Talk:List of Harry Potter characters/Archive 1

Characters
A lot of these characters have are unimportant to Harry Potter series, most of which are random students, do you think there should be a separate section of sorts for these characters that have nothing to do with plot of series? November19thdh1 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be taking alot of room on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.23.33 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that, while these characters may be considered insignificant, it is important to show the sheer scope of the Harry Potter universe, and by showcasing all of these unique creations by J.K. Rowling we are successful doing that. By only listing the main characters of the franchise I feel as though we would be diluting the source material by not acknowledging the amount of time and effort that went into making Harry Potter as special as it was. Furthermore, some subplots that are important to the story may be excluded in this process (ex: Bertha Jorkins may be considered a minor character, but her sudden disappearance and subsequent death in the Goblet of Fire alerted Dumbledore that something may be amiss in the Wizarding World, as well as causing him to keep a closer eye on his students. Eventually this led to him realizing Barty Crouch Jr.'s plan and preventing him from murdering Harry, so this obviously ended up being very important). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Andy (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Update
Since the realese of the Halfblood Prince, Harry and his fellow friends are in their sixth year. Is this to be updated?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hackeru (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * It doesn't say what year Harry and his friends are in. It just notes the relative ages of students in Houses. For example, Percy is listed there but he's long graduated from Hogwarts. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill & Charliie Weasley are indicated to be in James Potter span (1968-1976) at Hogwarts. Doesn't seemt to be correct. They did graduate less than a decade previous to the current date! Also, McGonaggal appears in Tom Riddles Hogwarts' Era. True?? Ain't she older than most of the other Death Eaters and Tom himself?

Magical Beasts
Do Firenze and Grawp really belong here, or elsewhere? Rosemary Amey 00:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think so, but Buckbeak, Crookshanks, Scabbers etc. belong somewhere else. Of course, Firenze doesn't even really have a page, so someone probably should add one at some point.

Armando Dippet
Content originally contributed by user:Jcsutton in a different article which has since been nominated for deletion. This notice preserves GFDL attribution.

Is there a reason why Dippet isn't included? Other dead/former position holders are included, and he's cannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyshoegirl (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Too minor. He barely features.Mezigue (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing sorting hat names?
I just added some sorting hat names from books 4 and 5, but I haven't been able to check the first three books for missing names here. Someone please check those books for such characters that may only be mentioned briefly.

Are wizards such as Fred and George Weasly still considered students?
The sub-category "Older Gryffindors" should be rearranged.


 * They were students for most of the series. This list should reflect all the books, not just the current situation after book 6.

"Elfs" or "Elves"?
Isn't the plural of "elf" "elves"?


 * Thanks for the correction, I wasn't paying much attention


 * Either is considered to be correct.


 * Rule of thumb: If the elfs are about one third the size of a man, they are "Elfs". If the elves are human size or taller, they are "Elves".--131.159.77.171 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order
I know that not many people now edit this page anymore but I am posting this message anyways. We should list this page alphabetically instead of by groups. This can solve a problem of "overlapping" where a character appear more than once. We could start a temporary page Alphabetical list of characters in the Harry Potter series so we needn't erase this page. --Mozart2005 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about we split off the group lists to their own articles? "List of Death Eaters" &etc. --Maru 19:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Defence Against the Dark Arts Teachers
Year 6: Severus Snape – Fled Hogwarts after killing Dumbledore. Since this is a pretty big spoiler for the series, can we edit this down a bit? The other years, I think, are fine but seeing as book six just came out it seems more of an issue. Thoughts? --Toddbloom7 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Voldemort
Do we have a canon precedent for referring to Voldemort as a Death Eater? Njál 01:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not beleive that Voldemort is ever mentioned as being a Death Eater, just that they follow him. -- Jh fireboy   I'm listening  11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about listing Voldemort under "Dark Lords"?

yeah i totally agree on that because the death eaters are HIS followers they mention that a couple of times in the bookPunksk8r99 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Film character
Should characters introduced in the films be listed here? They aren't really canon, are they? --Damsleth 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they're not canon. This is a list of characters in the Harry Potter books. The boy in PoA is named Bem, and he and Nigel from GoF are not in the books. They're probably kids who won a part in the movie or something. I'm going to take them out. -Fbv65edel 22:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-canon
I do not think we should have the list of characters only mentioned by JKR. It is like Damsleth a list of characters in the Harry Potter books. - Jonathan235


 * I'm in agreement with this. if this is to be specifically an article about characters from the books, then witches and wizards that have only appeared on Jo's website shouldn't be included. However, this might be considered unencyclopedic - in which case, is there an argument that the article needs to be re-titled as something like "List of characters in the Harry Potter series"? (which would also enable any oddments from the films to be included). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batsnumbereleven (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Bugger, forgot to sign it again! --Dave. 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Characters that have been provably created by Rowling, whether for the books or her website or interviews, etc, should be listed. Those that aren't provably created by her, e.g. in films, games, etc, should not. The title could be changed, but it seems rather unnecessary - the context will convey where the characters have appeared, and 'series' surely only refers to the books anyway. Michaelsanders 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Muggles
Do we know if all of the so-called "Muggles" are actually muggles? From my knowledge of the books, it doesn't say that they are non-magical.

Duplicate name
Patricia Stimpson is mentioned both under "Gryffindors" and under "House Unknown". Which is correct?
 * I've fixed that. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Table?
While the table of the students is a nice touch, that many images will make the page HUGE and difficult to navigate. I think we have to discuss this here before proceeding. We don't need notes about a character. We just want to find characters, and get to main articles about them, if any. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I got a bit caught up, so it appears Treebark did it for me, but I reverted all of Jhfireboy's edits as per the comments I left here. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it would just make the page be more accessable in alphabetical and not in categories as I find them a bit confusing. If anybody would like to see a taster of the table look here. Also I would like to comment that I think the notes would just make it easier to place people in the books as some are only mentioned once and I do not know where they are and in what book. Jh fireboy   I'm listening  15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would probably help to have notes just for the minor, minor characters, as you say. No offense, but I think the table makes it look cluttered. If somebody is looking for a last name, and they don't know which category it would fall under, they can just search the page (Apple+F/Ctrl+F). But this way, it organizes characters by importance and category, which is more essential when linking to the page. Just my two knuts… --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, I see where you are coming from and why that would hapen as it does. Also to add to my points above some names are mentioned in more than one area and I thought that we are trying to get a complete list of characters without duplicates and in alphabetical order this is possible. -- Jh  fireboy   I'm listening  11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you search the page like I mentioned, you could find out the different categories your character falls under. But I understand the need to get one mention of characters with multiple categories listed. Still, I think this is the most convenient and neat way to list them. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I read on the Harry Potter Portal that one of the "things to do" is to tabulate the people on this page. I had a quick go with the students at the top of the list. I think the tables are better than the lists as you can more clearly see how people are related to Harry age-wise. I'm quite new to all this wiki-ing so I'm not convinced the tables are the best they can be. If you can make them prettier to look at then feel free Kelly elf 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I just read the rest of this talk page and I see that there is already a table thing in progress. If you want to revert my tables and stick to the one suggested above then ok Kelly elf 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kelly elf, I'm surprised to see that on the To do list on the portal, because that's a major change for which no consensus was ever reached. As you can see above, jhfireboy was interested in tabulating it, while I thought it would look cluttered. I would strongly suggest that this be talked about a lot before anything continues to be done. I would bring it to the WikiProject, but, despite the number of members there, it seems pretty dead. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Middle names
Is there a reason why the trio's middle names are included? 65.92.204.139 03:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because they are the only ones that are known.--Dacium 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing middle names is fine, but can we please stop making up middle names for characters? Not every child is given his father or mother's first name as his or her middle name, and, as far as I know, it has never been said that Draco's middle name is Lucius, Lucius's middle name is Abraxas, Tonks's middle name is Andromeda, etc. - Charity 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean up attempt
I will be attempting to clean up the article. The main point is to get each character listed ONCE in the list under the major section that describes the character. There are far to many indescrimite listings of the same people because they could be a members of the order, also a past students, also a past gryffindor etc. etc.--Dacium 08:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that not done on the basis that a character can be found under all the relevant headings, allowing the reader to find them more easily (rather than having to decide if Umbridge fits into teachers or ministry workers, or whatever it is)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes you are correct they should be under certain headings. I will be attempting to fix the categories up more also.--Dacium 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Snape a Death Eater?
I removed the bit that said Snape is a "known Death Eater" because we still don't really know that for sure. Personally I think that he acted as he did at the end of Half Blood Prince out of self preservation, as any Slytherin would. Remember, he did agree to take an Unbreakable Vow without knowing what exactly he was committing to until it was too late to back out. Rosemary Amey 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Personally I think" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Let's focus on what we know - he is a Double Agent for most of the books (meaning he needs to be listed there), and at the end of book 6 he kills Dumbledore and runs off with the Death Eaters, to cries of 'stop, Death Eater', etc. Michaelsanders 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree "personally I think" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but this is the talk page. The events at the end of Half Blood Prince can be interpreted different ways, so the encyclopedia article should not state that he is definitely a Death Eater. Rosemary Amey 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you go to the Severus Snape talk page, and ask them to comment. Michaelsanders 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if he is on Voldemort's side or not, he is a known Death Eater, since he still works for them, even if its on the Order's benefit. Not to mention that he surely sued to be one. Diana Prallon


 * He has the dark mark... doesn't that count to anything? Saverem 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
Can someone familiar with this article add spoiler notices where appropriate? We don't all need to know who died in book 4. Brian Jason Drake 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some serious revision
If this is going to be the main article for describing the characters in the Harry Potter books (and since the Harry Potter articles character section now consists of a link to this page, it appears to be so) it needs to be drafted so that it would make sense to someone who had never read the series. Why should Harry and Hermione be listed after Euan Abercrombie or Dennis Creevey? Would someone who had never read the books either know or care who Euan Abercrombie was? There at least needs to be an opening section describing the main characters in the series. Serendipodous 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't care if soemthing is there doesn't mean it isn't important, I mean you don't particularly want to have an article about dust in an encyclopedia if you are looking for an article about the berlin wall, but it's there all the same.

Vandalism
I think there has been some vandalism at the bottom of the page where it talks about Muggles in Little Whinging, and Little Hangelton. Thief Lord 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Half-Veela
I know that it's incredibly minute but seeing as the section on veelas mentions Fleur's Grandmother, shouldn't whichever parent that carried on the veela blood to Fleur be mentioned under the heading of half-veela (I don't know which parent it is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.12.103 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The Minister for Magic
Although the spelling in the articles about Harry Potter is mostly British English, I notice that the American version "Minister of Magic" is used. In the British versions of the books he is however called the "Minister for Magic", although the Ministry is called the "Ministry of Magic" on both sides of the Atlantic.

Since these Books were written by an British woman and are set in Great Britain, I feel one should use the British orthogrophy. – Mikeweasle 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

lucius malfoy
lucius is not that old he was in the time of james potter if you care to disagree show me rock solid proof and i mean something like j.k rowling her self stating that lucius was in the time of riddle
 * Who are you arguing with? His wife narcissa was born 1955 according to the black family tree. Sandpiper 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In Deathly Hallows they show a memory of Snape being sorted into Slytherin. He sits down next to Lucius who is a Prefect, which would put him in in year 5, 6, or 7 when Snape, James, Lily, etc. started first year at Hogwarts. --74.100.209.232 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

umm ok
this article isnt rlly the best... oh wait, i mean IT SUX. its pointless and all the useless charcters take too much room and it makes everything hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.23.33 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Main characters and Secondary characters
I disagree with the list for main characters and secondary characters. I mean Ludo Bagman as a secondary character in the entire series? He was only in one book and his role in the story is less important than Krum's (who's name is not even on the secondary character list). I say we follow the Harry potter characters template and put Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore and Voldemort for main characters. Secondary characters are not really needed as it is hard to to classify secondary characters and also, the names are repeated elsewhere. 24.109.246.123 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement. Fred and George Weasly are as important as Neville L. or Luna L.  --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Snape a headmaster
I might have missed it in the books, but when was Snape a headmaster? Right after Voldemort's ascension, but what does that mean? I'm certain it wasn't in any book yet. I have however left it in. I could have missed something here.


 * sounds like a book 7 spoiler, i'm taking it out but it can be put back in once the book comes out.harlock_jds 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah, I thought so too, which is why I said yet. It might not mean anything since the book release is only a couple days, but it's been in there for quite a while in wiki-time. And yeah, sorry I didn't sign.  Mentor397 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Animagi
In the list Victor Krum appears as an animagus. I think this is not correct. Krum used some spell to partly turn himself into a shark for the second task in the Triwizard Turnament but that doesn't mean he is an animagus! The text says, ''Harry turned, and saw something monstrous cutting through the water to them: A human body in swimmming trunks with the head of a shark ... it was Krum. He appeared to have Transfigured himself - but badly.'' (page 434 of the HP4 Bloomsbury edition) No mentioning there that Krum is an Animagus. --Krawunsel 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Burbage
Shouldn't someone add Charity Burbage to the list of past teachers? —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 13:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure... But I don't know if there's even the slightest information about her, with the exception that she was the Muggle-Studies teacher. But some lines might be but in. That she was killed for her views, and that she into the end wanted to proclaim that Muggles/Muggle-borns should not be discriminated.  ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ  14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... btw, she's already in here. And in here Minor Hogwarts Teachers :) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ  14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism
It looks like 206.67.164.104 has been Rick Astley Rolling (or whatever that has called) to this page for a week on and off, and then when he got bored he moved on to delinking other things. Can someone knowledgable on who should be listed keep an eye out for older vandalism to correct his, and document each time he pulls the stunt so it can be brought up on his page and moved up the food chain? Thanks. Old64mb 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies
I notice that Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange are not included in the list of Past Students. Which "Time" do they fall into? I presume they are from Slytherin.

I also notice that Dobby's name falls under both the "Order of Phoenix Members" and the "Other Second War Deaths".

And is Amelia Bones a member of the Order of Phoenix? --Tjmj 08:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spinks = Draco Malfoy?
In the section on Rowling's character notes, it says: Spinks (Unknown, possibly an earlier name for Draco Malfoy).

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how "Spinks" and "Draco Malfoy" relate to each other? Is there something in the books, or a subtle detail I may have missed? Gay15boy 12:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated, this bit came from some preliminary personal notes that Rowling showed off in 2001 during a TV special while discussing the evolution of the characters. It may be inappropriate and unencyclopedic speculation for "us" to go on to assign Spinks to Draco Malfoy, unless there is some evidence out there to prove it.  I would suggest a "citation needed" tag on that comment, or just delete it outright: "Spinks"  and leaving it at that.  Guessing who Spinks might have turned out to be, without any sort of proof, constitutes original research, which is fundamentally forbidden by policy.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article
is simply atrocious. Incredibly crufty, characters are listed repeatedly in several different sections (sometimes repeatedly in the same section. I propose to just have one long alphabetical list, and forget about the pointless sectioning off of the article. It's impossible to maintain and just plain ugly. So just a list, with a (very) short explanation of the character, like:


 * Cho Chang - Ravenclaw student, Quidditch Seeker, girlfriend of Harry Potter
 * Cornelius Fudge - Minister of Magic
 * Rubeus Hagrid - Care of Magical Creatures professor, Keeper of the Keys and Grounds of Hogwarts, Order of the Phoenix member
 * Gwenog Jones - Quidditch player (Holyhead Harpies)
 * Scorpius Malfoy - Son of Draco Malfoy
 * Irma Pince - Hogwarts librarian
 * Rita Skeeter - Journalist for the Daily Prophet, Animagus

Anyone have an opinion on this? Not many people edit this page it seems; I'll wait about a day and if no objections are raised, I'll go ahead with it. faithless  (speak)  07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no objections have been raised, I'm going ahead with it. It isn't very aesthetically pleasing, but I feel it's far better than what was there before. The article is divided into two sections; in one, I've sorted characters alphabetically by last name. In the other I've listed characters with no or unknown last names (again, alphabetically). With each character I've noted important relations, organizations and events with which they are connected. The article needs some wikilinking, the article was ridiculously over-linked before. I have not included characters from the movies or video games, and have included only "canon" characters - those from the books, JKR's official website, characters from the chocolate frog cards (which JKR purportedly designed) and characters mentioned in the "Daily Prophet" (the newsletter of the official HP fan club, available (I believe) only in the UK and only in the late 90s. I think I've done a pretty thorough job, though it's possible I overlooked someone. Also, if consensus is to include and/or remove any characters, fine by me. If, after I submit the change, an IP editor reverts to the old version, I will undo that edit. If a registered editor reverts it and it's decided the old version is better, I will abide by that decision, but I ask that if you do change it that you explain your reasoning here. Furthermore, I suggest that the name of the article be changed to List of characters from the Harry Potter series. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  08:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * faithless, GREAT job! just one idea, that would be more in my liking (maybe not in others liking) Listing characters "Surname, Firstname". I think it looks more structured, example:
 * Black, Alphard – Son of Pollux Black and Irma Crabbe...
 * Black, Andromeda – See Andromeda Tonks
 * Black, Arcturus – son of Phineas Nigellus Black and Ursula Flint...
 * Black, Arcturus – Son of Sirius Black and Hesper Gamp...
 * vs
 * Alphard Black – Son of Pollux Black and Irma Crabbe...
 * Andromeda Black – See Andromeda Tonks
 * Arcturus Black – son of Phineas Nigellus Black and Ursula Flint...
 * Arcturus Black – Son of Sirius Black and Hesper Gamp...
 * instead of what's inplace now, I wont change it unless there's support. Just a idea (Don't know if there's a policy or preferred style in list of ppl or characters.)
 * And one other thing, i think its pretty unnecessary to have some characters (the main characters from what I can see) full names, "Harry James Potter", "Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Weasley". And I do not think its necessary to list the girls(women) who got married after "1997" with their husbands names until JKR verifies who took those names. This includes Ginny, Hermione, Hannah Abbott and probably someone I've forgotten. (I don't know if its you who have made these "changes" because I dont have time to go through all history versions :p but i just wanted to get it out there.) Chandler talk 04:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chandler. :) Regarding your concerns (in reverse order):
 * As far as including "Ginny Potter - See Ginny Weasley" "Hermione Granger - See Hermione Granger" etc., I did that mainly as a stop-gap measure to try to appease the types who go around and change the names of the characters. I figured it was easier than constantly reverting vandalism (whether it will actually work is another story...).;
 * As far as listing their full names, personally I like having their full names listed. But if consensus says to get rid of it, so be it.
 * I'd have no problem listing the characters last-name-first. It doesn't matter enough to me to make the change myself, but if you or another editor wants to make the change, that's fine by me. It probably would make the article a bit easier to use. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing with full names are, for me at least. Ok, I know Harry's middle name is James, Hermione's is Jane etc. But when someone who might not know that much about the world stumbles upon Ronald Bilius Weasley, they might get confused ;) As they're almost only known as Ron (and Ginny) wouldn't it just be easier to leave the rest in the articles. Same with Dumbledore and all his names ;) Chandler talk 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid we just don't agree on what action should be taken. I think it would make things easier for non-HP fans, but I also think we should strive for accuracy here, not ease-of-use for n00bs. :) Well, we should strive for both, but we shouldn't "dumb things down" just to make it easier to understand (isn't that what the Simple English Wikipedia is for?). Besides, if you can't tell that Ronald Bilius Weasley = Ron Weasley or that Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore = Albus Dumbledore, then you probably have bigger problems. :P Oh, and Hermione's middle name is Jean. Or at least it is in Deathly Hallows. And I believe that Jane was only given in an interview, so I kind of figure that it was just mis-heard by whoever transcribed the interview (my theory is that the same thing happened when we were told Dumbledore was 150 but then turned out to be 115). faithless   (speak)  08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the Jean, I did write the wrong thing, didn't think at the time i wrote, probably. Though on the age thing (and i know JKR has said numbers isnt her strongest side) isnt there a lot of contradictions in the books? or at least things that just feels wrong when it comes to some of the older characters age, especially Dumbledore. Stuff like Dumbledore is over 100 at least, and was tested on his NEWT's by a witch still alive and doing tests (and friends with Neville's grandma, who COULD be like half her age if only she and her son got their children in their thirties)? :D how long do they live. Bah when you sit here and think of this stuff, you just want JKR to release that encyclopedia so you can swim in all the info you want. Chandler talk 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the list of all the Blacks from the family tree is useless. Most of these characters never made an appearance in the series and never took place in the main plot. Lord Opeth 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going ahead with it, that made it totally better. -User:Rugglestheeditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruggles the Editor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Name or Surname?
At the top of the page, it says it's sorted with both name and surname. I double checked, and it's ALL sorted by surname. How is it possible to get it sorted with both name and surname? Can this please be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.23.33 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Page move
I'm suggesting moving this page to List of characters from the Harry Potter series. It would be more accurate, as there are characters listed that don't appear in the books, and would perhaps alleviate Opeth's above concerns. Many of the Blacks don't appear in the books, so he does have a point. faithless  (speak)  22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me, because it is not only the Blacks, but also some other characters like Bathsheba Babbling, Rolf (Scamander?) or Mafalda (the Weasleys' cousin). Lord Opeth 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Opeth. Since this page doesn't get very much traffic, therefore making it unlikely many more people will comment, I'm going to go ahead with the move. faithless   (speak)  07:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to go with List of Harry Potter characters, as was done with List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Trek characters. Seemed the way to go. faithless   (speak)  07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about this. The list of Star Trek characters is more like a table, and a table with all the HP characters would be really annoying. The list of Star War characters I think is only for those that have an article or section, isn't it? This would be ok to the HP characters but there are hundreds of characters that are not listed anywhere else. I still think that a great number of characters in this list is completely useless, for example "Yvonne" (Petunia's friend) or "Ali" (the flying carpets seller). Lord Opeth 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the renaming, but also agree with Lord Opeth that many of the "characters" in this list are only mentioned in passing so are really more NAMES than CHARACTERS, many of them not able to be classed as MINOR CHARACTERS and uninfluential on the plot itself. This said, I don't know if we should delete the non-notables or leave as is. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlus and Dorea Potter
My edit summary was cut off on my last edit, so I'll finish my thought here. An editor is trying to insist that Charlus and Dorea Potter weren't married. As I was saying in my edit summary, as the change has been disputed, it is up to the other editor to gain consensus for his change before reinserting it. To try to avoid an edit war, I'll go ahead and start the discussion here. So, what do you think? Should Dorea Black be listed under her married name of Dorea Potter? Or, since it is never specifically stated that "Dorea Black married Charlus Potter and took his last name" should we abandon common sense and assume that they had a child out of wedlock? I'll bring this up on the HP WikiProject to try to get more opinions. faithless  (speak)  23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I say stick with common sense. There are no other examples in the series to show that not taking your husband's surname is done by wizards. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  23:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * nor is their evidence they always take the husband's surname. the safest asumption is that wizzard culture is like non wizzerd culture and it varies depending on the people getting married, some keep their names, some change names and some combine both names into one. Without proof we can't guess which way they went harlock_jds (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Faithless, you're just wrong. Dorea Black was never identified in any of Rowling's canon work as Dorea "Potter". Period. She only appears as Dorea Black. Thus you have to justify this entirely new and original surname. You're the only one here writing something that did not appear anywhere else. And as the verifiability rule says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", you'll have to prove Dorea is indeed called "Potter", a statement that I have challenged. I don't have to prove anything, you have to.

I'm not saying Dorea and Charlus were or were not married. I'm saying that we don't know, but that you're assuming they are, and in absence of any concrete element, this is original research, and WP doesn't allow original research.

It's as usual, faithless, whether you like it or not, your own personal opinion on the HP world just isn't a reliable source, we cannot take your own assumptions as facts.

There's not much to discuss, really. It's not a matter of "community" decision or anything like that, don't try to change the focus of the discussion. This is all about you being asked to substanciate original claims, it has nothing to do with "consensus". Bring concrete elements from Rowling's work showing that Dorea is indeed called Potter. If you can't, then just leave the original surname (but anyway, stop edit warring, now).Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation, insult other Wikipedians, engage in edit warring and harm the project rather than improve it. It is exactly as usual. faithless   (speak)  03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This information has been here for who knows how long, and no one has thought to challenge that. Did you stumble upon something that no one else noticed? I think it's far more likely that this is a case where something wasn't stated directly because it was so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out. Besides, why this particular example? I don't believe that it's ever stated that Rose and Hugo are the children of Ron and Hermione. And the whole Black family tree, for that matter; it just seems odd to single out one couple like you have. faithless   (speak)  03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I "can't hold a civil conversation" ? I "insult other Wikipedians" ? So, according to you, removing original research and asking you to provide a source before reintegrate it is "uncivil" and an "insult" ? You're the only one who've engaged in an edit war, not respecting the rules of Wikipedia and trying to own the article by imposing your own personal opinions. Also, I can't see why qualifying my edits as "vandalism" just because you're unable to provide the source you're asked to provide, would be civil.


 * Why don't you want to understand that there are rules here, and that even you must respect them ?
 * Throwing random false accusation when you can't find any justification for your edits is also not a behavior approved by Wikipedia.


 * I've asked you to provide a source for your original research, you've refused to do it, instead you have disrupted Wikipedia, reverted, without any justification, you've personally attacked me...But I still see nothing substanciating your edits.


 * I can't see why the rules would not apply to you and your edits. Original material has been challenged and removed, and if you're trying to "add or restore" this, then "the burden of proof lies with you and you have to "attribute it to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". You've not done this, I don't see why you would impose your content on WP, just because you find something "idiotic" or "odd". Your own opinion is not a reliable source.


 * Beside, you try to argue that all this would have something to do with "consensus", but obviously, you're not waiting to have one to try to impose your own views.


 * I've said everything and there's nothing to add until you decide to source or edits. Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Faithless, try to practice what you preach. Telling Folken he's being uncivil and saying that he always does this is, in my books, being uncivil yourself. Please note, people, it is never explicitly stated in Rowling's works or post-DH interviews that Ginny and Ron take the names of their husbands either. Yet, we do it because it is common sense to associate a married woman with the prefix "Mrs" and the surname of her husband. I think this may be one of the times necessary to invoke IAR, and keep her listed as Mrs Potter. Otherwise it's goodbye to Mrs Weasley (as in Hermione), Mrs Potter (as in Ginny), Mrs Abbot (Hannah's mum), Mrs Lovegood.... The other thing is, the Daily Prophet, a fan magazine, is listed as a source at the top of the page and presumably accounts for some of the people I've never heard of. For that matter, I've never heard of the magazine either. Is this a reputable source? Or is it like the dreaded film characters, Nigel and Bem? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know spit about Harry Potter, but controversial claims require extraordinary sourcing. Regardless of the article topic or subject at hand, assertions require sources. Policy at WP:V makes this extremely clear. IvoShandor (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark lord, there is no detail on Dorea except one single occurence in a family tree from Rowling. It's really too light to make any assumption on her marital status. On a side note, if we start talking about other characters, to stick to your logic, we would have to rename the "Hermione Granger" article "Hermione Weasley" ? I already find it OR-ish to assign new surnames to characters that weren't clearly said to have changed names in the books, but speculating on characters not even part of the main story is too much.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We use the name which the character had for the majority of the story. So any females married during the story retain their maiden name, those who are married before the series begins use their married name. Have you ever seen anyone on a family tree who wasn't part of the family? Nor have I. As for Ivoshandor, this isn't a controversial claim. As for Trombonator's question, yes, that probably is where some of the names you've never heard of comes from. But it wasn't quite a "fan magazine," as you put it, rather it was the newsletter of the only official Harry Potter fan club which has ever existed (to my knowledge). I would say that it is a legitimate source, but if it isn't all we're losing is those characters no one has ever heard of, so it's not a huge loss. Back to the matter at hand: do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were actually married? Perhaps not. But to not use common sense in this case would hurt the article much more than leaving in a tiny piece of un-sourced information, and we should always work in the interest of the encyclopedia. faithless   (speak)  16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i think the issue is you are requiring multiple 'common sense' jumps (that they were married and that she changed her name) that have no foundation. I don't think either option 'hurts' the article so WP:IGNORE should be ignored and the article should stick to what is undebatable.. aka the name as presented in the book. harlock_jds (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So, faithless, if you say yourself that we only use the more commonly known name of a character throughout the books and canon material, you'll agree that without any occurence of a "Dorea Potter" anywhere, we cannot make an entry on this name...
 * Then, I'm sorry to disagree, but considering the discussion that stemmed from all this, yes, it's a controversial claim.
 * Remember, WP only reports, it doesn't improve or update the primary sources we're working on. Articles are not made to be a continuation of fictional characters' lives, which would be original research.
 * I'm sorry but "common sense" is not considered as a valid source for Wikipedia, particularly when it's far from obvious or far from being shared by everyone.
 * As for WP:IGNORE, I don't see anything in the use of the "Potter" surname instead of "Black" pertaining to an "improvement". Therefore we return to what this debate is about: blatant original research, which cannot stay in the article in absence of any source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know why we have to double-feature characters in the list. I think that there is no need of a "Hermione Weasley" or a "Narcissa Black", "Molly Prewett", "Dorea Black", and many more. If Dorea is connected to Charlus, then we should name her as "Dorea Potter (neé Black)", and I propose the same with all the other married characters that were introduced as such, for example Molly Weasley (neé Prewett) (who was always refered as Mrs Weasley), or Bellatrix Lestrange (neé Black), Narcissa Malfoy (neé Black), Andromeda Tonks (neé Black), all the Blacks before Sirius generation, etc. HOWEVER Hermione, Fleur, Ginny, Nymphadora, etc. should be listed with their paternal surnames instead of their husbands'. Lord Opeth (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be assuming Dorea and Charlus are married and that Dorea changed name. Which is OR in absence of more details.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why no one linked this: http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Black-Family-Tree-the-black-family-303478_1200_777.gif Discussion settled. Dorea Black married Charlus Potter. See also http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html 86.185.103.120 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

whomping willow
Do you think this should be mentioned as a character? At least it is a magical creature (of sorts) that plays a minor role in "Chamber of Secrets" and a major role in "Prisoner of Azkaban". Simply south (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see why you would suggest it, but I'd say no. Unlike some of the animals mentioned (Crookshanks, Hedwig, etc.), there's nothing to suggest that the Whomping Willow is a sentient creature. I'm not saying it definitely shouldn't be included though. Any other thoughts? faithless   (speak)  02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lego versions of the characters???
There's an external link to the LEGO HP chars. Are we really sure this is necessary? Angelica K (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is. Jammy (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, can we remove it? Any extra text removal would be a good thing in this very long article. Angelica K (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible suggestion
Since this list is so lengthy, it may be better to have separate articles for different classifications of characters. One for human characters in cannon, humans not in cannon, talking non-humans, non-talking non-human. There would be lots of different ways it could be broken up, but the article is so lengthy its not very useful as it is, in my opinion. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean along the lines of Death Eaters, Hogwarts students and Hogwarts staff? This article is merely be an exhaustive list of every character in the series, and many are so minor that they are not mentioned elsewhere. faithless   (speak)  01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rookwood?
In the books, the name Augustus Rookwood is mentioned, but Algernon Rookwood is also mentioned. Is this a mistake on Rowling's part meaning the same person, or is Algernon some unknown relative of Augustus? 195.194.75.244 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake that was corrected in later versions.--Lord Opeth (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alice Prewett
How do we know that Alice Longbottom was origianally a Prewett? I don't remember J.K. Rowling saying anything about that, but maybe I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.129 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Someone slipped it in somewhere along the line. It's been removed. faithless   (speak)  08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Katie Wood
I don't want to edit it out in case I've completely missed this somewhere, but I do not believe Katie Bell and Oliver Wood got married. I cannot find that information listed anywhere on the net other than here. It is not on the Harry Potter wiki or on the Lexicon. Is this just wishful thinking (or like I said... I may have just completely missed that somewhere... though I doubt it). Stournour (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-canon characters?
"Annie Maddock – Faithful house-elf to Xenophilius Lovegood" doesn't seem to exist. All the non-Wikipedia mentions of her appear to be using this page as a source. There are several other characters who I don't think exist, but Annie Maddock is the one I'm fairly certain about. Perhaps someone who actually knows how to use Wikipedia could look into this? -does not know how to sign this- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.133.192 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. If there is any, please just state which one! -- Stroppolo talk 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Killed by Asians?
This page says that Mrs. Abbot, Hannah Abbot's mother, was "killed by Asians..." Anyone care to explain? Or is this just vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saoirse7 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct?
Can you please provide the source/reference for this entry:

'Allison LillyRoseius Capekinus - Wife of Severus Snape'

To the best of my knowledge Severus Snape never married as he remained faithful to Lilly Evans in his love. There is no other Severus Snape listed to suggest it is someone other than the main character. (Lms2376 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
 * You're right, Snape never married. I've also never heard of an Allison LillyRoseius Capekinus in the books, so I was so free and deleted the entry. I also corrected the entry of the Greengrass sisters. Daphne was a Slytherin and Astorias house was never mentioned.--VelvetHazard (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Greengrass sisters
Someone ("Viyaa003", 80.6.136.122 ?) keeps changing the entries and mentioning of Astoria and Daphne Greengrass to "Sarah Bradley G" and "Daphne Bradley G" respectively. I've got no clue who these characters are supposed to be, but they definitely aren't the ones needed here.

93.242.126.214 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing above sections
After looking at the discussion above, I think it is time that this page is deleted. The inclusion of characters from so many sources: books, games, leggo etc makes it confusing and difficult to weed out mischevious inclusions. One suggestion for those who find this page helpful would be in break it into sections such as Books, Games etc or indicate on entires the source of the character. This has been done with Wizard/Witch of the Month. I am uncertain how to delete a page and would not to do so without some consenus. I'd be pleased to hear from others. Proxxt (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help with this page
I feel very frustrated in trying to keep this page relevant, as it is clear that few people bother to read the discussion page. I thank those who do make that effort. I can't see the point of this page unless contributors attribute information gleaned from sources such as games or Pottermore or similar references. While it may be obvious to those who enjoy HP games or have access to Pottermore, it is frustrating to those who rely on the books and films and JKR's public information as primary sources for character information. Please do share the information you have from games etc., but please source it so it can be easliy verifiable. Proxxt (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sirius Black
In the character list it says Sirius's full name is Sirius Orion Black, but I have never heard of the middle name outside of fanfiction and it's certainly not listed on the Order_of_the_Phoenix_(fiction) page. A citation would be good so that we know if Sirius's middle name is actually a JKR-sanctioned name, as I'm pretty sure it isn't. JustPotteringAround (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. I'm sure this article is peppered with mistakes and nonsense, but I don't really know how to track them down short of re-reading the entire saga with a notepad and a provision of pencils...Mezigue (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for a big clean-up?
It seems to me this article should only list actual characters of the series rather than everyone mentioned in it. Is anyone really ever going to look here for information on someone who appears on a family tree or was only ever named on JKR's web site? In addition, this article is vandalism magnet and I suspect that quite a few entries are bogus, but it's becoming impossible to spot in the sea of obscure trivia. Thoughts? Mezigue (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Very much agree, but before the decimation begins we should do it properly and set out some consensus gained rules for eligibility. For example - the Harlow Harpies team members may be notable, given that Ginny ends up playing for them, but does taht mean that any of the other scarcely mentioned Quidditch players are worthy?  Probably not.  But without a doubt "Matilda Dukelow – Holyhead Harpies fan" is about as non-notable as you can possibly get, and even if real, is about to be removed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-notables to remove: Any entry that simply states "xxxx - a student in/above/below Harry's year" - unless aforementioned student is an influential plot device - an active member of Dumbledore's Army, or a Weasley date for the Yule ball, etc.


 * Well the problem is the entries don't actually tell us if the character is an influential plot device. I am also puzzled by entries such as Lavender Brown's parents.  Do they actually ever appear in the series - I don't recall so - or has someone just figured they must exist so in they go?  As a general rule I suggest: 1) anyone not mentioned in the books is removed.  Persons mentioned on a website or in a newsletter are not actually HP characters.  2) people only mentioned in connection with magical history are removed, unless they are significant (e.g. Hogwarts founders, Nicolas Flamel etc...) 3) athletes are removed unless they are "seen in action" or repeatedly mentioned in the books. Also, where the hell does this vast list of Black family members come from? Mezigue (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the Black family tree came from somebody who paused a DVD at the point in the film where the tree is shown on the tapestry. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned on one of the other talk pages.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a thought about this. We're being too nice here.  Wikipedia already has a policy for removal - Notability, and verifyability. (sp?)  All we need to do is completely purge the page apart from all the utterly obviously characters - The Dursleys, Shacklebolt, and so forth.  Justification for other characters is down to the contributing editor, not the removing editor, so unless addition is warranted and explained, bang - it goes again.  This is already Wiki policy, so we're not doing anything other than enforcing it.  As it happens I'll have a couple of hours spare tonight - I might start the work then, pending other opinions.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "too nice", but certainly the page is very poor right now so go for it. Perhaps do it in blocks per reason for removal so that if there is some disagreement later someone doesn't reverse your whole work... Mezigue (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "As a general rule I suggest: 1) anyone not mentioned in the books is removed." - Sorry if I'm lousy at this because I'm new, but I don't understand why anyone would remove Theodore Nott from the list of the characters.  He's in Harry's year and his father is a Death Eater.  Yet he was just deleted.  I think that's going a bit overboard. VFiles333 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What relevance to the story and plot does this Theodore Nott have? What are his contributions to the story?  Is he named and have any lines in the books?  In the films?  Does he interact with Harry at any point?  Could he be purged form all records, and yet the essential Harry Potter story be unchanged?  Feel free to add him back in, but you need a better rationale than him being in Harry's year, and his father being a Death EaterChaheel Riens (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He has his own HP Wiki page. He was in the books and the movie.  He was one of only three to see Thestrals during a COMC class.  He didn't get invited to the Slug Club because his father was imprisoned for being a death eater.

VFiles333 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. While my eyes regain the ability to focus, can anybody suggest why we have both this page, and also List of supporting Harry Potter characters?  Seems to me that they essentially duplicate material.  I'm pretty sure we could get rid of one.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, well done! When I suggested this, I was more seeking opinions rather than a volunteer!  I expected to have to do it myself.  I think you might have taken out a handful of characters more than necessary though, e.g. Ludo Bagman who has quite a big part, and also some students.  I'll review the whole change when I have the time because the odd goof is inevitable.  To answer your question, I seem to recall that the various HP pages have gone through a series of mutations over the years.  Personally, I think the present arrangement is a bit random, in particular characters being listed under the names of organisations, but it was reached through some sort of consensus.  The other page you mention has ended being the page for leftover characters that didn't fit in any other article (Hogwarts, Ootp, DA) while this one lists everyone (and then some until this week!) without developping.  I wouldn't attempt to change one without a discussion on the project page first. Mezigue (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was something that I'd been meaning to do anyway for some time. Let the re-insertions commence!  In fact - I'll start the ball rolling...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What's Sir Cadogan's relevance to the series? Apart from appearing in a painting, what're his credentials?  Is it an important painting?  I confess I removed him simply on the grounds of it being a vague statement.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He's a character in the series, this page is for Harry Potter characters. He was in the books, he had lines and thus he should be on this page. Removing video game characters is one thing, removing people in the book is another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.175.215 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good enough rationale. There are hundreds of characters in the book, but that doesn't automatically warrant or guarantee entry.  For example - Dursley's gang?  Not good enough.  What is Cadogan's importance to the series - you don't answer that important question.  This is the problem - I don't mind any character being inserted, so long as there is a good enough rationale and explanation for somebody who is not knowledgeable to the degree where they know every character without it being explained to them.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. This page is called "List of Harry Potter characters". When I come here I expect to be able to find a full list of Harry Potter characters not a shortened version because one person decides they aren't important enough to have a place on this list.  Sir Cadogan was the temporary portrait that guarded Gryffindor tower. His importance to the series is to show that Sirius Black was so feared that even a portrait was terrified of him resulting in another stepping in. People use this page for various reasons not just to find the main characters. Some of the characters you removed lead me to believe you don't actually have enough knowledge of the series to be cleaning this page up. Since the clean up this page has ceased to be useful to me.  Oh, and since J.K. Rowling just released a section on Pottermore about Sir Cadogan I'm sure she wouldn't agree that he isn't important enough to be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.117.86 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. Have you actually bothered to read my rationale for removal?  I'll repeat it here for you:  "What is Cadogan's importance to the series - you don't answer that important question.  This is the problem - I don't mind any character being inserted, so long as there is a good enough rationale and explanation for somebody who is not knowledgeable to the degree where they know every character without it being explained to them."
 * Somewhat ironically, in your reply, you have fulfilled the criteria I was asking for, although you've done so on the talk page, and not the character page. Of course, we're actually missing the point that I didn't remove Cadogan after questioning his re-introduction, but I don't suppose you noticed that in your apoplexy.
 * "...you don't actually have enough knowledge of the series to be cleaning this page up" - on the contrary, that gives me an excellent reason to be clearing out the page. The problem with pages such as this is that they become filled with mindless fancruft and triviata from the Potter-nerds who consider every last character to be of the utmost importance, and insist on listing every last detail about them as well.  That is not the case.  The page has been purged of all the mindless cruft, and now reasonable additions are going back in.  I like the Potterverse, but there have to be limits.  You will, incidentally, notice that I am not the only person who feels this way - the clean up was suggested by two different editors at two different times - one of whom stated that they expected to do the work themselves.  I simply found myself with some spare time, so got stuck in first.
 * You are welcome to rephrase your babble above into a reasonable sentence about Cadogan and add it to his entry on the article page. Seems like a good enough rationale - which is all I asked for.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Time for a big clean-up?
I suggested one year ago that this page should be deleted. Apart form being regularly vandalised, I don't think it is appropriate to include information from sources other than the books. Information from games and and similar sources I find unhelpful and that kind of information best included in the pages for these aspects of Harry Potter. Additions like "Mrs. Creevy" are irrelevant. Presumably based on the assumption that the Creevy brothers had a mother, who is never mentioned in the books. Just an example of what I mean. I always appreciate the hard work of Wikipedia contributors, but this page does not enhance the Harry Potter presence or Wikipedia. Proxxt (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The clean-up did take place. All the fan-cruft has gone as far as I can see.  Mezigue (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The clear up
I understand that there were a lot of characters on this page that were only mentioned in games and such but removing characters that are in the books is too far. Either keep characters like Avery, Blaise Zabini and yes, Sir Cadogan back in or rename the page to "List of Major Harry Potter characters". It doesn't matter if the character played a small role or a big role, they're still a characters and if this is a list of Harry Potter characters they should be on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.175.215 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. See response to this above.  It does matter if the character played a small role or a big role.  Incidentally, Sir Cadogan is in the list, I haven't taken him out, I merely asked what his importance was, as it wasn't (and still isn't) stated clearly in the article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You did take him out! I put him back as he is in a few scenes.  He is now in the second section as Cadogan would be a first name. Mezigue (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is I haven't removed him again, despite there still being no adequate explanation or rationale for his inclusion: I removed him, you re-inserted him, I asked for his significance - but I didn't remove him again.  The name is familiar to me, but I'm purposely avoiding checking up Pottermore, the books, or the Potter wiki for his relevence - I'm waiting to see how it gets inserted into this article.  If a character is added to this page it should be with enough of a (concise) bio to satisfy a casual reader - they should not feel the need to then check an external or additional source to wonder what the point of the character was, which I'm afraid to say is still the case with Sir Cadogan.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to those who did the clean up. This much better Proxxt (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Belby
****2nd Request****

This character is listed in List_of_Harry_Potter_cast_members#Hogwarts_students for the Half Blood Prince, played by Robert Knox who was subsequently stabbed to death. However the character is omitted from this list. Would someone more expert than I in Harry Potter lore please correct this? Dick Kimball (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and there's an internal link from Marcus Welby's name entry under List_of_Harry_Potter_cast_members#Hogwarts_students to the "B" section of this page, (which is how I got here) making his omission kind of glaring. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I am also requesting that someone please enter Marcus Belby into the list-someone who is better at editing than myself. It is still a glaring omission when you click the link within Rob Knox's page and no Marcus character listed- and wiki even redirects you(as stated at the top of the page) when you click onto the 'marcus belby' link there. 69.249.125.97 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) BrattySoul

Edit request on 15 January 2013
Next to Fenrir Greyback's name, it states that he kills Lavender Brown; however, that's not completely accurate. In movie canon, he does kill her, but in the book canon, he simply mauls her. On this page, Lavender's entry has the mauling -- clicking the link to her name provides the full information, that the movie and book canon diverge.

98.206.70.246 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good canon point.  I have modified the canon page.  Have a good canon day. ;)  Mezigue (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ernie Prang
Stanley Shunpike is listed here, as a conductor on the Knight Bus, but Ernie Prang, the driver, is not. Please add him. He appears in the 3rd book. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.197.188 (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Shunpike has an entry because he is mentioned as a (potential) Death Eater later on. Prang is a far more minor role, and not worthy of inclusion.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cormac McLaggen
Cormac McLaggen is a character in book 6, and plays as a keeper on the Gryffindor quidditch team for one game. Please add him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.197.188 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A character who only plays a single quidditch match is not significant. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cormac McLaggen plays a larger role than that. He was Ron's biggest competition during Qudditich try-outs until he was charmed by Hermione who, being in love with Ron, wanted him to get the position. He was in the Slug Club and was Hermione's date to Slughorn's Christmas party to make Ron Weasley jealous. In the movie, he was also a part of the revived Dumbledore's Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.13.69 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013
Add the following character name under V, characters with no known last names: Verity - Attractive witch with short blonde hair, probably about two years older than Harry. She is a shop girl at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes and Fred and George's first employee. Citation: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 1st American Edition, Hardcover, p. 119-120.

76.93.32.171 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but non-notable, and so not added. She adds nothing to the storyline or plot in any way shape or form.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Igor Karkaroff
His body is mentioned in the beginning of the Half-Blood Prince (during Harry's summertime stay at the Burrow) to have "been found in a shack up north" - there's more to his death than "presumed to have died sometime after the Goblet of Fire -- and I don't have an account, so I can't edit it.

68.99.140.120 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What more is there? Mezigue (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2013
Add the name Padfoot. It is the name of Sirius Black when in dog form as an animigus.

Pecman1954 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This nickname is listed in the entry for Sirius Black in the Order of the Phoenix article. Note that the nicknames Moony, Prongs, and Wormtail are also not included in this list. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Students in Harry's year
I noticed that a number of my recent edits to this page have been reverted (apologies for editing without logging in -- the edits appear under the IP addresses 128.230.232.119 and 128.230.235.211), and now the page appears to be locked?

I'm more than fine with excluding characters that don't appear in the books, that makes all kinds of sense. However, it seems to me that any named character that appears in the books ought to be acceptable for this list (and in reading through the Talk page, there seems to be a lot of support for that approach).

For one thing, no such comprehensive list exists; that alone makes it important information. The categories at the harry potter wiki (e.g., list of Ravenclaws) don't distinguish between books, movies, and video games, meaning that you have to visit each individual page and look at the "Appearances" section to determine whether a character is book-canon or not. For another, the question of whether a character is important enough to warrant mentioning is highly subjective. Most importantly, though, if JKR thought they were significant enough to give them a name and include them in her book(s), surely that ought to be enough for us, yes?

Failing that, can we at least include every Hogwarts student that's in Harry's year, with the notation "in Harry's year" and their House? This is important reference information and, again, no such list currently exists elsewhere that I can find. It can be pieced together, but it's a slow and laborious process (I know, I've just spent two days trying to do it :P)

Thanks for your consideration!

Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 17:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you're editing with good intentions, but the page is already crammed full of barely notable characters, and continually gets updates with those who Harry passed once in the corridor and said "Hi" to. This page should be restricted to those who had impact on the plot of the books or films - and the books take precedence in the world of HP canon.  If you want an exhaustive list of every character, then that should be taken to a more dedicated location - such as the Harry Potter wiki.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is now semi-protected at my request, which means registered users can still edit it. You shouldn't be locked out of it so long as you are logged in. Mezigue (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm. Perhaps the page ought to be renamed -- List of major Harry Potter characters, for example.  As it stands the title is a bit misleading, and is probably one reason that people keep adding non-notable characters to the page (because the title implies that it's fine to do so).  Alternatively, perhaps expand the introductory paragraph at the top.  Currently that says, "This is a list of characters in the Harry Potter series. They are all fictional characters who have appeared in a Harry Potter-related book by J. K. Rowling."  That strongly implies that any character appearing in the book is acceptable.


 * What about changing it to this: "This is a list of significant characters in the Harry Potter books. This is defined as characters (1) who appear in one ore more of the seven books that comprise the series and (2) whose presence, words or actions somehow influence or affect events or the plot. This list does not include non-significant characters from the books, or any characters that appear solely in the films, video games, or secondary sources (e.g. Pottermore, interviews with J.K. Rowling, etc.)."


 * How do you feel about including at least all the students in Harry's year, though?
 * I feel strongly against it for the reasons I submitted above. If they're not relevant to the plot of the books or film, they have no business being in the list.  I also understand your concerns about the article title, but don't really think that any change would necessarily be a good change.  To rename it to "List of major Harry Potter characters" would only promote argument discussion over what defines a "major" character.  Is Sir Cadogan a major character?  I think not, yet consensus allows him a place in the article.  What about Lee Jordan?  His character contributes several times to the plot, but is he really a major character?  Not really.  Notable - yes, but not major.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Eldred Worple and Sanguini
A couple of days ago I wanted to look up some information on Sanguini, a vampire who briefly appear in Half Blood Prince chapter 15. When I entered "sangini" as my search term a disambiguation page directed me to this page, but there was no entry for the character. I then had to spend twenty minutes or so searching through the book to find the scene, since I wanted to know the name of another character who accompanied him - Eldred Worple, a vampire researcher.

I added them both to this page, but they've already been deleted on the grounds that they are minor characters. I can see no reason for this - they're present in the story, described with more detail than several characters who do appear on this page, and it's apparent that enough people have tried to look them up that someone created a disambiguation page.

So what are the grounds for "importance" and "unimportance" in this context?

I've reinstated the page pending discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Rowland (talk • contribs) 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This page used to have just about every character mentioned on the books, JKR's website and a few made up to boost, so it was decided a while ago to clean it up and remove characters that are too minor. Essentially, the two you mention play no part in the plot - they just add colour to a brief scene. Mezigue (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fair point - but maybe there should be a list of "didn't quite make the cut" minor characters at the bottom, with a blanket "see the Harry Potter lexicon for these characters" suggestion or something. Marcus Rowland (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Moaning Myrtle
"Rowling has revealed on Twitter that Myrtle's full name was Myrtle Elizabeth Warren" - so says List of supporting Harry Potter characters. However, this is an extra-canonical tidbit. Personally I don't think it should be included here on the list. However, if you think it should be, then we need to reclassify Myrtle as having a surname and move her to the appropriate position in the other list. Elizium23 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to this edit, I mostly agree that Moaning Myrtle should be just plain ol' Moaning Myrtle, but Official Twitter accounts are counted as reliable, and thus are not, er, unreliable. I'm not sure that something coming directly from J K Rowling herself can be considered "extra-canonical"
 * Here's a couple of other news sources that quote the twitter feed as well:
 * Meet the 'Elizabeth Warren' of Harry Potter
 * People Can’t Believe Moaning Myrtle’s Real Name Is Myrtle Elizabeth Warren, Like The Senator (This source states that the reveal is coming from The Cursed Child as well as Twitter)
 * Here's what Moaning Myrtle from 'Harry Potter' looks like now


 * It's hard to justify not calling her Warren, or relocating her to the "W" section of the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this discussion earlier, hence just changing it. A character's name is what it is called in the work in which it appears!  It is completely irrelevant what JKR says on Twitter: Moaning Myrtle is a book and by extension film character, not a Twitter character. No one is going to search for Myrtle Warren. Mezigue (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I nominally agree with you - that she should be listed as "Moaning Myrtle", not Warren - and that under "W" it should have a small comment - much as Tom Riddle does. However I disagree with your logic that Warren is not a canonical addition - it seems to be that most of the world dislikes the possibility that The Cursed Child can be canon, with the exception of the person who (co)wrote it...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the entire concept of canonicity is worthless. It seems to consist of people arguing over which part of a fictional story is "true". Mezigue (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. The canon status of a particular story is considered official and has effects in the continuity of a particular fictional setting or character. Non-canonical works are supposed to be ignored and to have no lasting effects. It is rarely as clear-cut as that, and popular non-canonical works may have effects on subsequent works.

Which is all I truly get out of discussions of canonical works. My awareness of various retcons has made me quite cynical about the concept of the canon. What is considered canonical for decades, may change because a more recent story depicts characters and situations differently. Dimadick (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015
Please add Ariana Dumbledore as a character.

190.210.163.17 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we include the children of Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione?
Rose, Hugo, Albus, Lilly, James, and every other one of the children mentioned in the epilogue are not in this article - is there a reason for not having them? Can we add their names to this page? 76.23.23.147 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because in the grand scheme of things they're non-notable. They only appear in the last few moments of the entire series, and have no bearing on the plot at all.  One could argue that the only reason they've been added is so that the gang have a valid reason to be back on platform 9 3/4 after 19 years - although you could quite easily write the kids out and have them returning as teachers instead.
 * Their general non-notability and late addition to the series is also the reason why the main characters Harry, Hermione, Ron and even Draco aren't listed as being married or as having children.
 * The list is constantly being padded out by additions of characters who have little or no notability, and every now and again needs a good purge. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Creatures Vs Characters
This edit made me notice that there's an awful lot of creatures in this list, not characters. Most are also present in Magical creatures in Harry Potter. I think that by definition of the article name, creatures should be excluded from the list.

Examples:
 * Aragog
 * Buckbeak
 * Errol, Pigwidgeon & Hedwig
 * Fawkes
 * Fluffy & Fang

Most are present in the "no or unknown surname" section - apart from Fawkes who is currently placed in the "surname" section. Not sure if that's correct in itself - is it ever established that "Fawkes" is a surname? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Time
Though the years for the minor characters are not mentioned, the books clearly place their age in relation to Harry's, so would it be ok to edit them all? For example in the case of Cassius Warrington that would mean to describe him as "Slytherin Quidditch team chaser (replacement for Adrian Purcey 1993/1994)" because he is mentioned only in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". --Fledere (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because such minor characters don't need to be included at all. We don't really include dates anyway, unless they're important to the plot in some way.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017
Need to add a character: Ariana Dumbledore; sister to Albus and Aberforth, died at 14

Source: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Ariana_Dumbledore

Thank you! -Keirstin Garrett KikiG1991 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too minor. Ariana doest not even appear in the stories, she is just mentioned.Mezigue (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Mezigue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Harry Potter characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101025507/http://www.tvcatchup.com/watch/14856/ to http://www.tvcatchup.com/watch/14856/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ariana Dumbledore
I have added Ariana Dumbledore twice and she has been removed twice. The claim is that she is "way to minor." Her life story is detailed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.(Spoilers ahead) Her life of possibly being a squib, locked away by her family, her tortured childhood, and of course her death which is what lead Dumbledore to finally leave the Dark Arts is ALL essential to the story. In Book 7 (Deathly Hallows) Harry reads Rita Skeeter's "The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore" after being attacked by Nagini at Bathilda Bagshot's house. In the book he reads all about Dumbledore's sister, how much Dumbledore cared more about the Dark Arts than his sister, and his "friendship" with Gellert Grindlewald. This leaves Harry so angry that Dumbledore left him with no clues to find the horocruxes and begins questioning if Dumbledore is a good man and whether he should continue to do what Dumbledore told him to do. It's essential to the plot. Ariana and Grindlewald's stories is what makes Harry finally start to realize that maybe Dumbledore isn't perfect and it shatters Harry's faith to continue his journey.

For proof of my claim, page 361 of Harry Potter and the Dealthy Hallows (American print):

His temper would not remain in check much longer: He stood up and walked around, trying to work some of it off.

"I'm not trying to defend what Dumbledore wrote," said Hermione. "All that 'right to rule' rubbish, it's 'Magic is Might' all over again. But Harry, his mother had just died, he stuck alone in the house --"

"Alone? He wasn't alone! He had his brother and sister for company, his Squib sister he kept locked up--"

"I don't believe it," said Hermione. She stoop up too. "Whatever was wrong with that girl, I don't think she was a Squib. The Dumbledore we knew would never, ever have allowed--"

"The Dumbledore we thought we knew didn't want to conquer Muggles by force!" Harry shouted, his voice echoing across the empty hilltop...

This is just a small snippet to prove my point. A large chunk of the book is dedicated to Harry's disillusionment with Dumbledore. And the relationship Dumbledore had to his sister and to Grindlewald is essential to understand why Harry is so disillusioned. If Grindlewald is on this list, then so should Ariana. Daxri


 * See Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017. Consensus is that as she doesn't actually appear in the books as a character, but is just mentioned her role is much more of a supporting minor nature than that of Grindlewald - especially given Grindlewald's appearance in Fantastic Beasts, for example.  "If character A is here, so should character B" is not a valid argument.  Next thing you know we'll be arguing that Sanguini should be back on the list because Cormac McLaggen is listed.  Also, if your edit has been removed twice, you should really have started discussion the first time it happened, but thanks for doing so the second time round.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What does consensus mean here? I understand that a preview edit decision was denied, but like Daxri, I think it was a serious mistake. Daxri has given an eloquent and accurate explanation why, so I won't add debating points, but however this consensus is developed, I'd like to continue or examine the old discussion. Claudia (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)