Talk:Ginny Weasley/Archive 2

message: I think the article could use a newer picture.  One where she is older or in her robes would be more appropriate I think, since she is now a major character in the series.
John Reaves 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Picture 

message: Shoot, I know I wrote up a big long review of this article when I read it, but it doesn't seem to have been saved.  The last section the Half Blood Prince needs to worked on, particularly the paragraph wherein Ron gets poisoned.  I personally think there needs to be some citations, particularly in some of the less known facts.  There were some other observations that I had, but I'm going to have to re-read the article to make them.  Her dating Michael Cronner occurred in which book?  I'll try to get back to this article to give you more of a critique, but those were the points that I remember off the top of my head.Balloonman 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article is way better than what it was a few months ago but ALL of the quotes form the books need to be refrenced (with page numbers).  Dalf | Talk 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Since I've made significant changes to the first part of this article, here's an explanation of some what I've done. If there's disagreement, let's discuss it!
The lead and name info sections really needed to be in a more out-of-universe style, so I had to pretty much rewrite them, especially the lead. At the same time, I tried to make them more accessible and informative for those who aren't familiar with HP. The lead (meaning everything before the first section heading) should basically be an introduction to Ginny's character (assuming that we're talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about HP) and a preview of what the article is going to address. I left Ginny's physical description and personality traits in the lead, and when we get a fandom/shipping section up and running, I'd like to add a line or two about that in the lead, too.
The GA review said that having a spoiler warning in the lead "looks ugly", which I take to mean that it's kind of a minus point against the article. Therefore, I changed the lead so that it no longer needs the spoiler warning, and I moved the warning down to the beginning of the "Role in the Series" section. Obviously, this means that the lead can no longer explicitly say that Ginny ends up as Harry's love interest. I know, I know, nobody's going to like that... but I think it has to be done. Everybody needs to be able to read the lead, even those who don't want to be spoiled. I still made it clear that Ginny takes on an important role in Harry's story as the series progresses.
The lead seemed a bit long, so I added a "Background" section and moved some of the information about the Weasley family there. I also removed some trivial information about the Weasley family, especially since all that stuff can be found on the Weasley family page.
I changed the "Behind the Name" section to "Name Etymology", which I think sounds more encyclopedic. Other than that, this section is more or less as it was before, only a little more out-of-universe and with an explanation of why an analysis of Ginny's name is relevant.
And finally, these first three sections are pretty thoroughly referenced now. Meredith March 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I entered this talk page so I could ask whoever it was who rewrote the lead section to work on the rest of the article as well. Wonderful job. --AceMyth 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead and name sections 

message: While the etymology of Ginny's name is relevant to the article, I think we must rely on published sources that specifically relate to why Rowling chose "Ginevra".  Both the "Guinevere" version and the "Juniper" etymologies are interesting, and both are sourced (the second better than the first), but neither source relates the names to Ginny Weasley.  For us to make that connection ourselves, I think, is original research.  For all we know, Rowling might have picked Ginevra arbitrarily.  (Unlikely, but still.)  --Allen 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the section seems to be rather heavy with inaccuracies; most reputable sources I've seen have given Ginevra as the Italian form of Guinevere only, and not related to the juniper tree. Also, as far as I'm aware it's in no way connected to Genevieve, which is supposed to mean something like "white wave" from Proto-Celtic, but doesn't seem to have any certain Proto-Celtic etymology. Of course, if I stated any of this in the article, it would be original research; but as it stands, the section seems to have plenty of that anyway, which is very troubling. -- Goueznou, 69.248.140.84 01:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll delete the section, then.  I think the only way we could have a section on name etymology is if we had a published source that said something directly about Rowling's choice for this character's name. --Allen 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently read a novel by Agatha Christie, named Appointment with Death, where one of the main characters first name was Ginevra, and her nickname was 'Jinny' (note the 'J').  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonOfLegend (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name etymology: original research 

message: Where does it say that?
:Her patronus is seen quite clearly in the movie of Order of the Phoenix to be a horse. I've tried to edit it, but nothing. As for Phoenix? No idea, it isn't. --Harlequin212121 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that J.K.Rowling mentioned that her patronus is a phoenix. The movies are not taken as canon by the fandom. However, due to her involvement in the filming of the movie and my inability to find proof, I guess her patronus is a horse.Bananastars 03:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had read in an article, can't remember where off the top of my head, that J.K. had always intended Ginny's patronus to be a horse and that's why it had been chosen for the film. AulaTPN 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix patrounus? 

message: It says her eyes are brown. But they are clearly blue in the picture.
That is because JK Rowling writes in the book that all Weasly Children have brown eyes, freckles and red hair. Bonnie Wright, the actress that potrayes her, has blue eyes, but "officially" they are considered brown
Loopywelshemz 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Color 

message: Can someone broaden Ginny's description in The Deathly Hallows section? Her role in the book warrants more than 2 mini-paragraphs. 2 things that should definatly be there are:
a) She dropped out of Hogwarts after easter (confirmed by Neville). This is a big deal.
b) She constantly shows signs of jealousy over Harry (Gabrielle, Cho)
These aren't really big things, but some of it should definatly be there. Like her dropping out. And the jealousy personality trait she shows for the first time. Those two should be there. Also, the current events in the article should be described in more detail. I would edit it myself but it's locked. Gtompkins48 05:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathly Hallows 

message: The "Role In Series" portion needs a spoiler warning.
:By Wikipedia policy, it doesn't get one.  --Tailkinker 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using the "current fiction" template at the top of the article, as suggested by WP:SPOILER? --Allen 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. =David(talk)(contribs) 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning? 

message: Just a question.. where does it say Ginny intended to give Harry sex? She did say she wanted Harry to remember it, but what reason is there that that was just nothing more then the long, fully emotional kiss that she gave him? It was morning, they were in an extremely busy household, where anyone could have popped in at a moments notice (as did happen). I think it was more likely and in her character to give him a kiss for him to remember how much she loved him then actual sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.206 (talk • contribs) 
:I concur; nothing more is implied then "a kiss to remember". It says that Harry had a hand on her back and in her hair, and later Ron refers to it (as he was picturing going on in the room) as "snogging" and then "groping", and it is implied that Ron is imagining the worst.  The particular quote in the article does not appear in the book at all. The line about sex should be removed from the article -- I would do it myself, except I can't remember my password and the page is protected at the moment... 69.221.73.89 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My first impression was that if there were no interruptions that they would have sex, but I don't think its all that relevant in a wikipedia article since it's rather subjective. 24.91.113.247
Yeah, I know it's just a small thing really, but thanks nonetheless =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.206 (talk • contribs) 
User:Wikipedian06 has re-added this to the article again. I'll hold fire from removing it until someone else does, as I've reverted this article enough today. This is just idiocy - having sex in an unlocked room in a crowded house? Daggoth | Talk 06:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is in there, only it's in the OotP movie section, also it's Luna Lovegood, and thirdly, whoever thinks that the kiss in Ginny's room was anything more than that, needs serious mental help.Locke Non Omnis Moriar 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not entirely accurate.  While I do side with those that feel it wasn't meant to be anything more than a forget-me-not-kiss, (Ginny's much too clever to believe that she could get away with something like sex in the middle of the day in a heavily-crowded house.  If she really wanted to have sex with Harry, there's no doubt in my mind that she'd have found a way.) your reasoning is flawed.  First of all, Deathly Hallows was by no means a "children's book".  The first chapter alone contained torture and cold-blooded murder for crying out loud.  This book had a higher body-count than any other one in the series, many of which were beloved characters in the fandom. If I remember correctly, JKR has even said herself that she never intended for Harry Potter to be a children's series, even citing the fact that Philosopher's Stone starts off with a double-murder.  Obviously this doesn't negate the fact that the biggest group of readers are children.  However there are many themes introduced as early as Chamber of Secrets that are much darker then one would typically associate with a children's book. One could even argue that the series phased from a "children's series" to a "young adults series" with the release of goblet of fire.  Sure, there may not be anything more sexually explicit then heavy kissing.  However, there are definitely scenes where more explicit things are hinted at.  One notable example would be when Ron and Harry stumble across Ginny and Dean snogging in Half-Blood Prince.  It's clear that Ron thought there was much more then a simple make-out session going on.  At the very least, he was worried about his sister's reputation.  As for your point about Rowling announcing Dumbledore being gay after the end of the series, so what?  That could just as easily have meant that she didn't think it was an important enough fact to work into the story.  It was just some random little thing that she had in the back of her mind when she was writing the character.  Really, if it wasn't for that one young fan at Carnegie Hall last year, chances are we still wouldn't know about Dumbledore's sexuality today, over a year after the series ended.--TwilightDuality (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the time since I have made this post, I have matured in my way of thinking, so actually you're quite right. I wish I could strike that comment. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "17th Birthday Present" 

message: I orginially posted this above, but the more I think on it, the more I realize it's not so much her name that's the problem, as the epilogue itself:
The main article, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has had a discussion on referring to Ginny's marriage as well.here.  The editors there have determined NOT to mention that they are married. This is the current revision: 
In the story's epilogue, set nineteen years later, Harry and Ginny have three children, James, Albus Severus, and Lily. Ron and Hermione have two children named Rose and Hugo. Harry tells Albus Severus, who does not want to be sorted into Slytherin, that Severus Snape, his namesake, was probably the bravest man Harry ever met. Neville is now the Hogwarts Herbology professor and is close friends with Harry.
So basically the epilogue doesn't mention a marriage, and it certainly doesn't mention Teddy Tonks being taken in by Harry and Ginny.  In fact, the evidence actually lends to us assuming they didn't.  For one, it's mentioned that Teddy comes around for dinner a few nights a week.  Two, Tonks herself mentions something about how his grandmother would care for him while she goes off to fight the Battle of Hogwarts.  Third, are we to assume that Harry chose to take the infant in right after he defeated Voldemort?  He's 17. Ginny is 16. They take in a child?
I actually think that a marriage should be mentioned, since I lean toward Rowling WANTING to imply that (what great love story wouldn't want to end with marriage?).  However, I think this article should take into account exactly what the main article has decided: 
I just think that either this article should try to be consistent with the main page, or this discussion should be brought TO the main page (like I said, because I think that Rowling does imply marriage). Stanselmdoc 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the marriage should be mentioned as she most definitely is listed as one of 5 Potters.  --Cdman882 17:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Ginny is mentioned as one of the five potters in the epilogue. Why not search other articles on literary characters to decide whether the title should have her as the name she entered the series as, or the name she left the series as. Bloodycelt
Well...If no one objects, I'm going to remove the comment about Teddy Tonks, since that is pure speculation.  I'll keep the bit about them being married for now, and ask about it on the HP7 talk page. Stanselmdoc 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not know that they are married, as I've argued on the HP7 talk page as well. It's certainly possible, even likely, but all we know is that Ginny and Harry have children, and that Ginny's last name has changed to Potter. Many unmarried couples "synchronize" their last names when they have children (I have examples of it in my circle of friends). So let's steer clear of the whole married / not married thing in the article, and mention that they have children and share the same name. Then people can decide for themselves what they think, which is after all the point of a book when it doesn't give decisive evidence. If eventually Rowling states in an interview that they are, indeed, married, we can change it then. Lilac Soul 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on now.  I think JKR's intentions are clear.  When writing you have to assume that your readers come in with knowledege of the subject, of life, and then some things can be left for them to know.  Know your audience.  Otherwise, you would be writing an encylopedia article.  It would have been terrible story telling for JKR to come out and say, "Harry Potter and Ginny Weasely got married.  She changed her name to Ginny Potter.  They had 3 kids, all named Potter."  You assume your readers, equipped with knowledge, are intelligent enough to figure out that much for themselves.  Then you tell the story.  After reading all the books, taking in all the characters, and JKR's writing (and Christian beliefs)... you tell me what is more likely, marriage or "synchronized" names?  Throughout the series how many characters are married, how many have "synchronized" names?  I think now were just beating a dead horse just for the sake of beating it.  --Cdman882 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lilac Soul.  Why not just say she changed her name to Potter?  If it clearly implies marriage to readers of the book, then won't it clearly imply marriage to readers of the article?  One might argue that in the far future, name changes will imply marriage less often than they do today, leading to a lack of historical context for future readers... but by then, literary critics writing about the Potter books will have pointed out the historical context themselves, so we'll have something to cite.  (Yes, it's a minor issue and there's not a lot to lose if we declare them married.  But the issue has come up, so we might as well resolve it in a way that's consistent with WP:NOR.)  --Allen 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (...not that I'm prepared to argue against rspeer's comments above.  Personally, I consider the epilogue's name change to be much more explicit than the marriage.  But it still isn't perfectly  explicit, so if there's a challenge, and there does seem to be, then we shouldn't even mention the name change.) --Allen 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regards to Teddy Tonks, keep in mind that the reason he may not be permanently be living with the Potter's, is that by this age he would now be 19/20 years old, so more then likely living on his own. Harry, due to the promise he made Lupin, would still be considered his godfather, and therefore Ginny his godmother(?). I also don't see why there is such a fuss in regards to Ginny's name in the epilogue, just because you never see them get married, they are clearly married, and as many people have stated JKR calls them the "five potters", so I really don't think there is anything wrong with calling her Ginny Potter in the epilogue. 121.45.243.3 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Epilogue Should Be Consistent 

message: This article confirms that Ginny did indeed marry Harry, and also explains about the future of Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna.  It's from MSNBC who conducted an interview with Jo after the release of the book.  Hopefully this will solve all of the arguments as we know from the epilogue that Ginny changed her last name to "Potter", and we know from this interview that they are married. MelicansMatkin 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! This helps a bunch. Stanselmdoc 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the "Five Potters" Not the "Four Potters plus a Weasley who decided not to take her husband's name." Why hold out? It's not like she doesn't have five other brothers to carry on the family name... Her last name is Potter! Valley2city 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt that Ginny did end up with the last name Potter. However, I think that this is too much of a spoiler to put at the very beginning of the article. Od Mishehu 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book has been out for awhile now. It's no more a spoiler than anything else in the article Showers 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If the problem with calling her "Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (nee Weasley) because its a big honking spoiler, then someone needs to go and utterly remove all spoilers from all pages.  I mean, Christ on a Cracker... what do you people consider a good time limit on information being a spoler?  VERBAL KINT IS REALLY KEYSER SOZE.  ROSEBUD IS A FREAKING SLED, AND DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER already!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation that Ginny married Harry 

message: After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!
Is this at all true?  I can't find a reference anywhere.  I'm going to remove it until the editor who placed it in can find a reference. Stanselmdoc 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding the reference.  I couldn't find one anywhere...hmm...Stanselmdoc 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  true? 

message: "Her family is portrayed as financially struggling but pure-blood, meaning that all family members in recent generations have possessed magical ability"
Does pure-blood mean all those with said blood status will possess magical ability? Aren't there possible squibs in pureblood families? I don't think that this is an accurate claim to make. Anyone feel differently Valley2city 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this claim accurate? 

message: Someone keeps altering the line that says Ginny is the only Weasley who can say Voldemort's name without fear.  Someone keeps adding "besides Bill," and I added "and Ron" to that.  And someone keeps reverting the line to omit Bill and Ron.  Personally, I think Rowling got careless about who was and wasn't saying the name.  Ginny only said the name once, when she had always said "You-Know-Who."  Bill said it twice on page 78 of HP7, and reverted to "You-Know-Who" on the next page, with no explanation.  Ron said it on pages 95, 208, and 234.  I haven't had a chance to search the whole book for more examples of Ron saying "Voldemort."  But this tug of war needs to stop.  Get it all out in the open, and hopefully a consensus can be reached. -BJ  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.152.218 (talk) 22:32, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 
Please put new sections at the bottom of the page. asyndeton 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I edited the article before I saw this discussion. I deleted Bill and Ron, and gave my reason in the edit summary. Personally, I think this entire sentence is superfluous and could be deleted. If it stays, there is absolutely no reason to mention who else isn't afraid of saying his name, it's irrelevant to Ginny's article. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saying Voldemort's name