Talk:Hermione Granger/Archive 2

message: We need to change it, one of Emma Watson at a premere is fine for her article, but thats like having a picture of Ralph fines out of costume or make up at a premere as the main image for the Voldemort article.
: Seconded, the primary picture is hardly relevant to the article.  Also, please sign your posts. 76.173.68.45 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the picture is inappropriate for this article, however it is sufficient for the Emma Watson article. 68.44.85.83 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Picture

message: Does anyone else think that the layout of Hermione's page could be improved? I think that it would be clearer and better constructed if it followed the fashion of Harry Potter's character page. --KittyCollier 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Layout

message: "(although that incident also shows her difficulties in thinking on her feet: it is Harry and Ron who tell her how to defeat the Snare)"
Is this true?  It's differs from how I remember it happening.  I don't have my books right now, or I'd check.  I remember Hermione as the one who remained calm and got through  Can anybody varify?   John Reaves 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film may have misrepresented it. In the book, however, she is able to identify it as Devils Snare (shrieking in horror at the same time). She then says responds to Rons's sarcastic "Oh, I'm so glad we know what it's called" with "Shut up, I'm trying to remember how to kill it!" She (of course) remembers Sprout's explanation of what it is ("it likes the dark and the damp") but fails to use that knowledge to good effect: Harry has to say, "So light a fire." She responds memorably: "Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" 'Hermione cried, wringing her hands'. Ron: "HAVE YOU GONE MAD? ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" It is Ron and Harry who use what they know (from her) constructively; she, by contrast, panicks. I do, however, think the film (as per usual) made a royal stuff up of the scene, so she might have been better there. Michaelsanders 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks, the movies tend to screw up my memory, I not sure why I watch them.  Plus, I haven't read the first couple books in a while.  John Reaves 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: She destroyed Hufflepuff's cup with a basilisk fang. Ariadne55 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: True?

message: Her dislike for Fleur has deepened from their encounter in book four, and she has been joined in this by both Mrs Weasley and Ginny, although the three dislike Fleur for different reasons (Mrs Weasley feels that Fleur and Bill are rushing into their marriage, Ginny views her as spoiled and narcissistic, Hermione dislikes her because of Ron's attraction to her).
For me it's just a lame interpretation. The books or even the author had never said so.
Adri K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.226.2 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May someone please erase this? 

message: I removed the otter detail because it appears in the article twice. It is mentioned once as Rowling's favorite animal on top and again under Order of the Phoenix. I'm uncertain if it needs to be there two times but someone reverted it back.
JayEsJay 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Otter detail

message: Is Hermione not part of S.P.E.W.? In the INFO. BOX it does not mention so, I should like to see that addition.
Gargoyle123 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One guideline for the HP infobox that will help keep it within a reasonable size limit is to limit the number of Allegiances to two. Since the DA and the Order of the Phoenix are more important in the general spectrum than S.P.E.W., we have omitted it there, but it can be found in the prose of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.P.E.W. 

message: in addition to the redundant mentioning of the otter info, there seem to be some links that are repeated within a section. Hippogriff, Buckbeak and DA are needlessly linked more than once within the section that they show up. I think they should be removed.
JayEsJay 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancies

message: Yes, this probably seems stupid, but I was just wondering: it's been stated on a few sites (once on hp-lexicon.org or whatever and on mugglenet) that Hermione's hair colour is DARK brown? I know it's really just an addition to "brown," but I thought that people are drifting off to Emma's portrayal as Hermione. Sorry, just a thought.
Gargoyle123 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermione Hair Colour? 

message: Is there a reason why the third movie doesn't have a picture of her? It just seems odd that all the others do, even the one that isn't even out yet. Can someone add one for it? -- Ospinad 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None should. We have this little policy called Wikipedia:Non-free content. Minimal fair-use images. Fair use images are officially (by policy) icky, unloved, diseased, unwanted and have no friends, and are not to be encouraged - David Gerard 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoA photo 

message: I deleted this section because it would be impossible to choose. Here are three examples, but we could also mention her cameo in New Excalibur, or the french parody which call her "Hormon". So it's useless. Barraki 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not! It's an important section which should not be deleted! --Maxl 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other media 

message: I am new to wikipedia and I have not set up an account yet, so I havent edited the page, but I would to point out that the section about her surname being surname "Granger" may be derived from that of Joseph Louis Lagrange, or taken from fahrenheit 451 is pointless. Granger is a relatively common British surname originating from a person who looked after a "Grange" which is like a farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.65.12 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 June 2007
Could anybody tell me how I am supposed to pronounce "Hermione"? --213.47.233.100 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Book 4, Hermione teaches Victor Krum how to say her name when he keeps messing it up.--WPaulB 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: it is commonly belived by many that hermione and harry will start dating in the final book and that ron kind of gets some new girlfriend so yeah im t5thinjing that oit should be added
:No.  This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mill.  --Yamla 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it's not commonly believed. Rowling has specifically confirmed it's Ron/Hermione and not Harry/Hermione. --Harlequin212121 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Commonly believed by whom?  It doesn't matter now, book 7 is clear on that.--WPaulB 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationship 

message: ok so now then hermione and ron never have been on the brink of dating becaquse they friends ron doesn't like hermione like that ron was jealous of ginny snogging dean and hermione snogging krum so he wanted to get a girlfriend to snog so he figured since lavender brown liked him he would be with her not that he regected hermione any isdesas about them two being close to dating is pure speculation which doesnot belong on wikipedia
Well, its not really speculation. JK pretty much confirms that Ron and Hermione will get together in the Mugglenet/Leakey Cauldron interveiw. Admittally its not 100% ganerantee, but its about 98%. Wild ste 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the brink of dating. regeting hermione in favour of lavender 

message: on reference no 9 it says " Rowling supposedly confirmed that Ron and Hermione would hook up, although Hermione prefers to have sex with Harry instead of Ron" i went to the source and t says no such thing, somone shud fix it (added by 125.239.43.41)
:Done. Ccrashh 01:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference vandalism 

message: Uh-oh. Page 125 of Deathly Hallows reads her name as "Hermione Jean Granger". THIS is why unsourced statements cause trouble...someone needs to go clean up all the foreign language pages marked "Jane". ~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the New York Times source is behind a login requirement, so some people can't see your reference without signing up.--WPaulB 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Gosh. You're right. Clearly his book is fake. Or else maybe he's in another country perhaps? Perhaps America, where the book jacket and font look exactly like that in the picture he posted? Maybe? 24.218.218.9 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in "America", thank you. I never said it's fake, I just mentioned it looks different. Since I posted, I've seen the "Other" front cover & jacket. Never discredited his info, just said I seen a copy of the book on Friday and it looked nothing like his. 24.138.6.205 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you posted a link to the British cover. What you refer to the "other" cover is the one that you're most likely to see at Borders, Barnes and Noble, Waldenbooks, B Dalton's, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Bretano's, etc etc etc. 24.218.218.9 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Just a thought, but the epilogue of DH never refers to Hermione as "Hermione Weasley." For that matter, it never explicitly says Hermione and Ron are married (though it implies they have children together). It's probably reasonable to assume they are married, but is it reasonable to assume that she would take Ron's last name? Is the name change justified? Given that many women today do not take their husband's names (and Hermione's character has demonstrated her independent personality), is it necessary to change a name that was not explicitly done by JKR?  Should we change Harry's name to "Harry Weasley Potter" or Ron to "Ron Granger Weasley" or even "Ron Weasley Granger"?  The edits changing Hermione's and Ginny's names seem to assume some things and are somewhat sexist. 24.147.123.99 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we change Harry or Ron's names? It's quite unusual for a man's name to change when he marries, whereas in the overwhelming majority of cases, women do. That's why we list a maiden name as if it were a middle name, "Hermione Jean Granger Weasley" is just the same as "Hermione Jean Wesley (née Granger)"... DBD 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless, her name throughout the series of books is Hermione Granger, not Hermione Weasley.  As such, it is inappropriate to add the Weasley name based purely on a five page epilogue - the character's listed name should be the one principally used.  Her presumed marriage to Ron is merely a footnote to the character and should be noted in the appropriate section, not by changing her name in the header section.  --Tailkinker 06:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A birth surname kept as a second middle name is not the same as a birth surname that's been completely dropped.  In the former, the birth surname is still part of the person's legal name, though it is not used very often.  In the latter, it is not part of the person's legal name at all anymore, so it should be written as née (which means born), not as part of the name itself.  Née (or the masculine né) is not limited to names that were discarded after marriage, it can be used if the person changed his/her name for other reasons; Voldemort could be described as Voldemort, né Tom Riddle. Ariadne55 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my previous comment wasn't clear.  I was never suggesting that we should actually change Ron's or Harry's names -- I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the very thing that the respondent picked up on: we would never think of altering men's names (or, for that matter, changing the beginning of the header in some way to indicate their spouse).  And while it is clearly still the case that most women make such name changes, it is by no means universal anymore.  Regardless, Hermione is simply never referred to in the canon of Harry Potter as "Hermione Weasley", and it seems rather ridiculous to add something to her name unless JKR says it is part of her name.  (The case with Ginny is perhaps a bit clearer, though I'll put a further comment on that page explaining my thoughts in a second.) 24.147.123.99 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your proof of Weasley being her last name?  What is your proof of Granger being a second middle name?  Think about how much original research you're assuming in declaring Granger her second middle name: (1) you're deciding that she changed her last name to Weasley, (2) that she decided to retain Jane/Jean as a middle name, (3) that she decided to add Granger as a middle name, and (4) that she decided to put Jane/Jean before Granger when arranging her middle names.  If you find yourself deciding the order of a set of names (Jane/Jean and Granger) for a character, then you're not quoting canon, you're making it up.  Even if she's a Weasley, she could be Hermione Jane Weasley or Hermione Granger Weasley just as easily as she could be the four-name combo you prefer. Ariadne55 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's highly likely, but it's never made explicit, so it isn't canon.  Exploding Boy 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If JKR states it outside of the books, I feel that is reason enough to change it.--209.12.46.2 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep.  But she hasn't... yet. chgallen 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually, she has now. She said it on the Today show television interview, "Ron's wife". Doesn't clear up the name debate, but it is now assured that they are 100 %married. lumaria
I agree if JKR states it, then it is just as good as canonical.  Either way we can make a pretty good assumption, from the series, that Ron and Hermione are married and share the same name.  1) Out of wedlock children are not very typical in the Potter Universe.  2) Just because she is a strong minded woman, it does not mean that she does not take his name, to share with him and their children.  3) Wizarding names are important (especially old family names).  And 4) There are no cited cases in the series of Husband and Wife with differing names.  The preponderance of the evidence suggests that she is now Hermione Weasley.  This assumption is stronger than to the contrary. I would still like to see something from JKR.--Cdman882 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what you think happens, it's too "in-universe" to write about a character using the married name they supposedly have 19 years after the plot. Hermione Granger, the Hogwarts student, is a character that real people read and care about. Hermione Weasley, the 36-year-old magical lawyer, is a footnote. In all the ways that are relevant to the article, she is Hermione Granger, and the 7 books where she's called that aren't going to rewrite themselves to change her name. See the discussion at Talk:Ginny Weasley#Ginny's Name Change? for more. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As stated above, she was Hermione Jean Granger for 7 books and may have been Hermione Weasley, or some variation of that, for 5 pages. Setting aside that we don't know her married name - and remembering how much original research it would entail to suggest a version of it - people know and recognise the lead female of the Harry Potter series as Hermione Granger. Algebra man 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tonks still goes by Tonks (her surname) in DH, even though she had married Lupin.  Of course, only her parents ever called her by first name. --Mxg75 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermione's Name Change? 

message: Is Hermione's new middle name in book 7 a mistake, because here, Rowling states that her middle name is Jane, not Jean? If so, which should be used in the article? 80.6.6.193 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Jean' and 'Jane' sound reasonably similar, so it could just be a transcription error. Even if it were, I'd think we'd want to have a later, printed source take priority over an early verbal statement. --Gwern  (contribs) 20:53 21 July 2007 (GMT)
Yes, I think it's defiantly a mistake that was made during the Birtish/American book edits. Obviously, Rowling has confirmed her middle name before. The whole Jean/Jane might soon come to Rowlings attention and we could see an answer straight from her.
*It COULD be a mistake, but prior to DH, only Rowling's comments had it as "Hermione Jane".  From "Jane" to "Jean" would require more than an inattentive typesetter or spellchecker; perhaps Rowling decided for whatever reason to change the name.  At any rate, the book says "Jean", therefore that is the canon name as of now.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's listed as Jean on page 125, the Dumbledore's Will chapter, of the American edition. Ariadne55 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane/Jean? 

message: That is a picture of Emma Watson, not Hermione. Serendipodous 11:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swap the picture back

message: Can we please get rid of the "Appearance" section altogether, or at least move it down in the entry?  I think it's offensive that the entry for Hermione has her appearance right at the top.  Harry and Ron's entries hardly talk about appearance at all (even though their appearances are covered in great detail in the books, as is Hermione's), and where Harry and Ron's appearances are mentioned, it is buried near the bottom of their respective entries.  I just think that it's irresponsible to reinforce to young people (and young girls in particular) who read this that regardless of all of this character's other characteristics and accomplishments, as a girl, Hermione's appearance is the most important and literally comes first.  Who's with me?Janep1024 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited so that only narrator comments about Hermione and incidents that affected her looks remain.  What others think of her looks doesn't seem relevant to an encyclopedia article.  Hermione's appearance section is now about the same size as Ron's and is also about as far down in the article.  Btw, I hate to say this but when pointing out sexism it's usually best not to use the word sexism.  Most people like to believe that sexism doesn't exist anymore, so it makes them defensive and they start babbling about "tradition" and trying to justify whatever sexist nonsense is at issue.  Phrasing it as making something equal works better. Ariadne55 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  By the way, I think that you're right that people think that sexism doesn't exist anymore, but it does, and I think it's alright to shock and anger people every now and then by using the word "sexist" in context. I'm just glad the entry was changed!Janep1024 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist entry? 

message: Is it worth mentioning in the summary of Hermione's participation in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore left her the book of "The Tales of Beedle the Bard"?  It was significant not only because it contributed to their Quest for the Deadly Hallows and contained the tale of the three brothers, but that it was Dumbledore's and given to her in his will.  I'm certain the Deluminator is mentioned in Ron's profile, and while more passive of a gift as the Deluminator, it was just as important to the plot and quest.  Dumbledore also notes his consideration of her role in their quest for the Hallows when speaking to Harry at King's Cross.Luminum 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumbledore's Consideration

message: I removed them, and those of many other characters, as they are ridiculous and it's getting out of hand how many some chracters have; Hermione had somewhere in the region of 5. asyndeton 23:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you cannot simply declare them 'ridiculous' and then remove them without even attempting to seek consensus from other editors. Firstly J.K. Rowling has explicitly stated in numerous interviews that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Kingsley were all vital in reforming and 'de-corrupting' (sic) the Ministry. Secondly she has also stated that Hermione was central to reforming non-wizard and non-pureblood rights. If she not only works for the Ministry but is a key figure there, how is that not an even stronger allegiance than that to the Order of the Phoenix, an organisation of which she wasn't even a member? I am going to add it back in and I strongly suggest that there should at least be some kind of informed discussion before you remove them again. AulaTPN 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes no sense. By definition, if you are giving your services to an organisation then you are allied with, at the very least, that organisations goals and probably the organisation itself - unless of course you're pulling Snape-duty. I have to say, maybe I acted a bit strongly but I was somewhat annoyed by your labelling that content as 'ridiculous' - that's hardly an NPOV-friendly word. I'm not gonna argue the toss over this one but for the record I think your reasoning is flawed. AulaTPN 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps not but how is it unencyclopaedic if attention has been drawn to it explicitly by the author and on numerous occasions? Frankly if you're going to declare it so then you should remove all the allegiances as it's all borderline in-universe, no? AulaTPN 23:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not encyclopedic in that editors themselves are determining who the allegiances and loyalties of certain characters outside of what is specifically stated in the novels and films. Harry's allegiances are to Dumbledore, his friends and the DA. Period. Anything beyond what is specifically named in the book is fan speculation, and not permitted. Note that I did not name the Order of the Phoeniz because - as of Half-Blood Prince - harry was not a member but a protectee of them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegiance 

message: Just as we observe British spelling and punctuation rules in articles on British subjects, so we should observe the original and proper name of the work as intended by the author and as recognized everywhere in the world save for the United States. Faithlessthewonderboy 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher's vs. Sorcerer's 

message: What on Earth?! Eye colo(u)r and hair colo(u)r are missing from all HP characters; how, when and why?
Hopefully, you will check this page, since I am not going to reply on all of them. It was decided that they were inappropriate for the infobox, since there would be a discrepancy between the film, which provides the picture of the character, and the book, which is more official. If you're that interested, you can read up on the reasoning, in detail, as to why they, and other fields previously in the infobox, were removed.  asyndeton 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair Colour and Eye Colour

message: I think the main picture should be changed. It is from film poster and it is TOO blurry and photoshopped and looks ugly. There are some better alternatives, version from Russian article() for example. ChingizKahn 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don`t like the main picture