Talk:Harry Potter family tree

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Birth Years

Is it worth me adding known years of birth for characters?

II vs Jr

I have a feeling this is going to be a (hopefully very) minor controversy for a bit, so I thought I'd put this here. The "II" suffix for Lilly and James are correct. Though American tradition usually relies more on Jr and Sr for males, and usually only applies to a father and son of the exact same name, British tradition is generally to add incrementing roman numerals even if generations are skipped. For example {{George_II_of_Great_Britain|King George II]] was the son of {{George_I_of_Great_Britain|King George I]], but he was the GRANDfather of King George III. Personally, if there was ever a time when we should prefer the British common system of the American, this would be it. Just my opinion. Maijstral 05:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between British and American tradition here; the difference is between royalty and non-royalty (royalty never uses "Jr./Sr."). For non-royalty, the "Jr." suffix is used when the son has the exact same name (including middle names) as his father (which is why George W. Bush is not "George Bush, Jr."). If a generation is skipped, or if a child has the exact same name as, say, an uncle, the II suffix is used instead. Women very rarely get the Jr., II, etc., suffixes, probably because traditionally a girl's last name at birth is her father's name, not her mother's maiden name. Thus, a girl whose maiden name (e.g. Lily Potter) is the same as her grandmother's married name (e.g. Lily Potter, née Evans), does not get the II suffix. But James Potter II does get the suffix, assuming his middle name (if he has one) is the same as his grandfather's middle name (if he had one), or if neither of them has a middle name). —Angr 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Too Big?

I was wondering if someone was going to expand this to include the long link to Voldemort. However, considering that this is supposed to specifically be HP's family tree, and that if we are going to go far enough back up, and then back down, to include Voldemort, the actual relationship is minimal at best. From other evidence, the entire Weasley, Malfoy and Lestrange families are much more closesly related to the Potters. While it's nice to show that through many hundreds/thousands of years genealogy Voldemort and Harry are related, this tree is getting too big. I'd say we revert it back, but I don't want to do this without hearing other opinions. -- Maijstral 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say his name! - 211.30.231.112 10:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (ZEROpumpkins)[reply]

User is unable to reply because Snatchers appeared and hauled him in for questioning. Maijstral 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voldemort's Peverell Relation

I think, considering that the Gaunts had possession of the Ressurrection Stone, that Voldemort is descended from Cadmus Peverell. I'm not quite sure how this template works, so could someone change the dotted line from the Peverells to the Guants into a solid one from Cadmus? →evin290 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done Lizzie Harrison 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! →evin290 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some needs to do some checking in the books. It is only stated that the ring had been in Gaunts family for centuries and Marvolo believed that the symbol was the Peverell coat of arms. It was never stated which brother they are descended from. Also Cadmus Peverell committed suicide after seeing his deceased fiancée and being unable to be with her. So it does not really seem to me that he had children, but I could be wrong (Only JK knows). Anyhow as the branch of the tree stands now that links Cadmus Peverell to the Gaunt family is considered original research. (Duane543 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: I'm the one who added the Peverell and Gaunt branches. Noted that I edited it almost immediately afterwards. {{spoiler}}In HP: ATDH, it mentions that Cadmus Peverell used the Resurrection Stone to bring back someone he loved. It does NOT say that he ever married or hard children.{{endspoiler}} Thus, a DIRECT relationship to Cadmus Peverell (or the insertion of Salazar Slytherin in there cannot be considered authoritative. I recommend (until J.K. let's something slip), returning to the indirect link between the Peverells and Voldemort. C.Borner

While I would be willing to (provisionally) accept that the Gaunts were descended from the Peverells, I don't recall the slightest hint that Slytherin was. (For all we know, Marvolo inherited the locket from his father and the ring from his mother, to mention just one of many possibilities.) Unless someone can point to such evidence, that claim shouldn't be here.--Steuard 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar discussion of this matter going on at the Harry Potter Family Tree page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter_family_tree There is certainly no evidence of Slytherin as a descendant of the Peverells (or even if he is younger than them) and there is doubt over the Gaunt's line. However as there is no official word either way I guess you have to believe Marvolo's claim. Linden Ryuujin 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Dursley

Is there any firm word on what Marge is short for? As far as I know she is only ever called Marge which could be short for Margaret or Marjorie. For now I'm changing the name to Marge. Linden Ryuujin 08:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I've just been re-reading The Prisoner of Azkaban and Fudge uses her full name (Marjorie) when talking Harry outside the Leaky Cauldron. Linden Ryuujin 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvolo Gaunt's spouse?

I can't recall any mentions of a spouse, but as he had two children who where Pure-blood, maybe some note or a "Unknown" might be added. ^CHANDLER 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest to Youngest

I am going to rework the tree so that all the siblings go from oldest to youngest. If anyone wants to see the progress go here and leave some feedback if you want. CSLoomis 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have finished the new tree. If there are any concerns with it let me know. I have organized it so the eldest child in the family is always on the left to the youngest on the right. I have also organized the rows into generation. I believe that I have them all right. I had to give Harry's generation two rows. CSLoomis 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percy and Fred

I'm not quite sure how this template works, but I'd like to say that Percy and Fred Weasly aren't mentioned. Could someone please fix that. Shnib 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding them in while I do my edit. CSLoomis 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

There was some concern at Talk:Relatives of Harry Potter that this chart was unclear as there were multiple rows being used for the same generation in places. I've had a go at restructuring the table so that one generation = one row. Comments? Aula ^TPN 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the generation problem, but I set it up the other way to keep the age organization correct. Also I was trying to make the overall size of the chart as small as I could.CSLoomis 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have looked over the revision to the tree but it has too much going on now. It is supposed to be the Harry Potter Family Tree, but it is going way beyond that now. So I think I am going to revert it with a few changes unless there are any objections. I am going to put a color code to the generations to distinguish between them.CSLoomis 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the colors added to show generations? Looks pretty good. But maybe a note somewhere, if this is the case. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they were. Thanx. I will work on putting in a note. CSLoomis 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thing's gotten awfully big, and the namesake, Harry Potter, has been pushed down to the lower-right corner. Also, there's a lot of overlap with {{Weasleyfamilytree}}. What about condensing Percy, Charlie, Fred, George, and maybe Bill and his relations, into an "Other Weasleys" box, linked to a Weasley family page? And maybe flipping it left to right, so you don't have to scroll to find Harry. Also, I don't understand why one row is double height, or why the rightmost boxes are so narrow.
—wwoods 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well I disagree, as do many of the editors at the reference article, and I don't think you waited anywhere near long enough for consensus before reverting but I guess it's a faite accomplis now. I'd point out that all I added to the family tree were Molly's brothers. I think it's much more difficult to read this way and far from improving the template I think the coloured boxes make things worse but that's just my two cents. Aula ^TPN 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I think it is more important for the correct order of things than appearance. Ultimately I think that it should be condensed way down. Like Wwoods said most of the Weasley should be removed, but the peverel and riddle ranches should stay. For the other question it is ordered in the way it is for the reason of age. The one row is double height and the other ones are shorter because of the auto formatting/sizing of the family tree template.CSLoomis 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the changes I made kept everyone in correct age-order and moreover it didn't split generations over multiple rows. Aula ^TPN 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It kept the Weasleys in order but not the the Evans or DursleysCSLoomis 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it was pretty clear from Deathly Hallows that Lily was older than Petunia so I think the Evans were in order. As for Vernon & Marge, I don't think there's been any official comment on who is older of the two but I could be wrong. Aula ^TPN 23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Lily older than Petunia?CSLoomis 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my mistake. I'll give you that one. Aula ^TPN 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone els think it still needs remaking? It looks really messy imo. CHANDLER talk 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This family tree is now so far from standard (best) practice that it's lamentable. I realise this will look like sour grapes as my attempt to reformat was so summarily shot-down but some form of compromise needs to be reached. I think you absolutely have to have all members of the same generation on one line, not split across multiple lines as it currently is. Additionally it is not standard practice to start applying tints to the boxes to denote generations as it makes the chart even more difficult to read. Fix the first problem and the second goes away by itself.

I'd like to propose that the chart be reformatted per my above recommendations and (to avoid overcrowding) all non-essential generational members should be collapsed into boxes such as 'Other Children'. I'll cook up a proposed revision and place it in the article under a noinclude tag so that people can compare/contrast and make suggestions without it crufting up the pages it is transcluded to. See here. Aula ^TPN 11:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all reality we need to shrink it down. It needs to be Harry and mainly his blood relatives with maybe some of the other important relations. I am going to work on reducing it now. If anyone wants to see the progress it is here. In preparation for some comments that are sure to come up; the deleted individuals are all contained in there respective family trees so it is not like they will be forgotten. CSLoomis 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize

Would some please standartize the other large family trees the Black Family Tree and the Weasley Family tree, by color coding the generations. Any thoughts?→041744 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can go ahead and do that.CSLoomis 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colour-coding is not standard practice for a family tree and unless you are very subtle in your choice of colours it makes it much harder to read. JM2C. Aula ^TPN 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And The Black Family Tree doesn't need it. The generations are very clear. Therequiembellishere 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, if we arrange it like the Black family tree, we wouldn't need these colours. Therequiembellishere 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaunt from Cadmus

Where does it say that the Gaunt family are decedents of Cadmus? This is what the book says.

Meanwhile, the seconds brother (Cadmus) journeyed to his own home, where he lived alone... ...To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry before her untimely death, appeared at once before him... ...Finally, the second brother driven mad with hopeless longing, killed himself so as truly to join her

To me it doesnt sound like he ever had any children (where he lived alone) or other wife (why would he try to call back his old tonsil hockey teammate from the dead if he already had a new one?).

The first brother Antioch is a possibility because nothing is said about him (we don't know how old they where when they got the deathly hallows). The only one we know had children is Ignotus, and i think that both Harry's family and the Gaunt's are decedents of him. If you say "the gaunts got the stone", It could just as easily have been stolen from Cadmus after his death, or left to his only living brother Ignotus? Maybe he had two children, gave them each one of the hallows. Chandler talk 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKR said that Harry and Voldy are distanly realted through the perevells, Harry through Ignotus and Voldy through Cadmus. Lizzie Harrison 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a link?.. Chandler talk 11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that the web chat says is J.K. Rowling: Yes, Harry and Voldemort are distantly related through the Peverells. Of course, nearly all wizarding families are related if you trace them back through the centuries. As was made clear in Deathly Hallows, Peverell blood would run through many wizarding families.. Nothing about "Harry through Ignotus and Voldy through Cadmus." Chandler talk 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Marvolo Gaunt shows Bob Ogden the Horcrux ring, he said is was his ancestor's. The stone passed from Cadmus through various generations to Marvolo, the same the cloak passed to Harry from Ignotus.--Lord Opeth (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stone can't be passed through Cadmus as it is almost specified that he has no children... The more likely conclusion i've drawn is, Ignotus got the stone and passed it down, and somewhere along the line the cloak was given to one child, and the stone to another? Chandler talk 06:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE!!!

Would someone please get rid of the colors on this template and on Template:Weasleyfamilytree and keep it that way! Who was the Wikipedia user that thought of the idea to use the colors for the Harry Potter trees (please answer this question)? It's really annoying to see those awful colors. --TimySmidge 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge[reply]

Colors make it easier to read and follow. --74.183.4.187 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Could we format it like the Black Family Tree? It would solve a lot of problems, especially if we keep it with he same font size. Therequiembellishere 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey who?

Anyone know what Percy Weasley's wife Audrey's last name is? She should be on the tree, but I cannot place her on there until I know her last name. I suspect I should just put "Audrey Weasley", but I want to put her original name on there. Anyone know? ZanderX (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]