many fmaily trees of the family's mentioned in the Harry potter books. Why don't we have it on the English wikipedia. I liked it on the dutch wikipedia cause I could see the relations between people very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I ment family trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cedric a prefect

Sorry, that I have no account here. I am from a german wiki, where we just discuss if Cedric Diggory has been a prefect or not. We found no source for this fact except, that he has been allowed to use the prefects bathroom. As this bathroom can be used by captains of the quidditch teams too, this seems not proof enough for this statement. Can anybody give me a source for Cedric beeing a prefect? Thanks in advance. Stephan --87.151.191.116 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The HP Lexicon lists him as being a prefect. I would be very surprised if the Lexicon was inaccurate. Either way, it cites GoF Chapter23 as the source of the info, so that's worth a check. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This lexicon is only a second level source which is not allowed in our wiki, if they don't name a source by JKR herself as books, interviews or homepage. So at least I got the information, that here as on our site none has a real reliable source that this statement is true. I think we will remove this information. Thanks again. --93.217.54.134 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the Talk Page posts a bit more carefully. I never named the HP Lexicon as a source. I said the Lexicon cited GoF Chapter 23 - so that is where the source should be taken from. Hopefully someone with a book handy can check it out. Cheers. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the book and added the source. Hermione says Cedric is a perfect in the GOF. Tomsv 98 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Move Narcissa to Death Eater article

I come with this proposal to move Narcissa Malfoy to the Death Eaters article. I know I can face some opposition because Narcissa IS NOT a Death Eater, as stated by Rowling herself. However, Fenrir Greyback is not a Death Eater neither, yet he is on that article (though Greyback was allowed to use Death Eater robes). My proposal to move Narcissa is for 2 reasons: the first is because Narcissa is totally associated with the Death Eaters, being present at Death Eater meetings and participating in raids such as the one at Malfoy Manor or the Battle of Hogwarts. Also, by association, she is sister, wife and mother of three prominent Death Eaters (I know that Andromeda is in the same case, but she was no longer in contact with any of them). Adding Narcissa with those characters to which she is related both by family and by affiliation is logical, even if she is not a Death Eater since her section already states that though never a Death Eater, she initially was a supporter of Voldemort's ideology. The second reason is that this list of supporting characters is already too long, and the Death Eaters article is not even 60 KB. I can work on fixing all redirects and links if that is a problem. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It does make sense to have Narcissa in with the characters to whom she is closely related. My immediate reaction would have been to say "absolutely not, she's not a Death Eater!" but you've already anticipated that with your very salient point about Greyback. Would it be possible to have a section following "Notable Death Eaters" titled "Associates of the Death Eaters" or some such, and put Fenrir and Narcissa there? That would be my preference, but even if you put her in the main section I guess I'm okay with it as long as her section makes it very clear that she's not actually a Death Eater (and that all the links would be changed, but you already said you'd do that). Princess Lirin (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my proposal since Wikipedia must be based on facts. Narcissa is not a Death Eater as stated by the author, and her inclusion in the DE article would be a prescedent that can be applied to, ie. Madame Maxime being included in Order of the Phoenix just because she was sent on a mission and had a close relation to Fleur and Hagrid (both members of the Order), or Oliver Wood in Dumbledore's Army just because Alicia, Angelina, Katie and the twins were also members of the Quidditch Team and because he fought alongside them in the Battle of Hogwarts. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rita Skeeter.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Rita Skeeter.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Xenophilius Lovegood.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Xenophilius Lovegood.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Albus Severus marries a girl

He later goes onto marry a Slytherine girl named Abbie Sheldon, who joined in his year of Hogwarts. This text has been inserted a couple times and I am wondering where it might originate from. Is this part of Pottermore? It can't stay in unless it has a cited source; it's definitely not in the book. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect fandalism. A google search for Abbie Sheldon brings back the usual suspects - such as a facebook profile of a girl with that name who seems to be a Potter fan. Occams razor wins out, and I remove it each time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have been briefly blinded, but I think you are on the right track. "Abbie Sheldon" doesn't even sound like a Slytherin's name... Elizium23 (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why I use the term "fandalism" as coined by Tenebrae - it's not malicious, just kids messing about, so good intentions, if not good faith is assumed, but it still disrupts the goal of Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Books vs. Movies

Is this article based on the books ot the movies? Tomsv 98 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The books, in theory. It is quite big and chaotic so coherence might not be perfect. Mezigue (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to edit the information about the Elder Wand, but both versions are now included. Tomsv 98 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that all the HP articles - unless they specifically state otherwise - were based on both, but the books took precedence in the case of conflicting information. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that amount to exactly the same thing? Mezigue (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dominique Weasley

Hello, here is my question : How do we know that Dominique Weasley, child of Bill and Fleur is a girl ? They named their children with French names (Victoire, Dominique and Louis) and if I remember correctly, on the family tree JKR once showed on her website, there was no girl/boy precision. Although the HPWiki states that "Dominique is the French feminine form of the masculine name Dominic,"actually, in French, there is only one spelling : Dominique, for boys and girls alike. Dominic is English, not French. I should know, I'm French, btw. (We have Frédéric / Frédérique, though, ain't it strange ?). So how do we know for sure it's a girl ? Did JKR mention it precisely in an interview ?

Firenze79 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this is wp:or, but the reasoning would be as such: Whilst yes, Dominique is both feminine and masculine when used in the French context, when used in the English speaking world it is exclusively a feminine name. Although Fleur is French, (hence the usage of the names in the first place,) Bill is not, and she married into an English family. Any English speaking family would associate Dominique as being feminine and even the most enlightened wizarding family would undoubtably have issues with giving a boy a girls name.

So, on those grounds, she's a girl. But you are essentially correct in that I don't believe the gender is actually specified anywhere. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Madame Malkin

The article mentions "Malkin" as a term for a "crotchety woman", but I wonder if a more direct derivation might be found in Malkin Tower, which featured in the Lancashire witch trials of 1612. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of supporting Harry Potter characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110430090530/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=26 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719055614/http://bloomsbury.com:80/jkrevent/content.asp?sec=3&sec2=1 to http://bloomsbury.com/jkrevent/content.asp?sec=3&sec2=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607100041/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=117 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of supporting Harry Potter characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091015031832/http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/author/interview2.htm to http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/author/interview2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070527023912/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2005/11/04/wyrdlawsuit_051104.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/11/04/wyrdlawsuit_051104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oxford Comma

Can we use it on this page because there's some confusing stuff sentences, like "Lily Luna Potter is the daughter of Harry and Ginny, and is the youngest of their three children. She is named after her paternal grandmother and her parents' good friend, Luna Lovegood." I had no idea Luna was Harry's good friend AND his mom (kidding ;).)

I actually got really confused reading this and thought someone was trolling so I had to google if there was some plot twist where it turned out Luna was the reincarnation of Lily or something, then when I reread the line more carefully I realized what it was actually saying.

Eitherway we can probably avoid this confusion by using an oxford comma instead of just bunching together lists of people without using anything to separate items in them.

2601:240:4300:6EAC:28D2:F323:49A9:3BA8 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Article modified by someone to have Kardashian sisters in place of Harry's Muggle relatives

Someone's modified the article and it now talks about the Kardashian sisters as names of Harry's relatives. Someone needs to correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.19.104 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of supporting Harry Potter characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126102827/http://www.mugglenet.com/movies/movie7/dhpt1dvd.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/movies/movie7/dhpt1dvd.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611163955/http://www.harry-potter-movie-buzz.com/news/729/scoop-on-filming-the-deathly-hallows-wedding-scene.html to http://www.harry-potter-movie-buzz.com/news/729/scoop-on-filming-the-deathly-hallows-wedding-scene.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Victoire Weasley

It has been suggested her page is moved here however it also appears to be up for deletion. How necessary is it that we have some information on her seeing as she is only mentioned in the epilogue to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [[User:AiselneDrossel[[User talk:AiselneDrossel]]]] 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a question about her, how is she known to be the daughter of Bill? I see no place where the series suggests this, but who knows, maybe I misread the book. Please can someone find a quote? Yoman786 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Yoman786

"Victoire, who was snogging Teddy — Lupin and Tonks’ son — is Bill and Fleur’s eldest."

"Finished ‘Potter’? Rowling tells what happens next"

—wwoods 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yoman786 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) It never says that she's bills kid, but victore is french wich most likely was a name fleur picked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittlePurplePumpkin (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Teddy was a question I asked myself (I was just speculating) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Teddy Half-Blood?

JKR didn't say Teddy was Half-Blood did she? I mean we know that Ted and Andromeda Tonks were magic and at least one of Remus' parents must have been as he's half-blood but couldn’t Teddy be pure-blood instead of half-blood in the same way that Harry's kids are? Shouldn’t it say something like "at lest half-blood" or "half-blood or pure-blood" Uponlocal (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether Lupin's parents were both wizards or a wizard and a Muggle. Do we know either way? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression from the books that they are wizards (blood status uknown) they seemed to be familiar with the wizarding world, according to HPL "Ancestry: Half-blood (one Muggle parent or grandparent)", "Father: Unknown; offended Fenrir Greyback (HBP15)." Chandlertalk 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked up on a load of sites and most of them say that his dad was pureblood but them keep saying either muggle (HP Wiki) or muggle-born for his mum. But I agree with Chandlerand i think it's most likely that his mum is muggleborn Uponlocal (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lupin's page says that he is a halfblood. Tonks is also a halfblood. So I think he's a halfblood, but I have anouther question is teddy a half werewolf or not a werewolf at all.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittlePurplePumpkin (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Ogg (Harry Potter character)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ogg (Harry Potter character). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Ogg (Harry Potter character) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Idris Oakby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Idris Oakby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Idris Oakby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Crospin Conk" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crospin Conk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Crospin Conk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gaspard Shingleton" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gaspard Shingleton. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Gaspard Shingleton until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Hippocrates Smethwyck" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hippocrates Smethwyck. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Hippocrates Smethwyck until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bridget Wenlock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bridget Wenlock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Bridget Wenlock until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Create seperate 'The Dursleys' article

I'm not sure where to start this discussion but I think we should make a new article titled 'The Dursleys'. I think everyone can argue that The Dursleys are iconic characters, and I'd say they deserve their own page. The individual Dursleys definitely shouldn't have pages though. Cereally8 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not about deserving, it's about there being enough information and coverage to warrant a separate article. That is, real-world coverage and not in-universe information, of which I've not seen much and I doubt a separate article can or should be made. —El Millo (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)