Talk:Weasley family/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name

Please cite proof that Fred's name is Frederik, or otherwise, change it back to simply Fred. Without citations, I could write that their middle names are Gideon and Fabian (which is also not a fact, despite what people assume) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.219.233.10 (talk) 07:43:04, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

I'm bad at this whole editing thing but there are major spoilers for the new book in this article.

(both born April 1, 1987)[1]

Can someone point out the authoritative reference that says that it is indeed 1987 and not 1978? --Mysidia 08:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually that date is incorrect. They both were born on April 1st, but if they where born in '87 that means that they 1 year and 5 months old when they started school. Now that is a long time to be held back in school. :) 1978 is most likely correct because that would make them 11 years old when they went into Hogwarts. Information gleaned from the HP Lexicon's artcle on Fred and George and J.K. Rowling.com -Hoekenheef 14:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (They were born in 78)

2 People

Shouldn't there be a pic of them from Order of the Phoenix? They look a little different. Dahopas 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldent there be different articles for each of the twins? They are different people Shadoom1

I'm with you on that one if you want two different articles though you should make one. The only big difference between fred and george are their ships and how they assert themselves tough,. is that difference really enough to give new article (70.245.221.70 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. They're pretty much exactly the same except Fred is apparently the leader and is more assertive than George... oh yeah, Fred is also dead now.

Dude now i think there should be to different boxes since their perosnalitys are so different and that they like different girls... but most expecially their differenent roles in DH. I think atleast fred deserves his own. Im not a memeber so i cant do it. SOme one should though. (69.155.119.220 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. If you make two articles they would contain the same information, except that Fred's would include his death. There's no reason for two different articles, and if someone did separate them they would almost certainly be merged back by someone else. There's no point. Faithlessthewonderboy 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post links on this page thing?

I don't know whether I'm allowed to post links on this page, so if I'm not, don't report me 'cos i never knew... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgewgirl (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Nope, sorry. See this page: WP:EL -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the stunt men?

Why is there mention of the stunt men for the "old man" scene in Goblet of fire? Is this fact that noteworthy? Seems to be a bit of self promotion to me, particularly when it says he was in "Star Wars", but not mentioning that he played a non-speaking robot. Bytebear 20:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then delete it. Be bold and all that jazz. John Reaves 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Red heads?

The article mentions that the actors for Fred and George had their hairs dyed for the role. However, I feel that most of the images provided in the article show them to still have rather blond hair. Am I growing colour-blind, or is the info provided rather misleading/inaccurate? Yengkit19 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the pictures were poorly chosen. They look pretty redheads on PS/SS and PoA movies. But they really are bloond on GoF movie. User:Diana Prallon

Actually, in the movies, Fred and George were strawberry-blond. therefore, under light, their hair appeared blond, but otherwise red.72.65.43.98 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)aelita

Talking of appearance, what is the eye color of the twins? it could have blue like their father's, or is it brown, since they very much resemble ginny(vice versa) and their mother's?

Out of the Standart

The end of the article seems to be biased. Someone should edit it -- seems that whmoever wrote the page blames the Twins for every single product they sell. User:Diana Prallon

I don't know that it is bias, just a truth that there are hidden consquences to practical jokes, and there is a line between good fun and meanness. Plus, dismissing trouble by making a joke out of it doesn't work. Darkness powder is probably funny... but at some times it can be used as a weapon. Love potions are irresponsible. But shoving Montoque into the vanishing cabinet led directly the Battle of Hogwarts once Malfoy repaired the Hogwarts end, and led to the disfigurement of their brother and the death of Dumbledore. The Weasley twins are still young and while they have created some very good productions like clothing with shield charms, they have also been irresponsible in some ways. Jclinard 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that it's a debatable subject, and debatable subjects shouldn't be stated as truth. If it's an opinion it should be stated us such. You can't really blame them for shoving Montoque into the vanishing cabinet- it's not likely a huge battle was likely to ensue. Not to mention, that did not lead to the death of Dumbledore- he would have died anyway. He died at the hands of someone inside Hogwarts, not someone who came in via the cabinet. Not to mention, he'd organised it all anyway. LeahMaria 1:12, 7 August 2007 (EST)

"Harry Potter character"

it should say characters, since this is a page for two different people - either that, or there should be two different infoboxes, but that would be a bit redundant

i would try and fix this myself, except it seems every single page to do with harry potter has been protected from editing. wikipedia - the free encyclopedia anyone can edit! 87.244.67.193 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo: "protecting it from furthur harm." Misspelled 'further'

I'm not sure

but isn't there a Wikipedia policy on fictional characters that says that birth/death dates should not be at the top of te article? Faithlessthewonderboy 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For now, I'm going to delete the dates, but if I'm wrong feel free to add them back. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged from Talk:Gabrielle Delacour

Gabrielle's age

If Gabrielle Delacour was 8 in 1995 how could she be born in 1984? that would make her birth no earlier than 1986!

And she certainly wasn't born in 1995; according to Dates in Harry Potter, the main death near the end of Goblet of Fire occurred on June 21, 1995, and Gabrielle was 8ish at that time. However, that same page says that she was born c.1984, so I'm open to 1984, 1985, or 1986. Travisl 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How did she get to hogwarts?

Did she come with her sister, or what she just magically transported for the challenge? -anon

Good question, i already asked myself too. At least: in the film you can see her in the end when they're leaving Hogwarts. So, if she stayed there after the challenge, she would have been there from the beginning of the year on. --217.80.104.240 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read the book and she is mentioned before the last challenge, where the champions meet their families. --217.80.108.151 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should she spend the whole year at Hogwarts? If the rules in Beauxbatons are the same as in Hogwarts, she was too yound to even go to a magic scool. --217.80.115.101 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Death

According to some rumours, Gabrielle Delacour dies at the hands of Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I think we will wait July to write that in the article.

I can truly imagine, that Fleur dies in the last book, sacrificing herself to save Bill and/or Gabrielle. --217.80.124.151 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

gabrielle isnt involved in the book i dont think

Erm. OK. I thought, that would be a good end for her. Can't understand why so few people like her. --217.224.136.78 07:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The last time we see her is at Bill & Fleurs Wedding so

Minor Character

Gabrielle is of little important in the series. Her article should be merged in the Minor Characters article. Lord Opeth 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --217.224.136.78 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Frederick?

I'm not sure of this which is why I haven't reverted it, but is Fred ever called Frederick? I can't remember him ever being called that, but I could be wrong. Faithlessthewonderboy 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Tree

The Family tree is wrong. It says Albus, James and Lily are the children of James and Lily Potter. I would try to change it myself but my account is only a day old and the page is semi-protected. LeahMaria 1:08, 7 August 2007 (EST)

Character

I would like to suggest that an addition be made to this page to reference the character of the Weasely Twins. Specifically I would like to see a reference to the tender moment in the "Order of the Phoenix" movie when they comfort the crying first year who has just been forced to do lines for Umbrage. More than any other scene in the books or movie, that seems to be the quintessential Twins moment, where the reason they were in Gryffindor in the first place seems to be obvious. Although the movies are not canon, I still think this is relevant. (No account, but call me Coach Wade.)

As you said, it isn't canon. Besides, this is your opinion. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle Names

Haven't their middle names ever been revealed? Every other member of the Weasley family gots a middle name.

I think Fred's middle name is George, and George's middle name is Fred. Bytebear 00:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the image relevant?

Being a fan art, I wonder whether it is appropriate to have the image as the portrait (even if it is attributed as such), after all this isn't deviantart.

first appearance

On James and Lily Potter, it says their first appearence was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, even though they are dead before the beginning of that book. I am assuming it refers to their photos' or Mirror of Erised, so then Charlie's first appearance is PoA. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Quidditch Captain?

Was Charlie ever the Gryffindor Quidditch captain? I've always assumed he was, but I'm not sure if it has ever been explicitly mentioned in the books. Cyclone49 09:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference that he was. I'll remove that statement, but feel free to add it again if you find a reference. Pruneau 22:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"...Charlie was captain of Quidditch" (page 99 of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) (Duane543 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Alex Crockford?

The article on Alex Crockford is currently up for deletion, and it appears that no sources have been cited, here or in Alex Crockford, indicating that this is the name of the actor who played Charlie Weasley in The Prisoner of Azkaban . imdb has no listing on him, either as being in the cast of The Prisoner of Azkaban or as an actor.

Therefore, I'm removing the assertions about him from the article.

Anyone is welcome to reinsert them... with a source citation from a reliable source (not an Internet forum or anything like that). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disregard this. Wrong article Loopywelshemz 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Charles?

Has it ever been confirmed that Charlie is short for Charles? I know that Charlie is generally short for Charles, but Arthur and Molly could have just named him Charlie, or even something else. - Charity 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've noticed it too, though much later. This family tree has read Charles since, as far as I can see, a year! And on top of that it isn't even confirmed --Maurice45 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. faithless (^speak) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I think that Charlie should be merged with the Weasley Family article, and be featured along with Rose, Hugo, Victorie and Aunt Muriel. Charlie is a really minor character in the series and his article is really short. Lord Opeth 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlie actively recurrs in four books. Rose, Hugo, and Victoire get a singe chapte, we know nothing but lineage about them. Aunt Muriel gets a chapter conversation with Harry and is mentioned in one other book. Charlie is by far more important.

Prefect

This page should also list Charlie as a prefect. He is revealed to be a Prefect in Order of the Phoenix when Molly comments that all of the family except for Fred and George have been prefects.64.50.201.98 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

READ THE BOOK.

"I’m the sixth in our family to go to Hogwarts. You could say I’ve got a lot to live up to. Bill and Charlie have already left - Bill was head boy and Charlie was captain of Quidditch. Now Percy’s a prefect". ~Ron Weasley (PS6) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambria.Alexis (talk • contribs) 11:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Prewetts

Where is the source for the Prewetts' inclusion on the family tree? As far as I can remember, they are only mentioned in passing in the first and fifth books. Anthrcer 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Molly's brothers are Gideon and Fabian Prewett. Who were members of the order and were killed by five deatheaters.

How do we know Molly is descended from the un-named male Prewett rather than Ignatius? Aula^TPN 11:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's known because Sirius says that Molly is his cousin by marriage (in OotP). If Molly's parents were Ignatius and Lucretia (Black) Prewett, then she'd be a blood relative (first cousin). Lucretia and Orion Black (Sirius' father) were brother and sister. - Seansinc 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact we don't know whether Molly is the daughter of Ignatius, or even his brother (how do we know that Ignatius on the Black family is immediately connected to Molly? Perhaps Ignatius is a common Prewett name...) I, however, think that Molly is the daughter of Ignatius who married Lucretia, though not by her. As JKR does not list any issue of Ignatius and Lucretia, it is safe to say that Molly is not their daughter, but rather his. If Ignatius married first to a yet unknown woman, and fathered Molly, Gideon and Fabian (and maybe others) then were divorced (do wizards do that?) or widow(er)ed and Ignatius remarried Miss Black then Molly and Sirius would still be cousins by marriage (or step-cousins). This would also tie in with the naming patterns of Arthur and Molly's children's middle names: 1st son or daughter - father or mother's name, 2nd son - paternal grandfather, 3rd son - maternal grandfather (this pattern could also continue with the girls, but we don't know) and the 4th, 5th, 6th etc. sons named after uncles and other family members...

It is also interestind to note (though totally irrelevant to this post) that although Ginny was the first female in several generations, there are seven girls among A & M's grandchildren (though none seem to follow any naming patterns, apart from Molly and Lily) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.217.49 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoire

There is now proof that Victoire is the child of Bill and Fleur, JK Rowling mentions it in an interview on msnbc.com[1]. She also says that Victoire is their eldest, implying younger siblings. Besides this, it has appeared obvious to some simply because of the French name (see previous discussion below).

There is no canon reference to support the assertion that she is the daughter of Bill. She could just as easily be the daughter of Charlie, Percy or George all of whome survive. While Bill is most likely the father we have no definitive proof. --Jabuzzard 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing "Victoire" is obviously french in origin, which strongly suggests that she is the daughter of Fleur (who is french), and Bill. See also, Victoire Weasley. Jonzo12 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite that, there is still no absolute proof that Victoire is Bill and Fleur's daughter. I would agree that it is very likely that she is, but until there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that she isn't. - PeeJay 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the possibility that Victoire was named after Viktor Krum be mentioned in the article? I was not thinking it should be said out right that she was named after him, but rather the connection between their names and Viktor's friendship with Fleur. Tinkstar1985 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

also should someone mention that ted lupin and victoire are 4th cousins once removed?

Family Trees

All of these family trees should be united into one clearer family tree.

A little reminder about Charlie Weasley

It has never been stated in the Harry Potter books or by JK Rowling that Charlie was a prefect. I have reverted this page a few times because of that mistake.

everyone except fred and george ^[HP5]

bill-prefect charlie-prefect percy-prefect ^[HP1] fred-no george-no ron-prefect ^[HP5] Ginny-prefect ^[HP6]

Actually, yes it is proven. When Ron becomes a prefect Mrs. Weasley says that's everyone in the family except Fred and George. Everyone would include Bill, Charlie, Percy, and Ron. Ginny isn't old enough yet. For that matter, it may include Mr. and Mrs. Weasely in their time at Hogwarts.64.50.201.98 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ginny isn't a prefect. She stayed with Dean Thomas in the beginning of the trip to Hogwarts, later joining the Slug Club introduction.

READ THE BOOK.

"I’m the sixth in our family to go to Hogwarts. You could say I’ve got a lot to live up to. Bill and Charlie have already left - Bill was head boy and Charlie was captain of Quidditch. Now Percy’s a prefect". ~Ron Weasley (PS6) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambria.Alexis (talk • contribs) 11:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Are you implying that this means Charlie was not a prefect? Ron would undoubtedly be more impressed that his brother was Quidditch captain, and would therefore mention that above his being a prefect. Anyways in OotP Ch.9, Mrs. Weasley says that Ron is the fourth prefect in the family. Since we know that neither Fred nor George were prefects, we can deduce that Bill, Percy and Charlie were. Faithlessthewonderboy 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Post the exact quote that said Charlie Weasley was a prefect or that there four prefects in the Weasley family. You can't just claim something as a fact without proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambria.Alexis (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Mind the attitude, there's no reason to get snippy. I told you what book and chapter contains the quote. Can't be bothered? Fine, here:

"No, no, I'll do it myself later," beamed Mrs. Weasley. "You have your drink. We're having a little bit of a celebration, actually...." She gestured at the scarlet banner. "Fourth prefect in the family!" she said fondly, ruffling Ron's hair.

-Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix American hardback edition, Ch.9 p.169

It's quite simple. Neither Fred nor George were prefects, and Ginny wasn't old enough. That leaves 1. Bill, 2. Charlie, 3. Percy and 4. ickle Ronnie the prefect. Next time assume good faith and don't accuse someone of "claim[ing] something as a fact without proof," especially when proof is given. Faithlessthewonderboy 07:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Percy's Kids

Percy should be listed on the family tree as having at least one unknown child. In the end chapter of deathly hallows he is at platform 9 3/4 talking about broom regulations. Government officials, however, never oversaw children getting on the train. Nor do professors oversee children getting on the train. Only parents and guardians are present. Therefore Percy must have at least one child.64.50.201.98 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's clever of you, I hadn't noticed that. Still, some will argue that he could have been there to see off his nieces and nephews. Ariadne55 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You know he's right, it never says that Percy had children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.57.110 (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! It's great that you caught that. Bummer that they never mentioned it. --Daniella95 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that Percy Weasley got married to Penelope Clearwater because they were dating in the Chamber of Secrets. --Daniella95 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been answered by JK Rowling, look lower down the page for discussion on it.--71.31.87.173 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Family tree in individual entries

Isn't including the family tree in individual entries for Weasley family members rather redundant, since the Weasley Family link at the bottom of each page leads to the exact same thing? They also result in unnecessary page clutter. Beemer69 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Harry Potter related to the Weasleys, through his father? Like 4th cousins? Megan :) 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Weasley is descended from Phineas Nigellus Black. Phineas also had a daughter named Dorea. Dorea Black married Charlus Potter and had a son. It's not known if that son was an ancestor of Harry Potter. On the tree, there aren't any grandchildren listed for Dorea and Charlus. Their son was a second-cousin to Arthur Weasley and a second-cousin-once-removed to the Weasley children. Look for the Black family tree here on Wikipedia, or try www.hp-lexicon.org for their version of it. Ariadne55 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Septimus Weasley

Is there any source for him being Arthur's father? Od Mishehu 11:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit complicated. Though it's never exactly stated specifically, you can figure it out logically. We know (because Arthur tells us) that he and Sirius are second cousins once removed. If you consult the Black family tree, the only way this would be possible is if Arthur is the child of Septimus Weasley and Cedrella (Black) Weasley. So aside from this fitting what we know of Arthur's relationship with Sirius, it just makes common sense. It's also worth noting that Cedrella was disowned by the Blacks because Septimus was a blood-traitor. faithless (^speak) 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, "He presumably died sometime before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as he is not mentioned at Bill and Fleur's wedding", regarding Septimus. The only relative outside the immediate family (Molly, Arthur, and their kids) who is mentioned specifically as being at the wedding is Auntie Muriel, a relative on Molly's side. So by the above logic, the entire extended Weasley family has "presumably" been wiped out. No, no, no. I noted instead that Septimus has never appeared in any of the books and is known only from the Black Family Tree. Seansinc 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Grandchildren of the Weasley family

 Done This is ridiculous. We need to condense our articles, as per decisions at the WP:WPHP, specifically the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability. This article (the Grandchilren) is excessive and can easily be merged into this one, Weasley family. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge: the whole article of the grandchildren fits in here, because all of those characters are not notable in the main plot. Lord Opeth 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge: Per Lord Opeth and Fbv. —Mirlen 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

why Albus jn. is linked to Lily and James Potter?

and some few more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.174 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry's other two children are also called James and Lily. Look up the tree a couple of generations. Vashti 04:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blood purity of the Potter children.

Do we know what constitutes a "pure-blood?" Yes; a wizard's grandparents must all be wizards/witches. Does this describe the Potter children? Yes, it most certainly does. This is not OR, leave it the way it is. faithless (^speak) 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we know what constitutes a "pure-blood"? Tell me where it says that. WookMuff 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do. I provided a link on the other discussion page where you asked this question. You apparently didn't bother reading what was there before asking it. faithless (^speak) 22:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I saw that link... I just assumed there was something that said what you say, thats all. "Harry isn't a Pure Blood because two of his grandparents are muggles" does not equal "If a wizard has no muggle grandparents, he is pureblood". Sorry, perhaps english isn't your first language so perhaps you don't understand the way it works. To quote Monty Python:

"All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit! Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious one would think.

.

Apparently, not so obvious to all. WookMuff 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what constitutes blood purity. We just know, from JKR, that it's a "warped logic" originating from these people "to whom these distinctions matter", wanting to express "their prejudices", thus a subjective ideology, not a mathematical equation.

Rowling said that there were no more true pure blood family, so seeing people calling themselves pure-blood and others half-blood shows that it's based on prejudices and that there's no definite "rule". It depends on how the people "to whom these distinctions matter" see the others...

Now, I completely agree with WookMuff, we do not know what constitutes blood purity. You say "4 wizard grand parents". But JKR says that for Lucius Malfoy, being a Muggle-born is as "bad" as being a Muggle, and that's why, because of Lily Potter, he considers Harry a "half-wizard". So, how would Lily be considered by "people to whom these distinctions matter" ? Wizard or Muggle ? And how her grand children would be considered ? Can you really answer the question, Faithless ?

No, you can't answer, Faithless, because it would mean assuming you know post-Deathly Hallows thoughts of fictional characters, and unless you are JKR, it is original research. Folken de Fanel 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you two really need it spelled it out for you? Fine: Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents. Put another way, if Harry's grandparents had been wizards, he would be a "full" wizard. This is not OR, it's right there in front of you. And, in response to the little message you left of my talk page, one person does not a consensus make. Especially when you're trying to change the established content of a page. Look back through the history of the page, you will see people reverting the vandals who changed it before. Oh, and WookMuff, I'm sure you think you're terribly clever, but do not insult me again, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. And I enjoy Monty Python as much as anyone, but take it somewhere else. No one is impressed that you memorized (or Googled) a movie quote. Oh yeah, we native English speakers capitalize "English." faithless (^speak) 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems WookMuff is right when he says you don't understand english...

I can't see where you're going with that. Harry "would have been pure blood" if his grand parents were wizards ? But they were not, so what ? Are you trying to imply that we should reject what Rowling wrote in her books and just assume Lily and her parents were all pure-blood ?

Oh, I also notice that you completely "forgot" to answer my question, that is, since Malfoy considers Muggle-borns as bad as Muggles, would he consider Lily Potter a "wizard" ? What is a "wizard" for the people to whom expressions of blood purity matter ?

You see, you've got absolutely no proof of what you're saying. You're just altering Rowlings words, inventing things that are absolutely not there, and waiting we just magically agree with you.

Indeed, assuming things that are not in the books, with no other source than your own opinions (which are even going against the author's words) is OR. Unless you find a source to your claims, they'll be removed from the article, and your complete absence of argumentation won't prevent it: if you're not able to justify your acts even when we're just discussing the matter, I don't see why your edits would remain on the article. If "one person does not a consensus make", then you should stop revert-warring for things that you can't even justify, and which you seem to be the only one to agree with. If the content was "established" and suitable for WP, you would have no problem to find sources and arguments proving it is.

Come back when you'll have reliable sources. Folken de Fanel 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you both have to resort to petty and ridiculous insults doesn't help your case any. At least try to remain civilized. Look, even if you're right, you haven't gained a consensus! As the argument stands right now, two people want to change the article, one wants to keep it as it is. Unless more speak up saying it should be changed, it stays the way it is. In the meantime, don't accuse a native speaker of a language of not understanding it when you yourself are not a native speaker. It's petty and pathetic. If you have a legitimate argument, let it speak for itself. Save your insults, all they do is make you look juvenile. faithless (^speak) 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But you dont understand. My quote was perfectly apt, and also not from a film at all. Look, I will try to dumb it down for you, ok? Harry is not pureblood because he had muggle grandparents. That doesn't mean that THAT is the standard for pureblood. It means that Harry isn't pureblood because he has muggle grandparents. To reitterate, "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted". All Pit Bulls are Dogs, therefore all Dogs are Pit Bulls. Just because Harry wasn't pureblood because he had muggle grandparents doesn't mean that his children will be pureblood because they don't. They still have muggle GREAT Grandparents, which you seem to imply that racially obsessed lunatics would ignore as irrelevant. Also, don't make threats. WookMuff 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't hold a conversation without throwing around insults, this will be my last post on this topic. Rowling was asked why Harry isn't considered a pure-blood. Her answer was that it was because of his grandparents. That's all we have to go on. As she didn't mention anything about his great-grandparents, we can't assume that they have anything to do with it. All she tells us is that because his grandparents weren't wizards, he's not a pure-blood. As far as I'm concerned, Tony solved this problem below, and the controversy is over. In the future I would suggest you try to remain civil with other editors, even those you disagree with. I don't like you any more than you like me, but let's act like grown-ups. Also, I haven't made any threats and I don't appreciate the accusation. faithless (^speak) 00:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an insult to say that someone who doesn't understand something doesn't understand. We know what you are trying to say but you steadfastly refuse to understand what we are saying. You can't just flip a statement around and expect it to remain true. Also, I am sorry that you feel you can't hold a conversation like a grown up, but them's the breaks. As for threats, perhaps I misread "Oh, and WookMuff, I'm sure you think you're terribly clever, but do not insult me again", but it seems rather confrontational to me. WookMuff 00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes and in-universe content

A lot of things that mean a lot in the Harry Potter universe don't have any relevance in real life. One of the most obvious of these is "blood purity", which is nothing but a proxy adopted by Rowling for bigotry (an analogue for racism, so-called "ethnic cleansing" and the like). Per WP:WAF, we should of course relate such concepts where they have a real world significance. But that doesn't mean we stick them in an infobox.

It's especially unseemly when editors enage in personal insults over such matters.

So I've removed the in-universe content from the infoboxes. Information such as a character's name, which book or books they appear in, who portrays them on screen, and possibly even their gender (where this is not obvious), probably belong in an infobox (although it's still arguable whether each fictional character merits an infobox). Matters like "blood purity", however, should be left inside the fictional Harry Potter universe, and should not ever become a cause for argument between Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's actually fine with me. I've never been a big fan of it being included, but as long as it was it might as well be correct. This is a fine compromise, IMO. faithless (^speak) 22:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Granger/Delacour-Weasley

I keep on editing the article so it reads Hugo and Rose Granger-Weasley and Victoire Delacour-Weasley. Since their last names are never specified we should use the most neutral ones for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, we should go by what is customary; that is, that children are given their father's last name. I have my father's last name, and I'm willing to bet everyone that reads this sentence also has their father's last names. Hyphenated names, though more common than they once were, are still extremely rare. faithless (^speak) 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems rather arrogant. It feels like Hermione and Fleur believe they are more important that Lily and Molly, whose children took their fathers names. WookMuff 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Or it could just be the way times change. Either way, this is a dumb argument and completely out of place on wikipedia. The only thing that matters is sources Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as we know all the characters in the book the woman have taken the husbands surname and so have all the children. So I really don’t think any of their names would have been hyphened. Mixed5000 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to leave no last name at all. True it is likely that they took their father's last name but there is no evidence of that and I'm certain Wikipedia is quite clear that we shouldn't do our own "research" on it. --Silent Elf 00:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to change or drop the last names on the children what about Hermione and Fleur, shouldn't they have their last names changed aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.57.110 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Not on family trees. You see, a family tree is a way of making connections between families. If, say, Mr & Mrs Evans are listed as the parents of Lily, then a double-line is joining Lily to James, we certainly won't call her "Lily Potter"! She was born Evans, and only inhertied the name "Potter" when she married James. Harry was born a Potter, therefore his name on the tree, as in the books and films, is HARRY POTTER --Maurice45 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Spoiler tags are very rarely used on Wikipedia articles. I've removed those recently added to this article for the following specific reasons.

• All biographical information about a fictional character is derived directly from the plot of the fiction. It is therefore expected that an article about a fictional character will discuss the plot of that fiction.
• The use of spoiler tags on the article about the last Harry Potter novel, in which the tagged events are described, was discussed extensively and the overall mood was strongly against use of the tags, or anything resembling them such as {{current fiction}}, beyond the first month or so after publication of the novel in English/

--Tony Sidaway 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle Delacour

Anyone think Minor Harry Potter characters is a more appropriate place for her? faithless (^speak) 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gideon and Fabian are the brothers of someone that married a Weasley. The same applies to Gabrielle. If Muriel, the Prewetts and other Molly's relatives are listed here that are not proper Weasleys, then I see no reason for Gabrielle to be left out. Lord Opeth 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gideon and Fabian are only mentioned in the story because they are related to the Weasley family, so this would be the logical place for them. As they died before the series started and play no important part in it, they shouldn't be mentioned in the "minor characters" article, as they're not "really" characters at all, any more than Abraxas Malfoy Marcus Belby's Uncle Damocles are. As for Muriel, she could be a Weasley, we don't know. Molly only refers to her as "our Great Aunt Muriel;" therefore it's unclear if she is a Weasley or a Prewett. Gabrielle is introduced long before she becomes a part of the extended Weasley family, and for nearly the entire series has no relation to the Weasleys. If no one agrees I'm not going to push the matter, but I do feel that the other article would be a more appropriate place. But it's not a big deal. faithless (^speak) 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Named after whom?

Is Arthur Weasley named after Arthur Wellesley, the war hero Duke of Wellington? Sometimes it is claimed he was named after Wesley, the presbiterian preacher and Arthur, the legendary king of England. Is there any source? 91.83.16.57 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Why are a lot of Harry potter entries now trailing a paragraph that starts "in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" It makes the other books seem a little trivial especially when there is another book before Hallows. It looks like someone wanted to just tie up all the articles with the spoilers and leave out any developments that happened between the Goblet movie and the Hallows book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Don't Worry, It's Not a Spoiler)

Wow! The book is so...complete. The ending is a little disappointing but other than that, the Harry Potter series were the best books I've ever read! I'm going to start all over and read the Harry Potter series again. Yaaay! --Daniella95 (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

James "Sirius" Potter? Since when!

A lot of pages som to say that James and Liyyly, Harry's children, have their middle names named after Sirius Black and Luna Lovgood. If no one can find any proof of this, than it should be deleated. Keyblade Mage (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

This has been going on for months now. I've been pretty good about removing it, but rumor has it that on there is now finally a source for it (the new ITV documentary on Rowling). Until I've seen it, I'm going to take a little hiatus from removing cruft from HP articles. faithless (^speak) 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but seeing as the person below did mention a documentary, and the comment underneath mentioning a family tree on her website, I would suggest a citation. Unless, of course, you wanted someone else to write it. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the documentry it was called 'a day in the life of JK Rowling' on itv and she comfermed it as well as Lily's middle name being Luna and the kids of the other Weasley children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.124.46 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

JKR has LOTS of more info on her site

J K Rowling has a complete family tree on her site (behind the usually unopenable door). It includes Percy's wife and children, the rest of Bill's children, George's wife and kids, and yes, James and Lily Potter's middle names are Sirius and Luna. Oh, and Luna and Rolf's children are there, too. I would add it in, but I have no idea how to work that family tree. 71.7.210.87 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

why should we include the information that J.K. Rowling put on her website or said in an interview because none of that is canon. It's all "speculation" for what she thinks her characters would have done after the story. OGOLD (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

JKR's word is considered canon, and it's become standard to include any information she states outright in these articles -- they are filled with many examples. Percy's wife and kids should be added to the Weasley family tree. Seansinc (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't these family members been added, some like Bill's have but what about Percy.

Regarding the CN tags

The source for the newly added info about the Weasley family children is Rowling's own site (to see it, click on the eraser on her desk and then open the door). Unfortunately there is no way to directly link to it. Serendi^podous 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandchildren

Why aren't Dominique, Loius, Fred II, and Roxanne listed with small articles under the grandchildren section? Also shouldn't they have redirects to this page?--UESPArules (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry and Ginny

Shouldn't the kids also be listed as members of the Potter family? Grsz11 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Angelina

Why not put Angelina Johnson under the extended family section since the only place she is now is at Hogwarts students.--UESPArules (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Well?

Because we don't know for sure that "Angelina" (wife of George) is Angelina Johnson, Gryffindor Chaser.86.135.209.39 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do. faithless (^speak) 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual reason, as far as I recall, is that she, for most or possibly all of her mentions in the books, is a Hogwarts student. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We should put her in the "Weasley Family" article instead of "Dumbledore's Army" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.238.174 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Auntie Muriel

Why is Muriel's name left off of the family tree? Could someone try to figure out her connection?
Razor Rozar7 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't know whether Auntie Muriel is a Weasley or a Prewett, so it would be difficult to include her on the tree. faithless (^speak) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And also, it is not for us to speculate on her connection with the family. --Maurice45 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We know she is Molly's aunt and not a Weasley - during Bill's wedding she says " Another Weasley? You bread like gnomes..." which I think is sufficient proof to say she does not belong to Arthur's family. She also comes across (to me at least) as one who has never married, so I'd say she is either the sister of Mr. or Mrs. Prewett... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.217.49 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't know whether she's a maternal or paternal aunt to Molly, therefore her inclusion on the family tree would be speculation --Maurice45 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

William Weasley?

Why is Bill Weasley called William Weasley in the family tree? I know this is obviously an error but I don't know how to fix it myself. --Jammy (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Harry Potter Lexicon lists his name as William. While I can't recall exactly where in the series he is called William (probably by Molly, just in passing), the Lexicon wouldn't list it if it weren't accurate. faithless (^speak) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an error. Deathly Hallows - the wedding scene: "Do you, William Arthur, take Fleur..." -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

can i use this pic

can i use the picture of Gabrielle Delacour for the Harry Potter wiki? reply asap Ahoskinson 95 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Verification of Grandchildren

I am trying to search source 22 to verify the names of the grandchildren, yet I don't see anything on the website about them. Where do I look?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but it's easily verifiable elsewhere on the interweb. I'm sure you could watch the Year in the Life show on YouTube. faithless (^speak) 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if her website is given as a source, it should be able to be located there.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember saying anything to the contrary. faithless (^speak) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is only published on the interactive version of her site, and we are unable to link to this. However, when on the homepage, if you click on the eraser on the desk, and then on the door handle once you get to the next room you will be able to see the family tree. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, it can be viewed here [2] -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Female" Prewett?!

Can someone please change "Female Prewett" to Mrs. Prewett as she was not born a Prewett? It might also be more presentable to show Molly's dad as Mr. Prewett --Maurice45 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - done. faithless (^speak) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Veela heritage

@Faithlessthewonderboy -- I thought I was pretty clear. There is no evidence that there is something like a 'half-Veela', AFAIK. It's nothing more than an assumption. Could you provide a quote from the books if you have a different opinion?

The problem is, that throughout the whole series, there is not a single male Veela. So if you start to categorize Veela into 'full', 'half' and so on, then how can there still be 'full' Veelas today (like at the World-Cup in GoF)?

One way out is to assume there is no such thing as 'half' etc. - Veela. They all are utterly Veela -- meaning, the daughter of a Veela and a Wizard is just as much Veela as her mother, namely, Veela -- without any prefix.

The books never speak about 'half'-Veela or 'quarter'-Veela, they only come up in Fanfiction.

That theory is nothing more than that, a theory -- but it is not disproved by Canon, and not more improbable than the assumption, that the daughter of a Veela and a normal Wizard is less Veela than her mother.

And since this article is about facts, it's IMO simply wrong to write that Apolline Delacour is half-Veela.

Edit: Here's the only thing we know for sure about Fleur's Veela-heritage: "An 'air from ze 'ead of a veela," said Fleur. "One of my grandmuzzer's." (GoF, The Weighing of the Wands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.232.86 (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have here a description of the scene when the Delacours arrive to the Burrow in book 7: "...Mr. Weasley, who appeared at the gate moments later, laden with luggage and leading a beautiful blonde woman in long, leaf-green robes, who could only be Fleur's mother". Also, she is said to be "accomplished at household spells...", as far as we know, only wizards and witches are capable of casting spells (some creatures have their own magic, though, but this magic is never refered as spells).--Lord Opeth (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the woman part isn't really an indicator either way, since the Veelas are by definition beautiful women (when they aren't birds). The second point ... well, that could be an indicator of her being not completely Veela, if Veelas weren't able to use magic. They might not be able to, then again, if their 'base' form was the human form, it could seem possible ... they are magical, after all; the birds can throw fireballs.

But that is of no matter, I think. Just to clarify that, I'm not saying that what I wrote above is what should be in the article, only that the evidence for Fleur's mother being a half-Veela is shaky, even with the new quote.

It's not much more than guesswork, and why do that if the sentence works just as well without the half-Veela bit in it? Even if it's just to be on the safe side.

Formerly, the sentence in question read:

... her mother is a half-Veela named Apolline Delacour, from whom Fleur and her younger sister, Gabrielle, inherited their silvery-blonde hair ...

As of now, it's:

... her mother, named Apolline Delacour, is the daughter of a Veela, from whom Fleur and her younger sister, Gabrielle, inherited their silvery-blonde hair ...

That current phrasing is based purely on facts, and leaves it open to the reader's imagination just what that means for Fleur and her mother -- just as it is the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.232.86 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You quoted earlier from Goblet of Fire chapter eighteen - the very next sentence reads, "So Fleur was part veela, thought Harry..." (emphasis not mine). If Fleur is only part veela, then obviously there are such things as 'full' or 'part' veela. Anyway, I'm fine with the current wording. faithless (^speak) 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

I come with this split proposal after confirming that this article fails to meet some Wiki guidelines. Primarily, the whole article is plot re-telling and in in-universe style; with this I mean that all sections, including the introduction, is about description and plot involvement of characters, places and events. There are no sections of deep analysis or real impact in the outside world of the family as an encyclopedic subject, so it also fails to meet Notability. That is why I think that this article can be split and all sections can be perfectly moved to other existing articles.

To be more specific:

• Arthur, Molly, Bill and Charlie Weasley: move to Order of the Phoenix
• Percy Weasley: move to Ministry of Magic
• Fred and George Weasley: move to Dumbledore's Army
• Fleur Delacour: move to Order of the Phoenix
• Gabrielle Delacour and Auntie Muriel: move to Supporting HP characters
• Others: only Gideon and Fabian Prewett have (little) involvement in the series, and they already have a section in the Order of the Phoenix members table.
• Grandchildren: move to Supporting HP characters
• Residence: move to Places in HP
• Pets and animals: move to the "The Weasleys pets" in the Magical creatures article
• Mr Weasley's car: move to Magical objects

The page itself will be redirected to the "Family's" section in Ron's article, like some of the former articles about families (the Blacks, Riddles, Gaunts, Malfoys, Dumbledores, etc.) Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. faithless (^speak) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it passed more than a week and no opposition came, the changes are being performed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)