Talk:Potter family

message: Where is it explicitly stated that James was in Gryffindor? I don't remember this being in any of the books.  If no one can find factual evidence I'm going to remove it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
:J. K. Rowling said James was in Gryffindor in an interview.
::Can someone provide evidence of this?  It's annoying that Rowling adds to canon in "official" interviews. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:30, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
:::JKR stated that all four "Marauders" were in Gryffindor during the World Book Day Chat on March 4 2004 (transcript at the Leaky Cauldron), although an error in the transcript leaves Peter Pettigrew's status in doubt. As for your annoyance, it's the nature of the beast I'm afraid and we all just have to put up with it :-) --Phil | Talk 15:12, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
In the movie Harry Potter 1 there is an award that says James was a Griffindor seeker and I doubt JK Rowling would have let them put it in if it was not canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachoolao (talk • contribs) 
Ok, its very simple. In the final book, James is making fun of his younger brother, who may not enter Gryffindor, thus proving that he is in it.
Yoman786 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, its very simple. This section is about Harry Potter's FATHER, not SON. And the first post was "12:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)"   ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Potter's house? 

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

message: I'm curious which book said Harry Potter's parents death date?  MechBrowman 03:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
:See Dates in Harry Potter
Harry's Parents died October 31, 1981
none of the books said that, but you can figure it out, I think  Belard 19:53, Aug 18, 2005 (UTC)
It Evans, not Evens!
:The seventh book (Deathly Hallows) explicitly gives their death date as October 31, 1981. —Angr 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's parents death date 

message: It should be quite obvious that the hair colour shown for each character is that described in the books, which in several cases is totally different from the movie portrayal.
This is more obvious now some kind soul has provided images.
Should this be noted explicitly to prevent people mistakenly altering the entries to suit the images?
--Phil | Talk 09:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Possibly add a note about this at the end of the first section. What does anyone else think? P.S. I've been adding the pics. :) Hoekenheef 10:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair colour 

message: It really annoys me that in the movies, James only has a stubble of short hair.
Where did his wonderful, wonderful hair go?
:i to have noticed that in the movies it appears that james potter is going bald his hair is suposed to be exactly like harry's--Jackjohnson15 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet Harry's length hair seems to change in the movies as well, which really should stay the same. --Jammy (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Potter - Bald? 

message: I think that this article should be merged with James and Lily Potter. Anyone agree? 89.241.37.214 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Mr & Mrs Potter and Mr & Mrs Evans sections should be (although most of their info is already in the James & Lily article). We already have an article for the Dursleys so there's no need to waffle on about them here, it's just repeated information. Mark Evans can go to the Minor Harry Potter characters article. As for the "Wizarding relatives" section, it isn't canon (we don't know any of his family for sure beyond his parents, grandparents, the Dursleys & Sirius) that he is related to any of those families and it includes pointless stuff like "It should be noted that his current love interest, Ginny Weasley, is a pure-blood witch" so I say get rid of all that bit. (The family tree is already included in the James & Lily and Dursley articles.) Soapy Sunshine 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

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

message: [(Apologies for the layout manner). Does anyone have any objections? Will be posted in approximately 24 hours if no one raises any complaints.]
Done. Michaelsanders 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Replacement Text 

message: the Peverell Family was Slytherin and thus a descendant of Salazar if I am correct. I'd edit the tree my self but I'm un sure where the template is.  STHayden [ Talk ] 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are [necessarily] correct -- it's just that the Gaunts were descended from both the Peverells and from Slytherin. 91.105.5.108 23:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I say change it. 201.17.68.231 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry a descendant of [[Salazar Slytherin]]?  

message: How did he manage to have any descendants anyway, given that the girl he loved died and he killed himself because he couldn't get her back? 91.105.5.108 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither has the opposite. I understand that having the Resurrection Stone would imply that the Gaunts were descendants of Cadmus Perevell, but if he did kill himself, the only other option would be Antioch Perevell. 201.17.68.231 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it is never stated anywhere in the book that Salazar Slytherin was a descendant of the Peverells. It is entirely possible that Tom Riddle could be descended from both without Salazar being a descendant of Cadmus. I think this relationship needs to be shown in the tree as possible but not confirmed. AulaTPN 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: There are a couple of innacuracies in the Weasley part of the overall family tree. First off, George and Fred are brothers -- Fred is not George's son. Also, the box "Weasley brothers" is rather pointless, and should probably be replaced with "Percy Weasley" seeing that I don't beleive he was included. So...whoever's file that is...fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncalvin (talk • contribs) 
:First of all you're quite wrong. Jo states in an interview referenced elsewhere that George names his son Fred after his late brother. Secondly, the Weasley brothers box is a space-saving device which includes Charlie, Percy and the original Fred. Finally, please remember to sign your posts and you might want to think of a more polite way of phrasing your requests or you could just be bold and do it yourself, make absolutely sure that you are actually correct first though.AulaTPN 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, thank you.  I was just looking around here for the same reason.  I didn't hear about the interview where JKR said George had a son named Fred, so I was about to ask the same question.  However, I would respectfully submit that the tree as currently drawn is confusing.  A well-known, popular character is missing, and another character with the exact same name who is not well known is in a different spot, close to the original's spot on the tree.  It might be worth the space to expand the "Weasley brothers" box into Charlie, Percy, and original-Fred, for clarity.  I don't know how to edit the chart -- can anyone tell me how or make this change?  Thanks.  Seansinc 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking exactly the same thing so I dutifully went to the family tree and clicked on "edit this page" and then my mind exploded! Complicated structures like that are best left when it's nearly midnight... if I have a chance I'll take another look at it today. AulaTPN 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've had a go at restructuring it so that one generation occupies only one line. It might need a bit more spacing out but let me know what you think. AulaTPN 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Much better to read AUburnTiger 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aula! Looks great.  Seansinc 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, unfortunately it's been reverted back to its previous state and (worse) coloured in. I'd be tempted to make a new family tree for this page but I know that would just spark a flame-war. If you want to see how I'd restructured the tree look at User:AulaTPN/Sandbox#Harry Potter Family Tree. I think it's much better but unless anyone thinks it's worth creating this as a separate template then I'll bow to consensus, although the reversion was made to the template before almost anyone had been able to comment! AulaTPN 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I thought the current one was yours.  The colors help.  However, I think yours is by far the easiest to read.  I would try and hunt down the person who reverted it and try to get him to see why it's better.  AUburnTiger 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aula that one looks much better, the different generations arent spread over 10 rows and what not. I think you should change the current one to that. CHANDLERtalk 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Where is the evidence that Harry's grandparents were Gryffindors?  I know that James' father was, as he says so in the Pensive in Chapter 33 of DH.  However, I've seen no mention of his grandmother. AUburnTiger 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, when asked what House he wants to be in, the 11-year-old James Potter says, "Gryffindor! (...) Like my dad!" -- not "Like my parents", implying that his father was in Gryffindor, but his mother was not. Seansinc 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly.  For all we know, Grandma Potter was a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw.  AUburnTiger 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But no one is implying that his grandmother was Gryffindor --Maurice45 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grandparents House?

message: How exactly is Harry related to the Malfoys?  Because Narcissa's great-aunt Dorea married a Potter, or is there some other connection that I'm missing?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charity McKay (talk • contribs). 
It's only marriage they are related. Sirius Black's cousin Narcissa Black married Lucius Malfoy, which is where the Malfoys come in and a Black (Don't remember which) married a Weasley and is related to Ginny Weasley and Ginny married Harry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.95.200 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to the Malfoys?

message: I noticed the page had been erased and redirected.  I brought it back because I see no real reason why this should be done. 2help (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your change. I didn't realize you posted on the talk page, so I retract my edit summary. However, there is no need for this article. All the material is covered elsewhere, in more logical places. Could you explain why you feel the need for the article, since no one else seemed to mind it being redirected? Cheers, faithless (speak) 05:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey.  I finished the last Potter book a few days ago and I randomly wanted to look up which one of his children was named Severus.  I clicked on "Albus Potter", on the family tree, and it took me right back to the same page.  I realized that the info used to be there, although it now redirects to a page focusing only on James and Lily, so I put it back.  You say say that all the material is covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it.  Let me know what you think.  Thanks.  2help (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry's children are covered at Weasley family, the Dursley family of course has its own article and the rest of the information (such as the family tree, stuff about Harry's grandparents, etc.) can be found at James and Lily Potter. Hope this clears everything up. faithless (speak) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page redirected 

message: I was just wondering why some extra stuff, such as the Weasleys, the Delacours, Aunt Marge and Salazar Slytherin are listed as they are not actually related to Harry, and would not be on his family tree --Maurice45 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of them are directly related to Harry, but are somehow related to his own relatives: the Weasleys and Delacours are his wife's family. Voldemort is a distant relative of Harry, and a descendant of Slytherin himself. Marge is a Dursley, she was always "part of the family". --LøЯd ۞pεth 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated 

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

message: I come with this split proposal with the same reasoning as the former Weasley family article's proposal: the Potter family article also fails to meet some Wiki guidelines. It is entirely plot re-telling and describing of fictional characters and events. It is written primarily in in-universe style, and there are no sections of deep analysis or real impact in the outside world of the family as an encyclopedic subject, so it also fails to meet Notability. Furthermore, the characters in this list appear to have little or nothing to do between them (i.e. the Dursleys and the Peverell brothers). Because of this, I suggest to move all sections into different articles:
* Lily: move to Order of the Phoenix 
* Dursley family and Peverell brothers: move to Supporting HP characters
* For James, I am planning to restore the Marauders article (see Talk:The Marauders for more information) and move all four Marauders there. If this do not pass, then move to Order of the Phoenix just as Lily. 
The Potter family page itself would redirect to the "Family" section in Harry's article. This is to be also in coherence with what has happened with other family articles just as the Weasleys, the Malfoys, the Blacks, etc. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: James and Lily's individual links would redirect to their sections of course, no matter where they are going to be moved. What is going to be redirected to Harry's page is the link to "Potter family". --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal