Talk:Hogwarts staff/Archive 1

message: Why don't the last three tables show up?
What do you mean? They are working fine for myself. -Hoekenheef 00:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: It very unlikely that Prof. Binns's name is derived from "bin". His lessons might be boring but there is no evidence that what he says is garbage. I think his name is a pun on "(to have) been", in the sense that he is dead. What's your opinion?
I'll add this interpretation unless there are any objections. --Jacopo Belbo 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Prof. Binns 

message: Should the reference to Dumbledore as "former" headmaster be somehow shielded?
Yes, it should! The same applies to "headmistress" McGonagall, and perhaps for "Moody (Barty Crouch jr.)" as well. --Jacopo Belbo 16:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler? 

message: The article on Professor Sinistra is of long-enough length to have its own page and not be considered a stub. Should I go ahead and give her her own page?
* No way. Her section is already several times longer than all the content from the actual books concerning her. 80.235.61.149 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Professor Sinistra her own page 

message: This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. Professor Grubbly-Plank is changed to Professor Grubbly-Plank.
As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 27 August 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:
* Professor Kettleburn: Rubeus Hagrid, Hogwarts subjects
* Professor Grubbly-Plank: List of characters in translations of Harry Potter, Magical beasts (Harry Potter), Gryffindors in Harry Potter's Year, Hogwarts subjects
* Professor Binns: Hogwarts, List of characters in translations of Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), Hogwarts subjects
* Professor Merrythought: List of characters in the Harry Potter books
* Other teachers: List of characters in the Harry Potter books, Hogwarts Houses, Hogwarts ghosts
* Professor Vector: Hogwarts subjects
* Madam Hooch: Hogwarts, Zoe Wanamaker, List of characters in translations of Harry Potter, Harry Potter cast, Broomsticks in Harry Potter
* Professor Sinistra: Hogwarts subjects
~~ N-Bot (t/c) 18:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section 

message: Ogg, the former Hogwarts Gamekeeper, has his own article. Because he is a Hogwarts employee, but not a teacher, I have second thoughts about putting him here.
Lee S. Svoboda 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogg 

message: I'm removing Prof. Kettleburn's first name, because I cannot find any mention of his first name in the books. Does anybody have any cannon proof for his forename being "James?" --¿WhyBeNormal? 06:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kettleburn 

message: Hi. I have added the link to the respective Norwegian articles at the bottom of the article, in <>. If this article is to be breaken up, please add the corresponding link. Does anyone also have an idea of how to link to the articles now? - Helga76 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Norwegian pages 

message: It's been three-and-a-half months since "Professor Binns' first name" was added. I'm suprised that it wasn't removed quickly as "Professor Kettleburn's first name" was. I checked the Harry Potter Lexicon (www.hplexicon.org) and didn't find it on there, so I'm going to assume it's not canon and remove it. 
69.138.229.246 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Professor Binns 

message: "Quirrell's first name is not mentioned in the novels. The official Harry Potter Trading Card Game lists "Quirinus" as his first name. However, the Chocolate Frog cards give "Slatero" as his first name. The trading card game was written by Rowling, so it can be taken as canon." If this is so, why isn't Rolanda accepted as Hooch's forename? Can we have some consistency? If Quirinus and Rolanda are definitely from Rowling, both should be taken as official. If they aren't, they shouldn't be. Michaelsanders 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because there's been no other evidence besides the trading cards. This is one part of the fandom I've never crept too much into, so I couldn't really say about whether the trading cards are canon or not. I'd have to do some research into that one. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite Madam Hooch's clear affinity and love for flying and Quidditch, neither of her supposed names reflect this, giving weight to the speculation that J.K. Rowling did not use either name for the character.
Supposing that "Rolanda" is official, it may have some relation with Hooch's affinities. Rolanda comes from Rolar, a Latin verb that signifies to move in circles, to go foward or to move over wheels (Houaiss), and this comes from the French Rouelle (XII century), which was a kind of wheel for chariots. We might say, then, that her name is related to movement at least. --Tonyjeff 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooch

message: :Despite Madam Hooch's clear affinity and love for flying and Quidditch, neither of her supposed names reflect this, giving weight to the speculation that J.K. Rowling did not use either name for the character.
Supposing that "Rolanda" is official, it may have some relation with Hooch's affinities. Rolanda comes from Rolar, a Latin verb that signifies to move in circles, to go foward or to move over wheels (Houaiss), and this comes from the French Rouelle (XII century), which was a kind of wheel for chariots. We might say, then, that her name is related to movement at least. --Tonyjeff 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet about Hooch's name

message: The article on Portraits in the Harry Potter universe says that his name is Everard Proudfoot. However, this article says that Everard is his last name. Personally, I think that Everard is his first name, as Dumbledore calls other portraits by their first names, e.g. Phineas Nigellus is Phineas. Does anybody have any idea about this? The Lexicon doesn't mention it. 222.152.163.128 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The HPL considers Everard as his first name, though it does not give him a last name, nor does it give any implication that "Proudfoot" is his last name or any other name, unlike Vector, Binns and Sinistra. Unless anyone can find veritable information, I'm binning all references of "Proudfoot" (Note: this might've been done as a joke by a LotR kid who thinks that HP sucks). Therequiembellishere 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Everard 

message: The scan of Rowling's handwritten list of teachers (found on her website as an Easter egg) indicates the name "Prof. Bathsheda Babbling".  Some seem to read the first name as "Bathsheba", but the second-to-last character is clearly NOT the same as the repeated B's in "Babbling", nor the B in "Rubeus" elsewhere on the list.  Rather, the contested letter is much more similar to the D in "Hagrid" on the same page.
Aside from an inability to visually distinguish between a B and a D, the only reason to insist that it is "Bathsheba" rather than "Bathsheda" is to ignore the above evidence, and assume that Rowling must have intended the latter and merely misspelled upon writing the name down.  That would be original research and, hence, inappropriate on Wikipedia.
The HP Lexicon currently gives the name as "Bathsheba", but that is just that site's interpretation.  Many other HP-devoted sites and wikis (do a Google search for "Bathsheda Babbling") have listed it as "Bathsheda".  In the end, I think we should trust the verifiable direct evidence of the published notes.  (Instructions on how to view the Easter egg are here, courtesy of HP Lexicon.) --Mercurio 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Runes' teacher's name 

message: I removed ", though the subject she teaches has little to do with mathematics," because from what it appears Arithmancy has everything to do with mathematics and magic combined.  It is described on Wiki as "A branch of magic that is concerned with the magical properties of numbers."  I haven't found in the books where Arithmancy is actually explained, but if it is the magical properties of numbers, I don't see how saying that Arithmancy has little to do with mathematics is something accurate, or even if it is, verifiable. Kirobaito 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Vector 

message: Where has he gone? I'm sure I saw him here the other day. What grounds were there for deleting him? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dexter Fortescue 

message: How many of these teachers do you think played a part in the battle?
# Sign your posts with four tidle
# Erm, all of them?! Or do you think they were just, like, "Oh, Death Eaters".
# This is a discussion page of an article, not a discussion forum. Y'see, they both have the word "discussion" but they're pretty different. 
Therequiembellishere 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Hogwarts

message: In my view: it's not needed. Frankly, these minor lists are turning into dumping grounds for everything very minor and not suitable for other articles (and it needs to stop). Wikipedia isn't a completeness guide. JK Rowling's original plans aren't very relevant in these list articles. This isn't a "history of Hogwarts teachers" article. RobJ1981 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a history at all is it? It's just information of characters she planned on making canon, yet never truly confirmed that they weren't. Most notably (you're big on this), her original plans for Pettigrew and Bathsheda Babbling. When she creates her encyclopedia, we shall see if she incorporated these characters into canon or not, but for now, leave them in as a possibility. Therequiembellishere 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a speculation guide. Them "possibly" being notable, isn't enough to list it here. RobJ1981 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Them being covered in official press conference, then reported by BBC, is good enough to list it here. PeaceNT 12:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These minor lists shouldn't be dumping grounds for every character that doesn't fit elsewhere. RobJ1981 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other teachers section

message: I'm suggesting that Professor Flitwick have his information trimmed and merged into the Minor Hogwarts teachers article. He is a character in a notable series of books, but notability is not inherited. In order to merit a separate article, the good Professor would need to have credible third-party sources from outside of the universe written about him. This would allow some of the information about him to continue to exist in a more appropriate place. Thank you. I'm cross-posting this notice from the Minor Hogwarts teachers article, please see that article's talk page for more discussion about this. bwowen talk•contribs 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with the merge of Flitwick's into this article, and I also suggested the same for Pomona Sprout, Gilderoy Lockhart, Firenze and Argus Filch. Lord Opeth 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge, should be added in here. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with all except Gilderoy Lockhart, I think he's enough of a character to get his own article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.219.159 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I finally merged Flitwick, Sprout, Lockhart and Filch into this article. I removed some stuff from each article. From Flitwick's, I removed the stuff about "Loyalty", that described almost the same from "Other services" (for example, defeating Dolohov, or the Weasley Twins' swamp. Also removed the section about film portrayal: in the end, Davis is still credited as Flitwick, with only different appearance. From Sprout's article, I removed the section of the name and the alligeration, because those are speculations and non important stuff for encyclopedic purposes. From Lockhart's, I removed the From Filch's, I removed the stuff about the character being a comic relief in the film adaptations: that is personal appreciation. I am still looking for some review from all of you in order to improve the new sections or revert my edits. Lord Opeth 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also merged Lockhart's article into this one because both the article and his role in the series are not large enough, and also there were no reliable third-party sources for the article itself. (See WP:WAF for further doubts). I removed the "Character" section, because it contained stuff such as his favorite color, and also removed the initial list of books "he wrote". Lord Opeth 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that the discussion only lasted three days, and only two people commented. That is hardly enough to form consensus. i said 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergefrom: [[Filius Flitwick]]

message: Since a few of you have taken it upon yourselves to merge all these characters together, shouldn't the article be renamed Hogwarts teachers? faithless (speak) 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should, which is why there is now a  tag on Hogwarts staff.  Comments have been made previously about Filch, Pince, Hooch etc not being "teachers", so staff seems more appropriate.  Happy‑melon 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. faithless (speak) 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Ye gods what a mess!!  I think that this is the worst spaghetti bowl I've yet come across on Wikipedia.  Can we have a concerted effort, when fixing these links (including a number of double, triple and even quadruple redirects!) to make sure they point to the correct section by using #REDIRECT Hogwarts staff#Character??  Sign me up on the list of people who will be spending a lot of time fixing redirects now!  Happy‑melon 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect with anchor links don't work, I'm pretty sure. For example, Alastor Moody redirects to Hogwarts staff#Alastor Moody now, but when I typed his name into Search, I was redirected to the top of this article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me.  Perhaps your .css settings are off.  Happy‑melon 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: If you absolutley must abide by the "in universe style" rule, and put important characters like Moody and the others in this flimsy article, at least please consider putting a link to the harry potter wikia bio on them. I really dont want to offend the writer of the article, but i really think these characters deserve some background, if not on wikipedia, then give the reader a chance to look at the proper wikia. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current in-universe style is entirely a result of insufficient work being done on this article, not intent.  The WP:HP is just too busy!  Happy‑melon 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least consider... 

message: This article is essentially a list.  It is necessary for lists to have well-defined inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTV).  At first sight it appears that the criterion for this topic is self-evident: the character must have been a teacher at Hogwarts.  However, the reversion of Lord Opeth's edits flags up an imporant point: we cannot treat every Hogwarts teacher equally.  Some are of sufficient notability, both real-world and fictional, that they only just fail to deserve their own articles.  Minerva McGonnagal is still under debate.  On the other hand, we know exactly three verifiable things about Septimus Vector: his last name is Vector, he teaches Arithmancy, and his set homework is generally hugely complicated. For almost all the former teachers, we know nothing verifiable (avoiding synthesis) other than their subject.  We cannot treat these teachers equally while remaining verifiable, staying in an out-universe perspective and without including trivial details.  We need to decide, therefore, which teachers merit their own sections in this article and which must be lumped in the "other" heading.  I applaud Lord Opeth's boldness in attempting to correct this issue, and the explanation above is partly in response to Keyblade Mage's questioning edit summary.  I agree with all of Opeth's suggested truncations, with Cutherbert Binns being the sole questionable exception.  I would not object to him retaining his own section.  For the majority of the other teachers, however, the text contained in Lord Opeth's revision represents the sum total of verifiable information on the characters.  Happy‑melon 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minerva McGonagall is a very notable character in Harry Potter and absolutely needs an article of her own. It's absurd to have McGonagall in some list of characters when her own article is translated onto over 30 different Wikipedias, with the main English Wikipedia not having an article. Therefore I have reverted the redirect. I'm also shocked to see Delores Umbridge on this list without her own article, and to think she was a temporary headteacher at Hogwarts and a well-known character. Eagle Owl 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more: "Minerva McGonagall is a very notable character in Harry Potter[my emphasis]".  Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (held at WP:N and WP:FICT are subtly, but crucially, different: a topic must be notable not within its work, but in the real world.  None of the articles which are currently merged into this list provides any, let alone "significant" real-world information or coverage which is necessary for a topic to justify its own article.  I don't like it, I am doing my best to get it changed, but for as long as WP:FICT is Wikipedia policy, that's the way it is.  McGonnagal's article as it currently stands is borderline, although I do not expect it would survive an AfD if one were to be called.  I also take a certain pride in the fact that, despite the English Wikipedia being the largest by a considerable margin, it is also the Wikipedia with the highest standards for inclusion.  Happy‑melon 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is: the person should be important to the series to be listed. If they appeared briefly: they shouldn't be on the list, period. As for McGonagall, I don't see the harm in an article for her. I've seen people go by the "let's be complete and list everyone in all the books" attitude too much on Wikipedia. Harry Potter is a popular series, but it's not notable to list everyone on a certain article and/or list article. There is a Harry Potter wiki for completeness, Wikipedia isn't a 100 percent guide to everything in a book series. RobJ1981 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Happy-melon for the support on my edit. I still think that we cannot treat every character the same. I even think that some of them (like Kettleburn or Everard) do not need any mention at all in Wiki. Some others like Pince, Hooch, Sinistra, etc. have larger sections in this Wiki article than their mentions in the series (just look at Hooch's section, half of the information is not even related to the character). Anyway, I think that the length of each character section may give an indication of the importance of the character in the series. Lord Opeth 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion criteria

message: Why is Peeves included in the article? He isn't exactly a staff. -Lemonflash(O_o) 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. There's not really anywhere else to put him. We could try Minor Harry Potter characters or Ghosts (Harry Potter)... but he's not really a ghost, and definately not notable enough for his own article. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He ought to be put in Ghosts (Harry Potter). No, he isn't a ghost, but rather a spirit. This can be explained in his entry, and that is the most appropriate place for him. faithless (speak) 09:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peeves 

message: I adde a picture of Madame Pince to her article when she had her own article, but now whoever merged her into the article took out the picture. Do we still need this picture or should we just go without it? ~ Bella Swan 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Madame Pince

message: What's wrong with this?
the fact that the Remus Lupin article is stuffed halfway through it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.100 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lupin has proven important enough to the series to merit his own article. Having all of his information crammed into this page just looks disorganized and very much interrupts the flow of the article. Lore aura 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not whether he's important to the series, it's whether he's important in a real-world context. But yes, it does look messy. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: There is a First Appearance why not a more informative LAST Appearance on the character's table?  LOTRrules 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Appearance?