Talk:Potter family

Separating articles

Should these be separate articles? If not, why not? -- hike395 05:52, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My opinion: they should. That's how they started out, as well. Who would ever link to "Relatives of Harry Potter"? -- Someone else 05:59, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

I prefer it this way. I don't think we need a thousand-and-one mini-articles on various aspects of the Harry Potter universe. I don't object to the amount of content, of course, but I think that the majority of this material can be consolidated down. If you want to link to a specific relative, you can always link through the redirect pages or link directly to a section of this article. Justin Bacon 08:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I lean towards having a single Characters in the Harry Potter Series article with each character having a heading you can create a # link to. See The Wheel of Time for an example. Phil 13:43, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

If we're going to have separate articles for Harry Potter characters (i.e. Arabella Figg), than it seems like Lily and James Potter are significant enough to have their own articles. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:15, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've just created an article for both of them; James and Lily Potter

Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Harry_Potter#Breaking_apart_articles_of_characters regarding having individual pages for characters rather than group pages. --billlund 21:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading Edit Summary

Sorry, I started out just doing some minor spring-cleaning, and it all snowballed, and I forgot to update the edit summary when I'd finished ;-/ --Phil | Talk 12:43, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

James Potter's house?

Where is it explicitly stated that James was in Gryffindor? I don't remember this being in any of the books. If no one can find factual evidence I'm going to remove it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling said James was in Gryffindor in an interview.

Can someone provide evidence of this? It's annoying that Rowling adds to canon in "official" interviews. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:30, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

JKR stated that all four "Marauders" were in Gryffindor during the World Book Day Chat on March 4 2004 (transcript at the Leaky Cauldron), although an error in the transcript leaves Peter Pettigrew's status in doubt. As for your annoyance, it's the nature of the beast I'm afraid and we all just have to put up with it :-) --Phil | Talk 15:12, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

In the movie Harry Potter 1 there is an award that says James was a Griffindor seeker and I doubt JK Rowling would have let them put it in if it was not canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachoolao (talk • contribs)

Ok, its very simple. In the final book, James is making fun of his younger brother, who may not enter Gryffindor, thus proving that he is in it. Yoman786 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Yoman876[reply]

Ok, its very simple. This section is about Harry Potter's FATHER, not SON. And the first post was "12:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)" ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be sure, and I'm sorry for trying to anwer a question, no matter how old it is. Yoman786 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what the heck is your problem Xhandler? 72.83.118.69 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xhandler has no problem, and HP7 EXPLICITLY states that James was in Gryffindor --Maurice45 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heir of Gryffindor?

Someone added the following to the article under James Potter:

James was an heir of Godric Gryffindor.

I am not aware of any evidence to this effect, much twittering in discussion groups to the contrary. Albus Dumbledore says that "only a true Gryffindor" (my emphasis) could have pulled the sword out of the hat in Book Two, but this is not the same thing at all. The only "heir" mentioned to date in the story is that of Salazar Slytherin and we know who that is. If anyone can substantiate the above assertion, then re-insert it with an explanation! --Phil | Talk 15:53, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember anything to that effect in the book. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:15, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think when Dumbledore said a "true Gryffindor," he meant someone which passionatly follows the values of Gryffindor house.

It was in book six as well

Dudley's birthday

Where did you find Dudley Dursley's birthday? The date is not given in the books, which only say that he is a few weeks older than Harry. --slg 14:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dudley

Someone needs to work on the whole "Dudley is athletic," issue. Being an overweight boxer is very different from being athletic which implies being in good physical shape and good at a variety of sports.

Also, someone needs to work on the statement about Dudley having "loving parents." Parents who spoil a child continuosly, let them grow beyond morbidly obese, and let them grow up believing that harming others is a satifactory way to go through life, are not loving, and any psychologist (and sane person, IMO) would agree with this. Maybe it should say they are "spoiling" instead.

Lily Potter (née Evans)

Rumors have it that something big will be revealed about Harry's mother Lily in the future; it started me thinking and this is something I came up with that could be true: What if Lily had unknowingly been pregnant the night she died, realy early in the pregnancy, but still it could be true; and when she sacrificed her life for her son Harry, she would have unknowingly sacrificed her unborn child's life too. And if this is true then it would mean another member of Harry's family died by Voldemort's hand and yet another reason for Harry to want to take down Voldemort once and for all.

First of all, that's very bad speculation (I'm sorry, it is.) Second of all, there's no reason for you to post it here.

Harry's parents death date

I'm curious which book said Harry Potter's parents death date? MechBrowman 03:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

See Dates in Harry Potter

Harry's Parents died October 31, 1981

none of the books said that, but you can figure it out, I think Belard 19:53, Aug 18, 2005 (UTC)

It Evans, not Evens!

The seventh book (Deathly Hallows) explicitly gives their death date as October 31, 1981. —Angr 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evans

Personally, I feel that his section should be removed from the article as he is not a relative of Harry what-so-ever. Hoekenheef 01:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no other place for him, so I think we'll keep him here until there's another place we can move him to.

I think that he should just have his own page. After all, he doesn't fit anywhere else, but he should not be with relatives of Harry Potter.

I entirely agree. I'm moving him to Trivia for right now though. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 04:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think mention of him should be kept on the page though, just to let fans and interested people of Harry Potter know that he's... well... nobody! I still get a giggle reading JKR's own answer on her FAQ about him.

Hair colour

It should be quite obvious that the hair colour shown for each character is that described in the books, which in several cases is totally different from the movie portrayal. This is more obvious now some kind soul has provided images. Should this be noted explicitly to prevent people mistakenly altering the entries to suit the images? --Phil | Talk 09:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Possibly add a note about this at the end of the first section. What does anyone else think? P.S. I've been adding the pics. :) Hoekenheef 10:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter - Bald?

It really annoys me that in the movies, James only has a stubble of short hair.

Where did his wonderful, wonderful hair go?

i to have noticed that in the movies it appears that james potter is going bald his hair is suposed to be exactly like harry's--Jackjohnson15 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Harry's length hair seems to change in the movies as well, which really should stay the same. --Jammy (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual pages discussion

It appears that this topic has been discussed before on this page. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Harry_Potter#Breaking_apart_articles_of_characters regarding having individual pages for characters rather than group pages. --billlund 21:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I think that this article should be merged with James and Lily Potter. Anyone agree? 89.241.37.214 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Mr & Mrs Potter and Mr & Mrs Evans sections should be (although most of their info is already in the James & Lily article). We already have an article for the Dursleys so there's no need to waffle on about them here, it's just repeated information. Mark Evans can go to the Minor Harry Potter characters article. As for the "Wizarding relatives" section, it isn't canon (we don't know any of his family for sure beyond his parents, grandparents, the Dursleys & Sirius) that he is related to any of those families and it includes pointless stuff like "It should be noted that his current love interest, Ginny Weasley, is a pure-blood witch" so I say get rid of all that bit. (The family tree is already included in the James & Lily and Dursley articles.) Soapy Sunshine 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Following in the excellent footsteps of the illustrious deathphoenix, I have removed what appears to be Original Research from the article. I cannot understand why the careful and wise editor did not remove these comments his or herself (s/he merely removed as much about the presence of a Potter on the Black Family Tree as s/he could - the editor appears to have something of an animus against the entire subject). I am sure s/he will appreciate my diligence in rectifying what s/he missed. Direct any complaints to deathphoenix. Michaelsanders 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Replacement Text

[(Apologies for the layout manner). Does anyone have any objections? Will be posted in approximately 24 hours if no one raises any complaints.]

Done. Michaelsanders 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood status of Harry and Ginny's children

I undid a few edits changing the supposed blood status of James II, Albus Severus and Lilly Potter from "Pure-Blood" to "Half-Blood". Blood_purity_(Harry_Potter) states that to be considered pure-blood, all of one's grandparents must have been wizards. In the case of the children of Harry & Ginny, all 4 grandparents were wizards or witches, so according to the definition given by Rowling in response to fan questions they would be considered Pure-Blood. I do not believe the more stricter definitions have relevancy for this article. Feel free to discuss.

I'd have to say that they aren't pure-bloods. I don't think that Voldemort or anyone else who was obsessed with Pure-Blood would have ever considered them to be of pure wizarding blood as they descended from a "mudblood". Just my $.02 though.Epmatsw 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be pure-blood, simply because they're father, Harry is a half-blood, and they would in no way be recognised as pure-blood by the ministry of magic. Miles15 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "Half-Blood" is a wizard/witch that has one Muggle or Muggle born parent, and one wizard/witch (not Muggle born) parent. Therefore, the three Potter children are "Pure-Blood" by definition because their parents consist of one "Pure-Blood", and one "Half-Blood". The "Pure-Blood" definition above also defines the three children pure because their grandparents, James and Lily Potter, Arthur and Molly Weasley were all wizards (Lily is still a witch despite being Muggle-born.)Xasz 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lily may be a witch, but her parents are neither a witch nor wizard. That right there means the kids can't be pure-blood. Not to mention if it were that easy to get your pure-blood status back, I highly doubt that 99.9% of the living pure-bloods would be related in some way or another. Miles15 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles15, please go read Rowling's stand on the issue at Blood_purity_(Harry_Potter). Our job is not to draw the line between what is a half-blood and what is a pure-blood. Our job at wikipedia is to see where the line is drawn in the HP universe according to the author and to follow that guideline. Our/your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.212.123.24.90 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read that article?

It just proves that the kids are indeed, half-blood. Or at the very least, not pure-blood. Go on, read the first paragraph concerning pure-bloods. Hell, just read the first and second sentences. They only strengthen my point. Miles15 10:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Rowling has said that to be considered pure-blood, all of one's grandparents must have been wizards" and that all wizards have muggle ancestors.--Prosfilaes 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the first sentence, "Pure-blood wizards claim to have no Muggle blood at all in their genealogical pedigree." I'm absolutely certain Harry Potter wouldn't shun his maternal grandparents existence just so his kids can be classified as pure-blood, but I'm over arguing with you guys, because I know I'm not gunna win. Miles15 06:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's an in-universe claim rather than the cold, hard fact stated by the author. Per the rules laid down by Rowling, Harry's kids are pure-blood. The fact that people like the Blacks or Malfoys consider pure-bloods to be only those with no muggle ancestry is irrelevant - it's pure snobbery. And when you think about it, all of them have some muggle ancestry as surely the first wizards/witches must have been muggle-born? Aula ^TPN 12:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, all these notions of blood purity are, by definition, pure snobbery.

What the Blacks or Malfoys consider is not irrelevant, because it's people like them who originally coined these expressions. It's people like them who've made these distinctions.

Blood purity is not a scientific notion, it's an in-universe, subjective (Rowling qualified it a "warped logic"), ideology inherent to a certain group of characters, there's absolutely nothing set in stone.

To conclude, all these talks in articles about the supposed blood purity of characters are awfully crufty, it's all about the opinions of fictional characters, and assuming things like how certain characters would consider other characters (while there's no concrete elements in the text) is not encyclopedical, and borderline original research. That's why it should be removed.Folken de Fanel 11:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry a descendant of Salazar Slytherin?

the Peverell Family was Slytherin and thus a descendant of Salazar if I am correct. I'd edit the tree my self but I'm un sure where the template is. STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are [necessarily] correct -- it's just that the Gaunts were descended from both the Peverells and from Slytherin. 91.105.5.108 23:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the latter option, there's no evidence that Slytherin was a descendant of the Perevells, just that the Gaunts were descendants of both Slytherin AND the Perevells. 201.17.68.231 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the current (as of 24/07/2007 09:00 GMT) tree is wrong, as it shows Salazar Slytherin being a descendant of the Peverells. This is not stated anywhere in the books i believe. To be changed?

I say change it. 201.17.68.231 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the topic 'Harry a descendant of Salazar Slytherin?' I have to say that according to the tree Harry wouldn't be descended from Slytherin, he's just related to him. Also, I do agree that the template needs to be changed, as the book never says Slytherin was descended from the Perevells.Xasz 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The books say that only the heir of Slytherin could open the chamber of secrects. Harry opend it so he is ( probably) an heir of Slytherin. Parselmouths can't open the chamber as Dumbledore never found it and Rowling stated that Dumbledore was a Parselmouth.Pyck 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadmus Peverell

How did he manage to have any descendants anyway, given that the girl he loved died and he killed himself because he couldn't get her back? 91.105.5.108 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of the children's story, it was never proven to be complete fact. Olosnecaj 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither has the opposite. I understand that having the Resurrection Stone would imply that the Gaunts were descendants of Cadmus Perevell, but if he did kill himself, the only other option would be Antioch Perevell. 201.17.68.231 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is never stated anywhere in the book that Salazar Slytherin was a descendant of the Peverells. It is entirely possible that Tom Riddle could be descended from both without Salazar being a descendant of Cadmus. I think this relationship needs to be shown in the tree as possible but not confirmed. Aula ^TPN 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the story of the girl is true, how do you know that he didn't have a child with this girl before she had died?Wild ste (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry+sons(and one daughter) are NOT pure-blood!

Lily Potter was a Muggle-born. The information was on the very same page, and it's mentioned so many times in the books even a casual reader would realise this glaring error. Unless anyone can prove that Lily was pure-blooded, I'm changing it. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone's changed it.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion above (aka please read earlier discussion before starting a new one). "Pure-blood" is correct as per the practical definition given by Rowling: all 4 of the children's grandparents were wizards/witches. The "100% pure" definition is not what is used for this article.

When JK said that, I think she ment that all grandparents must be pure blood themselves. Therefore, Harrys children are considered Half-Bloods because of Lilly Evans.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild ste (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 July 2007

I think you're adding your own interpretation to JK's words where no addition is necessary. If your interpretation were correct, she wouldn't have had any reasons to talk about the grand-parents because the recursive criterium "all 4 grandparents must be pure-bloods themselves" is equivalent to the recursive criterium "both parents must be pure-bloods themselves", and would be equivalent to the criterium "all ancestors going hundreds of generations back must be wizards". But it wouldn't make much sense if she meant it like that, would it? Because her entire point in that section of that interview is that "pureblood" is all relative anyway, and that all the so-called pure-bloods have muggles in their ancestry somewhere. In fact, on the very next line of the interview, she says there are no (as in zero) fully 100% pure-blood wizards with only wizard-ancestry left.

So she draws a line somewhere for "pure enough" rather then "fully pure", and she cleary states that she draws that line at "all 4 grandparents had magical abilities", which clearly makes Harry's children "pure-enough" purebloods.212.123.24.90 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 grandparents thingo is drawn from the nazis treatment of the Jews. People were considered Jewish by Nazi authorities if three or more of their grandparents were Jewish. Similarly Germans were only considered 'pure-blood' if they had 4 'german' grandparents, and family trees were rarely given extensive examination beyond those immediete generations.The oppression of 'mudbloods' and veneration of purebloods in Deathly Hallows (in the ministry especially), is used by J.K to draw a parallel between the two. I can't source it, but if you want to look it up, y'all can google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.68.135 (talk) 13:15, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Blood statues are irrelevant and only mean something to those who actual care about it, I.E people like the Malfoys. The Blood status of Harry kids or anyone else should not matter. For ignorant people who feel it matters Harry kids would not be considered ‘Pure’, since they had muggle great grandparents and a muggleborn grandmother, which is seen by ignorant wizards as being just as bad as a muggle. Its unfortunate that Jo didn’t just abolish these ‘statues’ they are nothing but prejudice anyways. Similar to the one drop ‘rule’. mixed5000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixed5000 (talk • contribs) 20:12, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Albus Severus Potter

I think Severus is only his middle name, not Albus Severus as in a double name... That is at least, what you get from reading the book. But everyone seems to write it as it's a double name.

I think they're just emphasizing "Severus" is part of his name. Olosnecaj 00:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have this subsection discussion. I've noticed his entry's been remarkably shortened today. I would like to reinstate the relevance of ASP. ASP is a snake. Albus Severus is worried about being placed into Slytherin. JKR uses a lot of acronyms. It is subjective of other posters to delete the significance of ASP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.180.33 (talk)

Being the one who removed the ASP reference, i'd have to say i disagree. I don't deny the fact that the initials form the word ASP, or that an asp is a snake, or that JKR has used acronyms in the past (though "a lot of" may be pushing it a bit). But given that the acronym is never explicitly stated in the books, the default stance should be to consider it a coincidence, much like people stating that the fact that "Halfblood Prince" and "Harry Potter" have the same initials had significance, back when the previous book came out.

The "significance of asp", as you state it, is never mentioned in canon or by Rowling, so it has to be considered original research on your part. I agree it's a nice find, but until we find a source where Rowling explicitly states that she did it on purpose and that it (therefore) officially has significance, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I see that someone has decided to put it back in yet again; i don't want to start an editing war so shortly after the release of the book (wouldn't have much point anyway), so i'll leave it in until there is an outcome to this discussion.212.123.24.90 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, someone once noticed that "Ollivander" anagrams into "An Evil Lord" and took this as proof that Ollivander had willingly joined Voldemort after his disappearance in Half-Blood Prince. It sounded plausible, given Jo's penchant for word games, but it definitely wasn't canon and in fact turned out to be totally incorrect. The "ASP" thing is likely the same kind of coincidence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Character boxen

These are overkill here, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12 26 July 2007 (GMT).

Year of James Potter's Birth

One small but important thing: The article on Harry's son, James, says "Estimated to be born around 2004-2005 [...]" -- but that includes some speculation. All we know from the book is that James is starting his 2nd year or higher at Hogwarts in September, 2017 and thus is between 12 and 17 years old at that time. I've changed the text to reflect the range of dates that are possible based on what we know. I realize that Harry & Ginny would've had to marry and conceive James pretty quickly after Voldemort's defeat for James to be a 7th year in the epilogue, and that seems unlikely to me, but nothing we're told in canon rules that out. Seansinc 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James is shown to be a tattling brat. He could be 12, 13, or 14, but surely no older than that. :-) Plus, Ginny's "few years" as a professional quidditch player make an early birth quite implausible.

—wwoods 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the math: James and Lily were killed October 31, 1981. Harry was 1 at that time. In the Deathly Hallows, he is age 17, = 1998, add the subsequent 19 years later, and that takes us to 2017. Teddy at 2017 is 19 years old. First years enter Hogwarts at age 11, so Albus Severus had to be born 2006, James in 2004, and Lily in 2008, making Ginny pregnant at this very moment in time with her first daughter. (jrb)

Yes i would put him to begin his second or maybe third year. But not higher, because of the interaction with Albus, and his reaction to seeing Teddy and Victoire making out. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know that Harry was born July 31, 1980 and thus would be 27 years old in Sept 2017. And we know that Albus was 11 years old then, because he was starting his first year at Hogwarts. But we don't know what year James was starting, so we don't know what year he was born. However, JKR has said in a web chat that Ginny played professional Quidditch for a few years after Voldemort fell in 1998, so it's unlikely that James was born too early in the 2000's. He is likely starting his 2nd, 3rd, or perhaps 4th year in the Epilogue. Where do you get the fact that he had to be born in 2004? Just curious. (And what does Teddy's age have to do with James' age?) Seansinc 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think James Potter was leaving for his 6th year. Because he knew of the thestrals of which they learn in their 5th year at Care of Magical Creatures. That would make him 5 years older than Albus Severus and he would be born in 2001.

Lily tells Al that she and Harry wrote to James three times a week last year, indicting that the year before was James first year at Hogwarts. You also have take in mind that some students start Hogwarts when they are nearly 12 years old if they are born after September 1st. So James was likely recently 12 or nearly 13 years old. Harry could have easily told his son about the thestrals

Why would Hary tell him about scary looking, invisible creatures who eat meat and smell blood? Pyck 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter II and Lily Potter II

Some points for your consideration:

James and Lily are not the children of the previous James & Lily so cannot be James II, James Jr, Lily II or Lily Jr
You have no way of knowing how many James & Lily's preceded Harry's parents so you cannot be certain of "II" anyway
Unless we're talking about a Monarchical name, daughters are never assigned postnominal numerals and are never referred to as "Junior" so Lily could never be Lily II or Lily III even if she was the previous Lily's daughter.

An extract from Junior, my emphasis... The suffix (name) given to a child with the exact same name as a parent (typically a son and father). Junior is typically the eldest son. They are sometimes also called II, especially if there is a third or fourth with the same name.

Please stop making this changes they are factually incorrect and will be removed. Aula ^TPN 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the difference between the "Jr." and "II" suffixes is that "Jr." is normally used when a boy has exactly the same name as his father, but "II" is normally used when he is named after an uncle, grandfather, or other relative. However, your second point makes this irrelevant, because for all we know, Harry's son could be James Potter VI or something. (Look at how many Sirius and Regulus Black's are listed on the Black Family Tree -- it'd be impossible to tell which number to give "our" Sirius Black.)

Your point about females and suffixes is also correct. It's a shame, because adding the "II" would be useful to avoid confusion, but it does seem incorrect in both cases. Seansinc 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've not heard of II, III, etc being used for anything other than the direct male line (at least in the UK, could be a US thing perhaps?). You could try adding something like (II) or (2) but that's probably even uglier. Would be so much easier if Jo would tell us their middle names....! Aula ^TPN 23:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't occurred to me, but they almost certainly do have middle names. We only know Albus's because Rowling wanted to make a point of the rehabilitation of Slytherin House.

—wwoods 04:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually I think she was making a point of the rehabilitation of Harry's attitudes towards Snape, the fact that he'd matured enough to see Snape as he truly was. Aula ^TPN 12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: A- It is never stated that any of the children have numbers as part of their names, so we should not make up that. B- It is never stated that Severus is a middle name. There ARE first names with more than one actual name in them, you know. It's never clarified if it's "Albus" or "Albus Severus", and since it's impossible to know if Albus is being used as a nickname or a middle name, we should just leave his name as "Albus Severus" and say that Severus is part of his name, because that's all we know --Longing.... 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there examples of characters with double first names? I can't think of any, though there's one, Justin Finch-Fletchley, with a double last name.

—wwoods 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And actually that's a hyphenated surname not a double first name so I can't think of any with two first names. You have to remember that it's written from the viewpoint of being grounded in current British culture and trends and double first names are really not very common - John Paul and Sarah XXXX (where XXXX is Jane or Louise or such) are the only two that spring to mind. You also have to remember that everyone in the epilogue refers to him as either Albus or just Al until the one line where Harry calls him Albus Severus which is stylistically the same as calling your kid by his/her full name when they're in trouble. I think it's more than reasonable to assume that Severus is Albus' middle name. Furthermore, in this transcript of today's live webchat hosted by Bloomsbury, JKR refers to him as just Albus Potter. Aula ^TPN 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember though, that we don't say Ginerva Molly Weasley, or Ronald Weasley, their names are shortened. That's no reason not to have their proper name listed. Preciseness never hurt anyone, anyway --Longing.... 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't say "Ronald Weasley" in general conversation, we say "Ron." I don't disagree that the full name if known should be listed, I think it should be limited to just once. I agree with Aula, the way it is written in the novel makes it pretty clear that the first name is "Albus" and not Albus Severus. It should be made to match other Harry Potter character biographies, and we wouldn't say "Harry James" "Ronald Bilius" "Hermione Jean" or "Albus Percival Wulfric Brian" when referring to the other characters. AUburnTiger 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the topic of "Jr" etc., It wouldn't be right, as stated above, as we don't know exactly how many James and Lily Potters there havebeen over the years. Harry's grandfather could have been a James (or even a Harry) for all we know, and his father might have been James Potter Jr.

And yes, they do have middle names (revealed on the JKR documentary): James Sirius Potter (we know Albus') and Lily Luna Potter.

--Maurice45 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

In light of the landslide of (presumably) good-faith yet incorrect edits this page has attracted over the last week, I've taken the liberty of asking an admin to semi-protect this page for 10 days to see if that helps. For anyone not familiar with the process it basically means that unregistered users will not be able to edit the page and new users will have to wait a couple of days. I chose this route as much of the incorrect editing seems to be coming from IPs rather than users so this will hopefully deter the less-comitted editors whilst encouraging those who genuinely do want to contribute to sign up and take a look at the applicable policies. Fingers crossed! Let's also try and be more proactive about welcoming new contributors and pointing them in the right direction - I know when I'm rushed I tend to just rever the edit and move on. Aula ^TPN 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree

There are a couple of innacuracies in the Weasley part of the overall family tree. First off, George and Fred are brothers -- Fred is not George's son. Also, the box "Weasley brothers" is rather pointless, and should probably be replaced with "Percy Weasley" seeing that I don't beleive he was included. So...whoever's file that is...fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncalvin (talk • contribs)

First of all you're quite wrong. Jo states in an interview referenced elsewhere that George names his son Fred after his late brother. Secondly, the Weasley brothers box is a space-saving device which includes Charlie, Percy and the original Fred. Finally, please remember to sign your posts and you might want to think of a more polite way of phrasing your requests or you could just be bold and do it yourself, make absolutely sure that you are actually correct first though.Aula ^TPN 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thank you. I was just looking around here for the same reason. I didn't hear about the interview where JKR said George had a son named Fred, so I was about to ask the same question. However, I would respectfully submit that the tree as currently drawn is confusing. A well-known, popular character is missing, and another character with the exact same name who is not well known is in a different spot, close to the original's spot on the tree. It might be worth the space to expand the "Weasley brothers" box into Charlie, Percy, and original-Fred, for clarity. I don't know how to edit the chart -- can anyone tell me how or make this change? Thanks. Seansinc 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing so I dutifully went to the family tree and clicked on "edit this page" and then my mind exploded! Complicated structures like that are best left when it's nearly midnight... if I have a chance I'll take another look at it today. Aula ^TPN 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've had a go at restructuring it so that one generation occupies only one line. It might need a bit more spacing out but let me know what you think. Aula ^TPN 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Much better to read AUburnTiger 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aula! Looks great. Seansinc 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately it's been reverted back to its previous state and (worse) coloured in. I'd be tempted to make a new family tree for this page but I know that would just spark a flame-war. If you want to see how I'd restructured the tree look at User:AulaTPN/Sandbox#Harry Potter Family Tree. I think it's much better but unless anyone thinks it's worth creating this as a separate template then I'll bow to consensus, although the reversion was made to the template before almost anyone had been able to comment! Aula ^TPN 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought the current one was yours. The colors help. However, I think yours is by far the easiest to read. I would try and hunt down the person who reverted it and try to get him to see why it's better. AUburnTiger 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aula that one looks much better, the different generations arent spread over 10 rows and what not. I think you should change the current one to that. CHANDLER talk 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Arthur and Molly are Harry's in-laws, and Lily and James the Elder are Ginny's, what does that make Arthur/Molly and James/Lily to each other? Cubs Fan 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new family tree including everything - the full Black family tree, Weasley tree and everything else relevant that I could find.
There are a few things which I added on my own which I can't guarantee to be accurate (i.e. the Longbottoms).
It's significantly larger than the others, and if others feel that it is needed, I can scale it down.
Here it is: Shadowblade 05:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why Bill Weasley has been renamed William Weasley? --Jammy (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the entire Longbottom theory is wrong. Harfang and Calidora cannot be Neville's grandparents for one significant reason.............His grandmother's name is Augusta --Maurice45 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously... Voldemort is not a descendent of Cadmus... If you read the book it says he lived alone and had lost his love. — chan dler — 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandparents House?

Where is the evidence that Harry's grandparents were Gryffindors? I know that James' father was, as he says so in the Pensive in Chapter 33 of DH. However, I've seen no mention of his grandmother. AUburnTiger 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, when asked what House he wants to be in, the 11-year-old James Potter says, "Gryffindor! (...) Like my dad!" -- not "Like my parents", implying that his father was in Gryffindor, but his mother was not. Seansinc 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. For all we know, Grandma Potter was a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. AUburnTiger 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is implying that his grandmother was Gryffindor --Maurice45 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to the Malfoys?

How exactly is Harry related to the Malfoys? Because Narcissa's great-aunt Dorea married a Potter, or is there some other connection that I'm missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charity McKay (talk • contribs) 22:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

It's only marriage they are related. Sirius Black's cousin Narcissa Black married Lucius Malfoy, which is where the Malfoys come in and a Black (Don't remember which) married a Weasley and is related to Ginny Weasley and Ginny married Harry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.95.200 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirected

I noticed the page had been erased and redirected. I brought it back because I see no real reason why this should be done. 2help (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change. I didn't realize you posted on the talk page, so I retract my edit summary. However, there is no need for this article. All the material is covered elsewhere, in more logical places. Could you explain why you feel the need for the article, since no one else seemed to mind it being redirected? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I finished the last Potter book a few days ago and I randomly wanted to look up which one of his children was named Severus. I clicked on "Albus Potter", on the family tree, and it took me right back to the same page. I realized that the info used to be there, although it now redirects to a page focusing only on James and Lily, so I put it back. You say say that all the material is covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. Let me know what you think. Thanks. 2help (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's children are covered at Weasley family, the Dursley family of course has its own article and the rest of the information (such as the family tree, stuff about Harry's grandparents, etc.) can be found at James and Lily Potter. Hope this clears everything up. faithless (^speak) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlus and Dorea

Shouldn't they at least be mentioned? I mean they are Potters... (Maurice45) 06 January, 21:20 UTC

Unrelated

I was just wondering why some extra stuff, such as the Weasleys, the Delacours, Aunt Marge and Salazar Slytherin are listed as they are not actually related to Harry, and would not be on his family tree --Maurice45 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them are directly related to Harry, but are somehow related to his own relatives: the Weasleys and Delacours are his wife's family. Voldemort is a distant relative of Harry, and a descendant of Slytherin himself. Marge is a Dursley, she was always "part of the family". --LøЯd ۞pεth 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dursley surprise never happened

I felt that Rowling ahd been leading us on for some sort of revelation with the Dursleys, especially Petunia. And then they never played any role in the final book. I felt cheated. TCO (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for discussing what J.K. Rowling had the Dursley's do in the D.H. or your personal opinion. This place is for discussing improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.95.200 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I come with this split proposal with the same reasoning as the former Weasley family article's proposal: the Potter family article also fails to meet some Wiki guidelines. It is entirely plot re-telling and describing of fictional characters and events. It is written primarily in in-universe style, and 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. Furthermore, the characters in this list appear to have little or nothing to do between them (i.e. the Dursleys and the Peverell brothers). Because of this, I suggest to move all sections into different articles:

Lily: move to Order of the Phoenix
Dursley family and Peverell brothers: move to Supporting HP characters
For James, I am planning to restore the Marauders article (see Talk:The Marauders for more information) and move all four Marauders there. If this do not pass, then move to Order of the Phoenix just as Lily.

The Potter family page itself would redirect to the "Family" section in Harry's article. This is to be also in coherence with what has happened with other family articles just as the Weasleys, the Malfoys, the Blacks, etc. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split - Potters, Dursleys, Evans and Pervell family all in one article with the name Potter family is quite confusing as they don't belong together especially not under this heading. Plus the Evans, Pervells are not important enough to be given a separate article like this. I found the combination odd before too and very much agree with the the split proposal. On the other hand I oppose directing Lily or James individual internal links to Harry's page under the family section. In case of Weasely's as well; directing all of the individual Weasely's internal link to Ron's page gives the wrong impression that they don't have any description other than this single family para on Ron's page. Direct James and Lily's link to their own respective pages with whichever article they are merged with.September88 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James and Lily's individual links would redirect to their sections of course, no matter where they are going to be moved. What is going to be redirected to Harry's page is the link to "Potter family". --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week passed and no opposition came. The changes are being performed as originally suggested. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]