This page is an archive. Please direct all new discussion to Category talk:Candidates for renaming.


Category:Diseases and illnesses


Category:Death Eaters Allies


The Burrow - Duelling Arena

Quidditch Cup

Second-floor girls' lavatory

Bulgarian Minister for Magic -> Oblansk

Standardization of married female characters name

Isobel McGonagall's wand

Luna Lovegood to Luna Scamander

Basilisk venom and Basilisk egg merge into Basilisk

Sirius Black to Sirius Black III

Head Boy to Head Boy and Girl

Voldemort's Jinx on the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher

Native American to American Indian

Magenta Black (neé Tripe) -> Magenta Tripe

File:Image.jpg to "File:Luna Lovegood at the Slug Club party.jpg"

File:Muggle Lady Employee of Subirton.JPG

The name of the diner has been identified as Treats, and the article about her is currently named Waitress at Treats, so why not go with that? - Nick O'Demus 10:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

This file should be renamed in any case, as "Surbiton" is spelled wrongly. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:16, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Lily Potter II

I disagree on renaming Lily because she is made by J.K. Rowling and you should NOT rename things made by another person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashygirl15 (talkcontribs) 16:20, June 1, 2014 (UTC).

Category:Users who support the Durmstrang Institute

Why should there be the word "the" in the title? In the category of Beauxbatons there is none. I think because of the consistency it would be better to rename to: Category:Users who support Durmstrang Institute.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:33, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Bumping.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:42, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
Bumping!  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 10:43, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

King's Cross Station -> King's Cross station

This capitalization is the standard one used the books, on Pottermore ("The Hogwarts Express departs from King's Cross station in London..."), and in real life. King's Cross is a proper noun, station is not. Besides, the current name is inconsistent with Hogsmeade station. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 04:54, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Lily Evans/Lily Potter -> Lily Potter/Lily Potter II

A decision was made on this a long time ago, however, this decision was made on false pretenses and needs to be overturned, as it violates policy. Our naming policy states that the last name used in the books for a married character should be the one used for the title. Lily Potter is last called such a scant few pages after she is called Lily Evans, true, but by current policy, the articles need to be renamed regardless. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Lily Potter' would be a better name, but I wonder if there is a way of distinguishing, if it is moved, which pages have been adjusted to link to 'Potter' instead of 'Evans'. Pretty much every page on the wiki links to Lily, and it'd be a pain trying to remember which ones we have and haven't adjusted.--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:57, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it should be renamed, but you do bring up a good point Hunnie Bunn. I think that, failing any method of finding all the 'Evans' links (worst-case senario) that we could get all the users to go through and change them manually. Slow, but, it may be the only way... Dr. Galenos (talk) 18:40, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
There is a way to find out: With the tool Special:Whatlinkshere. And perhaps a bot can do instead of manual changings.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 21:39, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to rename to Lily Evans Potter or Lily Potter I. Andre G. Dias (talk) 09:33, January 14, 2014 (Brazil)
I, too, agree with the rename. -- Saxon 15:00, February 2, 2014 (UTC)
4+ for, 1 against; though I would like to point out, no offence, that she isn't called "Lily Evans Potter" or "Lily Potter I" in canon. Lily Potter I is understandable by the precedent set by "James Potter I" and "James Potter II". But personally I think Lily Potter is what it should be at. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm the only person, but I kind of like Lily being called Lily Evans. I feel that it is the easiest way to distinguish between Lily Potter nee Evans and Lily Luna Potter. I might be the only one, and if that is the case then you can ignore me, but if there are others who like the page being titled "Lily Evans", should we really bother to go through all the trouble of rewriting source codes on other pages? I don't know. I guess it is the decision of whoever owns the web site in the end.
Eliza272 (talk) 04:50, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
I think the title of texts of all married female characters should be standardized and about this discussion, I think the title could be just Lily Potter (without nº 1) and the title of Harry Potter's daughter could be Lily Potter II. Andre G. Dias (talk) 02:56, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)
I think Lily Evans is okay. If we rename it to Lily Potter, it will be confused with Harry's daughter, Lily Luna Potter. Anne B. Ng 08:50, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with {above}, because people usually think of Lily Potter as Harry and Ginny's daughter, and it might get confusing if we change it. Also, you might forget to put the "I" after Lily Potter, and it could just get confusing. Possum12 (talk) 15:41, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
@Possum12 - But J.K. Rowling's word is law. When Lily died, she was Lily Potter. So that's what her article should be named. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:30, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
I can see the appeal of both sides of the argument. "Lily Evans" is easily distinguishable from her daughter and she is called such in the fifth book, but "Lily Potter" and "Lily Potter II" (or "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II" as we have with the James Potters) would just as easily differentiate between the two, and Lily is called "Lily Potter", "Mrs Potter" or referred to in "the Potters" far more often through the series; indeed, correct me if I am wrong, but her last appearance seems to call her "Potter", thus supporting the canon end of the argument. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:15, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
If you move this to Lily Potter, there are disavantages:
  • She will be mixed up with Lily Potter, Harry's daughter
  • We may have change EVERY woman's title name to their married names.
  • If we don't change every woman's title to their married names, it will really cause a big, big fuss. For example, when you typed when you're trying to go to Harry's daughter's page, you ended up in Lily Potter née Evans's page, you don't know what to type to get to the page you want.
  • I assum you finally figured out to type (or whatever you change it into), you may thought that EVERY article is in their full name, which Lily Evans don't have a middle name, so the article name is simply Lily Potter (or whatever).
  • I prefer Lily EVANS.
What if we change every woman's article to their maiden names? Then this problem is easily fixed. Anne B. Ng Talk 13:30, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
"Evans" wasn't introduced, if I recall correctly, until Order of the Phoenix; Lily was almost always called either "Lily" or "Lily Potter" in canon. It would thus make most sense for her to be called "Lily Potter I" because of her granddaughter, "Lily Potter II". This is a precedent set by the James Potters. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:53, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
I prefer Lily Evans. Hunnie Bunn once we start getting the most information about her, she is referred to as Lily Evans, and after all she wasn't married very long before she died. If we do change it, I think she should be marked as Lily Potter, because that is what her name is on her grave. Lily Luna Potter, could just be, Lily Luna Potter.Allsevenbooks (talk) 15:01, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should keep it as Evans, for multiple reasons, the obvious ones, Harry's daughter was named after her and it's hard to distinguish them, but also the fact that none of the other married women, that we don't know a lot about, keep their maiden name. And she was always referred as Evans, she also incorrupterated Evans in her name longer than she did Potter
I believe that it should stay Lily Evans for many reasons, one being that she is not born as Lily Potter and is not really called Lily Potter in the fanbase. There would be too much confusion with people looking up Lily Potter and finding Harry's daughter. Besides, in my personal opinion I think Lily Evans sounds better since the name 'Potter' is almost on ever page in the books (not literally). She wasn't just James Potter's wife, of course she was his wife at one point but she seemed more known through the characters when she was Lily Evans, Severus Snape being the main example. She was also Lily Evans longer than Lily Potter sadly, but Lily Evans seems to fit her better due to her grandaughter having the same name. Also, it seemed fine with her article as Lily Evans. Being a RolePlayer I refer to this article quite a bit along with other's and personally it just seems that there would be so much less confusion if we simply kept the name as it is. HeirSlytherin (talk) 09:18, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
I think she should remain Lily Evans. As HeirSlytherin pointed out, she was Lily Evans for longer than she was Lily Potter in the series, and Evans is her surname during most of her "screen time," even if she is more frequently referred to by her married name. This method would be consistent with Nymphadora Tonks (who uses Tonks as a surname for longer than she uses Lupin). Afterall, Hermione is potentially Hermione Weasley in her final scene, but it would be obviously illogical to change her name on the wiki. Richele1012 (talk) 18:06, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
I think she should remain Lily Evans, since her identity and life prior to her marriage with James Potter was such an important side of the story, and calling her Potter seems to diminish her independent role in the series. I always felt (after finishing the books) that when J.K.Rowling kept introducing her as Potter, she was purposefully keeping readers in the dark, sort of "keeping her identity from us" by merging her so strongly in James' camp - during this time Harry seemed to concentrate more on his father than his mother, as his father's past and personality was revealed through his old friends and Snape's memories - and when we finally get to know who Lily was, she is revealed to us as Lily Evans. HeytheycallmeT (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
J.K. Rowling's word is law, and Lily Evans was called Lily Potter when she died. Therefore the article should be renamed to "Lily Potter" without further question. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:32, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

The following table shows the number of times Lily has been referred to as "Lily Potter" and "Lily Evans". -- Saxon 17:21, January 12, 2015 (UTC)

"Lily Potter" "Lily Evans"
PS - 3
"The Potters" - 11
PS - 0
CS - 1 (total - 4)
"The Potters" - 0 (total - 11)
CS - 0 (total - 0)
PA - 0 (total - 4)
"The Potters" - 12 (total - 23)
PA - 0 (total - 0)
GF - 2 (total - 6)
"The Potters" - 1 (total - 25)
GF - 0 (total - 0)
OP - 0 (total - 6)
"The Potters" - 1 (total - 26)
OP - 7 (total - 7)
HBP - 0 (total - 6)
"The Potters" - 0 (total - 26)
HBP - 2 (total - 9)
DH - 4 (total - 10)
"The Potters" - 1 (total - 27)
DH - 4 (total - 13)

I am happy to see that this discussion appears to be moribund, because from a British point of view the name "Lily Potter II" is—not quite an abomination, but certainly not anything anybody would contemplate using outside the Royal Family, and even then only for official regnal names. "Lily Potter Jr" might be marginally acceptable, and even has precedent in Bartemius Crouch Jr. (although I confess I cannot find where that particular construction is used in canon) but Lily Luna Potter would be so much more appropriate. Hopefully I'm not stirring this up again and it can just wither on the vine! —Phil | Talk 11:55, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion that while "Lily Evans" may be clearer, "Lily Potter" creates and solidifies the unity of Lily and James. Given the Great Snape Debacle and my personal stance on the matter, I believe "Lily Potter" is simply better and more insightful. For clarity purposes, it is my belief that the best name for this page is "Lily Evans Potter" and for Harry's daughter, "Lily Luna Potter". This allows for important distinction and honours the binding love of James and Lily. Whynotnat (talk) 19:06, January 24, 2016 (UTC)whynotnat, 11:04, January 5, 2016

Only because Lily Evans / Lily Potter is still tagged as a candidate for renaming, I'll add my fuel to the fire. I believe it is best to use maiden names for all female characters (as this is their name at birth) and use redirect pages for married names. If birth name is not known, then the married name is used of course. Bellatrix is a Black first and foremost, part of the Ancient House of Black, and only later a Lestrange (regardless of when we meet her). There is also the complication of remarriage, which hasn't really arisen yet (except maybe obliquely with Violet_Tillyman's_children), but using maiden names for page titles when possible avoids all the confusion over which married name to use (first married, last married, longest time, etc).

Lily Potter II (or Jr) is a very odd naming choice for females and doesn't fit any known convention (outside of royalty as mentioned eg Queen Elizabeth II). The current Lily Evans / Lily Potter naming arrangement seems right, and should be mirrored with other female names IMHO. Ironyak1 (talk) 21:00, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

But J.K. Rowling's word is law, and leaving the page title under the name "Lily Evans" would not be in accordance with J.K. Rowling's word. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:37, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
From the books, we know that Harry's mother was known as "Lily Evans" and "Lily Potter" at different points in her life, so using either for the title of her article would be sound from a canonical perspective. So choosing one over the other isn't really a question of canonicity, but other considerations.
I'm for maintaining the practice of using married names for the titles of articles on female characters. But I think we should further amend this policy to apply only to characters from before Harry's generation, unless it is conclusively known that a specific character took her husband's surname. We know from Pottermore that Minerva McGonagall's decision to keep her maiden name upon her marriage to Elphinstone Urquart in the early 1980s was considered controversial within British wizarding society. So we can fairly assume that, at least until at least the early 1980s, most British witches took their husband's surname, thus using deferring to their married names when choosing a title for their articles makes sense. But there's no reason to presume this social attitude persisted into the 1990s, much less the 21st century. Thus we should retain the titles "Fleur Delacour," "Nymphadora Tonks," "Luna Lovegood," etc.
I also think we should amend the policy to allow for the conditional inclusion of middle initials in article titles. Having "Lily Potter" and "Lily L. Potter" would resolve most of the concerns that have been raised so far in this discussion. Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:53, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
I think Starstuff's approach largely aligns with the "first mentioned as" or the "most mentioned as" approach, given that first and most mentions are from the 1980's and afterwards anyways. This approach would preserve most of the article names (eg Luna Lovegood not Luna Scamander, Petunia Dursely, Bellatrix Lestrange, etc). Merope Gaunt would become Merope Riddle under Starstuff's generational approach, which sounds odd (there isn't even a redirect as no one thinks of her this way?), but would be still be Merope Gaunt under a first/most mentioned approach. In either case, the current Lily Evans becomes Lily Potter (with a Lily Evans redirect page), and Lily Potter becomes Lily L Potter or Lily Luna Potter (my vote) with a point me from grandmother Lily Potter. This seems very workable and would be most familiar for most fans (eg Molly Prewett, who's that?). Unfortunately, this approach does not help poor Molly Weasley II as we don't have a middle name for her. Given that she's already stuck with Percy as a father, can't we at give the girl a break and find her a sensible page title? (but that might be another topic - perhaps we can use Mollywobbles Weasley for grandma? ;) Ironyak1 (talk) 04:06, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Is there even any evidence that Merope ever took her husband's last name? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:09, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
In HBP - Chap 13: “Your mother had a choice too,” said Dumbledore gently. “Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry." So yes, it appears she took the Riddle name. Using Starstuff's suggested approach (married name for people born (or married?) pre-1980) the page title should be Merope Riddle. In looking at this closer, this would impact several pages from The House of Black as most pages for females are titled with their maiden names. (eg Belvina Black/Burke, Callidora Black/Longbottom, Cedrella Black/Weasely, and about 5 or 6 more. There is the reverse problem too where women that married into the House of Black are currently titled by their maiden names, but would have to be re-titled as Black (eg Ella Max/Black). Given all this, I would suggest that "first mention as"/"most mentioned as" is a more sound approach than married name for pre-1980s. Where there is a single reference given (like the Black Family Tree) then pages should be titled by maiden names (which appears to be the current convention?) This appears to align with many of the current pages and the end result would be the same for Lily Evans/Potter and Lily Luna Potter. Ironyak1 (talk) 07:57, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Using Mollywobbles Weasley as a page title would be most absurd and ridiculous. Also have we come to a conclusion yet? J.K. Rowling's word is law remember, so we don't really have any other option than to re-name the Lily Evans article to Lily Potter, which is what should have been done and kept that way from the beginning. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:21, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
Mollywobbles is a ridiculous name you say? That's between her and Arthur, who are you to judge? :) Note the smiley face here and above - I was and am being absurd. The Married vs Maiden naming issue is being discussed in the Forum if you want to weigh in. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:37, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Lily Potter and Evans

I disagree with the rename because if you rename Lily Evans Lily Potter we might get confused with Harry Potter's daughter Lily Luna Potter and think something bad about this website. Also I am sorta fond of both Lilys so you really shoudn't. Also They were not made by you so you also should not.

Ashygirl15 (talk) 16:31, June 1, 2014 (UTC)Ashygirl15Ashygirl15 (talk) 16:31, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

But Rowling herself called the elder of the Lilies "Lily Potter" numerous times throughout all the books; Lily is introduced such throughout the first four books, and only in the fifth is her maiden name, Evans, given. Thus it would make more sense, and be truer to Rowling, to call the pages "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II". --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:26, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Call the pages "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II". That works better. However, this also brings up a problem; as Lily (Evans) was only a Potter by marriage, the I should not be there; she'd be "Lily Potter Nee Evans" and her granddaughter would actually be "Lily Potter I". It only works like I and II if they are BORN into the family (e.g. James Potter I is the grandfather of James Potter II). This leads me into my next renaming too.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:44, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I think that it should be called "Lily Evans" as that is her birth name. Quantumparticle (talk) 14:18, June 6, 2014 (UTC)Quantumparticle

I think Lily Evans is the way to go, because it is her maiden name, and all the other female characters are titled with their birth names, not their married names, excepting Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange. Plus, some could get confused and think there is yet another generation descended from the Potters, another Lily Luna, if you will.Lilymoth (talk) 23:06, August 5, 2014 (UTC)Lilymoth

You can't say "all other characters are called by married names except this, this, this and this one". The characters who go by maiden names are called such because they are never named by married names throughout the narration whereas Molly Weasley, Bellatrix Lestrange and Lily Potter are much more frequently called by their married names. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:13, August 5, 2014 (UTC)
She was only Lily Potter for a few short years, 2 to be exact. While Bella and Molly are called by their husband's names because they have had that name for the majority of their lives. And there's a big difference between Lily and Bella and Molly that I feel that no one has touched on, Lily came from a Muggle family, they had no such traditions about marrying wizards, but Molly and Bella came from pureblooded families and while Bella's family was far stricter, it still has its rules. Why would you name her as Lily Potter, the name that she barely lived versus the name, Lily Evans, that she ruled with and was extrodinary with?Marauettes (talk) 19:42, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support this change, because when Lily Evans died, she was "Lily Potter". Since that was the last surname she used prior to her death, it is clearly the last name that she should use for her official page. I also strongly support moving Lily Potter to Lily Potter II in terms of consistency with other descendants who have the same first and last name. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:36, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
I agree with "Lily Potter". She died under this name, she is buried under this name, and in the "present events of the books", she was known and called "Lily Potter" (a way more than Lily Evans). Moreover, JKR calls her "Lily Potter" too and her word is law, so :P Plus, we do that for Bella, Molly or Petunia. I don't get why Lily should be an exception because she was more "Evans" during her living than "Potter". And again, since her death, she is more called "Potter" than "Evans" so she is more known under "Lily Potter" today :) Lady Junky 07:52, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
Tonks died as Nymphadora Lupin as I recall but we aren't changing her name-she was known as Nymphadora Tonks more than Nymphadora Lupin, so why should we change Lily's name? Liivingsarcasm (talk) 19:34, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
J.K. Rowling's word is law. Remember? And if the Nymphadora Tonks page hasn't been re-named, then it should. Also this discussion isn't all about you, this is about the community as a whole, and J.K. Rowling's word. Not just you. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:03, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Molly Prewett and Molly Weasley II

As Molly Prewett was not born into the Weasley family she would not, in all actuality, be referred to as Molly Weasley I - Her granddaughter, born into the Weasley family, would be referred to as Molly Weasley I - and would actually be Molly Weasley nee Prewett. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:44, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

But she is still called Molly Weasley, and she thus is the first one. I completely understand what you're trying to say but completely disagree. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:13, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I prefer Molly Weasley I (née Prewett) and Molly Weasley II.

wateryrecruit8 (talk) 02:06, December 22, 2014 (UTC)wateryrecruit8

Priori Incantatem

Pretty clear it should be renamed for consistency with other spells. Question if it should have a hyphen or not: Reverse-spell Effect, or Reverse Spell Effect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ironyak1 (talkcontribs).

This depends on if it is capitalised in the book. Personally, I do not own the English edition and can´t look it up myself.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:38, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
The word "Reverse spell effect" was used by Sirius Black in the book as a passing question because he did not know what "Priori Incantatem" meant. The wiki should use the proper spell name in this case, not a vague description. --Sajuuk 16:43, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking it up :) Quote - "The Reverse Spell effect?" said Sirius sharply. - It's given caps so appears to be a proper name? --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:49, April 25, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:02, April 25, 2016 (UTC)

"Reverse spell effect" is uncapitalized in my copy of Goblet of Fire. It's a Raincoast hardcover edition, which was evidently published after Deathly Hallows, since it's listed on the ad for the other books in the series on the back page. It would thus seem that the capitalization was altered in later editions of GoF.
It's fine to use incantations for article titles if the proper name for a spell isn't known. I'd recommend moving this to "Priori Incantato" since it isn't definitively known that "Reverse Spell" is the name of this spell. "Priori Incantato" is the incantation used to cast this spell (Goblet of Fire, Chapter 9), whereas "Priori Incantatem" specifically refers to the unintentional phenomenon that occurred when Harry and Voldemort's wands clashed. Starstuff (Owl me!) 02:06, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
Disregard what I've said above for the most part. I've reworked the "Reverse Spell" article so the distinction between the spell proper and the Priori Incantatem phenomenon is clearer. I'm fine with the article remaining at the title "Reverse Spell," since this seems to be the canonical name for the spell. It would be good to know what particular edition of GoF capitalizes it as "Reverse Spell effect" so that it could be specifically cited in the references section. Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:58, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
Very nice edits - the article is much improved from my hack at it :) "The Reverse Spell effect?" is from my hardcover copy, page 697. Arthur A. Levine Books, An Imprint of Scholastic Press, First American edition, July 2000 (ISBN 0-439-13959-7). It's interesting that it changed in later editions... all sorts of nuance to consider for those so inclined. --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:29, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't know how we should handle this disparity between the text of your first American edition (lucky!) and my circa 2007 Raincoast edition of Goblet of Fire. It's possible that the non-capitalization in the later edition is either a deliberate revision or an accidental misprint. If we ultimately judge it to be a revision, then we could rename the article "reverse spell" instead. This is consistent with the text, and it's okay to give spell articles provisional/speculative titles when neither the actual spell name nor the incantation are known. Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:42, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. If you are going to move articles to alternate names, could you please take the time and effort to actually fix the many "Double Redirects" you keep leaving behind? Special:WhatLinksHere is a useful tool. Make use of it when updating pages.
  2. Can you try "not" to fill up the page history in a line of small edits? There's preview and Show Changes that you can use before publishing edits.
Thanks. --Sajuuk 11:04, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Grandfather Clock

I created this page myself, back in late 2015 (while I was still relatively new to the Wiki), and have now realised that the 'Clock' needs to be changed to 'clock' and that the redirect for Weasley Clock which is already Grandfather clock, needs to be removed.

Thanks -   ArrestoMomentum | talk  06:59, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Yes check Done --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 04:15, July 20, 2016 (UTC)