Talk:List of minor Gryffindor characters: Difference between revisions

Template:HP-project

The article currently refers to Dean Thomas as an "African-American", but I cannot find anything in the books that mentions his being from America. Instead, J.K. Rowling referes to him as a "black Londoner" http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=2

When it came to the casting on the film version of 'Philosopher's Stone', however, I told the director, Chris, that Dean was a Black Londoner"

Would "black Londoner" or "African-Briton" be better?

Someone listed Dean Thomas' hair color as being "black," but I don't think this was ever stated. Not all black people have black hair (some have dark brown.)

I read an interview with a black British Olympian where he got very, very upset that the interviewer kept trying to label him as African. I don't think African-Briton would be good. --Prosfilaes 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a nitpick. Dean Thomas was in fact explicitly referred to as black by Rowling in his first appearance in Book 1. As I understand it, this description was an addition to the US/Scholastic "translation"/edition, but is not present in the original UK/Bloomsbury edition. If memory serves, it was during the Sorting; it went something like "a black boy even taller than Ron." --Mercurio 10:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information about specific characters in the Harry Potter series and found that although there is a category "Harry Potter characters" individuals are not listed. I've been rectifying this, and came across this page. I wonder if it would be better to create a category "Gryffindors in Harry's Year" and break this page apart so that each of the individuals here can have their own listing in the "Harry Potter characters" category page? It would seem more consistent with the way that other characters are being treated and provide a way to quickly identify and find pages dedicated to these three individuals. --billlund 22:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Harry_Potter#Breaking_apart_articles_of_characters which applies to all of the group pages. Please participate if you have thoughts on the matter. --billlund 21:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be in the next year up? —Phil | Talk 14:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Page 137 of the British Edition of Half-blood prince: "there were also two seventh-year boys Harry did not know..."

I believe the title 'Gryffindors in Harry's Year' should be changed, I know some people would know exactley what it means but I believe a change in name to 'Gryffindors in Harry Potter's Year' would be more appropriate and is also a clearer name. As I do not know how this would be done I would be grateful if somebody could do this change. Electricmoose- Electrifying 19:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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. [[Dean Thomas]] is changed to [[Gryffindors in Harry Potter's year#Dean Thomas|Dean Thomas]].

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:

• Parvati Patil: Pansy Parkinson, Boggart (Harry Potter), Minor Ravenclaws, Shefali Chowdhury
• Dean Thomas: Boggart (Harry Potter), Blood purity (Harry Potter), Minor Ravenclaws
• Lavender Brown: Hermione Granger, Pets from Harry Potter
• Seamus Finnigan: Boggart (Harry Potter), Blood purity (Harry Potter), Minor Ravenclaws

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 19:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to have full entries for Cormac McLaggen, Romilda Vane, and the Creevey brothers. I think we should change this to a page for all minor Gryffindor characters and include the aforementioned folks here. Comments from anyone else? I don't actually know how to change the title of the page. And I guess links would have to be changed also. Kam Tonnes 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac McLaggen no longer has a full entry but the other two do. You can change the title of a page by clicking "move" but make sure you fix any double redirects (and preferably all redirects but sometimes that's ridiculous).
As for your suggestion, I would rather have separate articles. For one thing, how do you draw the line between "minor" and "major" characters? For another, why have ridiculously long titles like the one on this article? Finally, some articles like Minor characters associated with Quidditch sound like a random collection of characters. Brian Jason Drake 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In real life, their origin is Bangladesh"?

Does that mean that the actresses who play the Patils in the movies are from Bangladesh? Because that should be in an article about the actress, not the Patils. They are fictional characters; they have no existence in "real life".Serendipodous 21:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the girl on the picture for sure the right one? I am asking because in a discussion on the IMDB webpage one user stated that the girl in the middle behind Emma Watson and Rupert Grint in the following picture was Lavender Brown: http://www.ronandhermione.net/files/images/ahg25.jpg 198.53.127.233 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both pictures are incorrect. I know Jennifer Smith and that isn't her. She hasn't had any lines in the films yet. Jennifer Smith is indeed black, but she's a different person than the one shown in the picture on the wiki page. --86.133.216.114 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 2001, the BBC aired Harry Potter and Me, an interview with J.K. Rowling that included the author showing some of her papers to the camera. Among those shown was an old, hand-written list (only glimpsed in part, as seen here, courtesy of the HP Lexicon) that Rowling said was of the names of every student in Harry's year, along with notations indicating house, parentage and gender.

This list is cited by some as proof of info on Harry's classmates that has not been mentioned in the books themselves. Though the notes are undoubtedly Rowling's, I believe it must also be noted that the info therein is not final; rather, they represent the author's plans at a certain point in time -- at an early (dating before the publication of Book 1 in 1997 at the least) and possibly much different stage in the process. In fact, several key pieces of information in the list are called into question (if not outright contradicted) by what finally made it into the books:

• Seamus Finnigan's parentage - From the list it would seem that Seamus's parentage is the same as that of Vincent Crabbe, Gregory Goyle and Lavender Brown since all have an encircled star notation, the interpretation of which is immediately problematic. From the very first book, Seamus is identified as a half-blood. On the other hand, Crabbe and Goyle are arguably pure-bloods. Is Lavender then a pure-blood? If so, then why was she as baffled as Dean and Harry at the first mention of the Grim (in Book 3, Chapter 6)? It's questionable, to say the least.
• Houses of Michael Corner, Anthony Goldstein - The list seems to indicate they are Hufflepuffs, however in their actual appearances in the books (in Books 5 and 6) these students are Ravenclaws.
• Names of students - The list includes a "Trevor Boot", a "Queenie Greengrass" and an "Isabel MacDougal". In the books, the author apparently also decided to change these names, going with "Terry Boot" (Book 1), "Daphne Greengrass" (Book 5) and "Morag MacDougal" (Book 1), respectively.

Considering these, I believe info that purely derives from the said list (e.g., the parentages of Lavender Brown, Susan Bones and Hannah Abbott) must be considered tentative and less certain than what is known from the books as published. --Mercury McKinnon 15:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone replied to my additions on the 2 missing girls directly in the article:

"This is a common belief, and one thought to be canon, but the rat and eyeball were noted to be when the boggart was "confused", meaning that it would've simply transformed randomly."

It should be on this discussion page, rather than on the main article. I am rewriting it, so that it sounds like if a single writer observes the various suppositions, and sumarises them. Lag 12:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting below the entire section on "Missing Gryffindor Girls" that I've removed from the article for unverifiability. In it, 3 statements were attributed to Rowling (I've highlighted these in bold font), but no source is given (the link after the final statement leads nowhere). The first statement ("According to J.K. Rowling, there are ten children in Harry's year in each house...") is the most suspect, and is the key assumption upon which the entire discussion hinges. --Mercurio 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to J.K. Rowling, there are ten children in Harry's year in each house at Hogwarts. All five Gryffindor boys (Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Neville Longbottom, Dean Thomas and Seamus Finnigan), and three Gryffindor girls (Hermione Granger, Parvati Patil and Lavender Brown) are accounted for, so there are two "missing" Gryffindor girls. In an interview with MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, she has said she will put them on her official website. There were three students in the Sorting in the first book whose houses are not mentioned: Sally-Anne Perks, Moon and Nott. Nott cannot be one because besides from him being a boy, he is also later referenced as Slytherin. Alternatively, the girls could be supposed to be the mysterious Rivers, Roper, Runcorn or Spinks mentioned on Rowling's list of students. Also, JKR has mentioned that it is not likely that these two girls will come up in the last book. [1]

Well, the second bolded statement is supported by the link at the end,

Um, what link? The one at the end of the section gives me a "The page cannot cannot be found" error. --Mercurio 10:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the third one is utter speculation, and the first one, perhaps the most important, has simply come to be regarded as canon when it is not (see unofficial essay explaining it at the HP Lexicon). However, JKR has acknowledged the existence of these two girls:

Meaning that, though she hasn't explicitly said that there are 10 per house per year, there are 10 for Gryffindor for Harry's year… Thoughts? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading JKR's response objectively, I don't see it as necessarily/unquestionably being an acknowledgement of there being 2 missing Gryffindors. She was asked "Have you discovered...?", but her response/reaction doesn't convey agreement or disagreement. It seems like she'd earlier meant to be prepared to address this question, but had not been able to do so (and was consequently frustrated). She says: "I was going to go and get that for you. I'm sorry I haven't got it. I'll put it on my site." What did she mean by "that" and "it"? These are singular pronouns, so it's questionable that she's referring to 2 students' names. She could be referring to a list of the students in Harry's year... but even if that's what she was referring to, again, it only means that she had intended to show/review the full list of students. The only clear thing I see in her response is a promise to provide some information that would address/answer the question. I don't think we can unquestionably conclude from her response that the answer is "yes, there are 2 missing Gryffindors". --Mercurio 10:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meant "that" as in "information" but I'll accept it not conclusive. Still, she might have corrected Melissa and said, "Well there's only one 'missing' girl, but I still haven't got the info" or something. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Besides, why focus on the possibility of there being 2 (or whatever number of) missing Gryffindors in Harry's year, when in all of 6 books there is barely anything to suggest this? In fact, the logical inference is that there are no missing Gryffindors. (For example, the absence from Dumbledore's Army of such students seems counter-intuitive.) --Mercurio 12:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that OotP is a very bad book to take by example, since that was the book in which she attempted to prove that Hogwarts had around 1000 students: thus, Harry's DADA lesson inexplicably has thirty other students. We all know perfectly well that Rowling's style of presentation in the area of kids is...less than perfect. She produces kids that Harry has supposedly never seen before, making it clear that they have supposedly been there all the time. So, just because there was not an extra two Gryffindor girls at the DA does not prove that they are not supposed by Rowling to vaguely exist (indeed, Seamus did not initially attend, either. The same could apply to the girls). What we do know is that there are 40-42 names on her classlist. So, initially at least, there were enough to make up a five-per-dormitory (plus Spinks, who may be Malfoy, and Siddons, who is pencilled in). Which is rather strong suggestion that there are an extra two girls in the Gryffindor dormitory - borne out by the lack of Rowling denial in the quote above. Michaelsanders 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael did a good job of trying to present the information, so I cleaned it up a little, cited it, and I think it makes sense now from a strictly peripheral informational standpoint -- clearly these girls will never show up in the books, unless Harry smacks himself in the head and says, "Where have you two been this whole time?" Just something Rowling's mentioned which pertains to this topic. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is in serious need of editing. I don't know much about the character so I'm not willing to do it myself but someone at least remove the needless references to Ron and Hermionie's supposed relationship, please. --Adrianics 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment this article states that the reason for DT's omission from the description is "unknown". However, in the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone article there is a quote from JK Rowling: "my editor thought that chapter was too long and pruned everything that he thought was surplus to requirements". Loganberry (Talk) 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed this. :-) Don't be afriad to do it yourself next time, though. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss suggestion to merge into this page the Romilda Vane page whom appears to minor to have her own page. Alternatively please suggest alternate place to merge her to, for she is clearly a minor character like minor gryffindors on this page.--Dacium 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do their birthdates come from? If those were accurate, then they would all be close to thirty now. The birthdates are correct; these books take place in the 1990s.