| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.|
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.
Please discuss candidates for renaming here
For old discussions, please see the Archive.
File:Muggle Lady Employee of Subirton.JPG Edit
- This file should be renamed in any case, as "Surbiton" is spelled wrongly. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:16, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Flying Ford AngliaEdit
I suggest renaming this article "Ford Anglia 7990 TD". Apart from being its actual registration name, as confirmed in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film), it makes the article look neater and more professional, as it is opposed to the quasi-speculative and descriptive current name. -- 18:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that this article will be found with the new name? "Flying Ford Anglia" everyone knows, but a name with number? When you will use the new name then there should be a redirect to the old name, otherwise no one is able to find it. Harry granger 21:04, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
A "quasi-speculative" name? If that isn't trying to sound stuck-up, I don't know what is. Sorry, but this is a Wiki on Harry Potter - articles are allowed to not have a scientific or professional name if it helps people find them, and the name of the vehicle page is absolutely fine as it is. 22.214.171.124 22:05, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
- So sorry to disagree with you, but this wiki has always chosen the most encyclopedic way to present facts and, yes, that includes calling things by their proper names, when backed-up by solid canonical fact. That's the reason why the article on Ron Weasley is called Ronald Weasley and the article on Ginny is called Ginevra Weasley. The only reason there are articles with conjectural titles is that there are characters/objects that are sometimes not named, and as this is not the case, I don't know why we should keep this title that, in-universely, would be deemed descriptive and unfounded. (A side note: name-calling, unlike my "stuck-upness", will not help you make a point). -- 22:36, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
The film is not entirely canonical; the books always come first, but since there is no information is given on the registration of the car is given in the book, the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case. People will find it easier to search flying Ford Anglia, most people would type; 'Flying Car', 'Ford Anglia' or 'Flying Ford Anglia', not 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; so there would have to be a redirection anyway. The title 'Ford Anglia' is too general, so 'Flying Ford Anglia' is the next most logical, as I don't think there are any other flying Ford Anglias.So, I think the title should stay the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- According to our canon definition the car's registration name as seen in the film is a valid canon information, so why not to take it into account? You said it yourself, and very correctly, that "the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case". Of course, people searching for 'Flying Ford Anglia' would be redirected to 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; pretty much like searching for Hogwarts Express food trolley redirects you to Honeydukes Express. -- 15:17, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
But does this wiki choose "the most encyclopedic way" over "the most user-friendly way?" The purpose of this wiki is to easily help fans find information they need. People will always search "Flying Ford Anglia" before they search "Ford Anglia 7990 TD," perhaps because the fact the car flies is more distinguishable than its license number. Also, I argue that it's not a simpler, cleaner, neater title. "Flying Ford Anglia" are three simple, easily pronounceable words, not "Ford Anglia" and then a bundle of numbers that had absolutely no plot significance. Harrypotterfan7 03:51, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
People will still be able to find the article via a redirect, so there's no actual harm in renaming it. As for whether or not it should be renamed, well, my opinion is that we should call it by its most canonical name; if its called "flying ford anglia" in the books, then keep it. If not, use the registration number. We could even include its nickname in the description i.e. the article could go something like "the Ford Anglia 7990 TD (a.k.a. the Flying Ford Anglia) was..." —Green Zubat (owl me!). 04:34, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the rename, but maybe you can rename it to "Flying Ford Anglia 7990 TD"
12:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
We should keep it as flying ford anglia. Because it'll be harder for people to find if we change the name to something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
The old one will also be available in searches, particularly if they set up a redirection.
By the way, in regard to the license plate number, Moment 2 in Chapter 3 of Chamber of Secrets on Pottermore gives the license plate number as COS 207; hopefully this information has helped. 184.108.40.206 04:11, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
I think that might be a good idea since when you search for that link, some different links come up so people will still recognize it. Just add flying Ford Anglia so people won't mix it up with the car in general.minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:22, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls
- ==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.
1 January Edit
I think it would be nice if the page in question could be renamed to "1st of January", as it is would be even closer to British, nowhere close to American. If this change would end up being accepted, can ALL dates change from "Day Month" to "Day(st, nd, rd, th) of Month"? RandomYoshi 09:59, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
- If it is standard British practise, then I believe per policy it should be at that. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 03:05, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
Category:Users who support the Durmstrang Institute Edit
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.19:33, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Bumping. 19:42, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Bumping! 10:43, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune)Edit
I suggest that Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) is renamed Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's not only the story but the fountain itself that is called so. ----220.127.116.11 19:35, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think the two pages should be titled Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the object) and The Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the tale), with appropriate "youmay" tags on each article. Thoughts? -- 02:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the object Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) (remember, we should add the (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) because the fountain is actually fictional. The story name can be kept in its own state, but "Point Me!" tags should be added to both pages. This is only my suggestion. -- RLB01 (talk) 12:05, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Seth. There's no reason to have the parenthetical notation on all the Beedle the Bard articles. I remember a bunch of those were removed at one point, and I think they should be removed from any articles they still remain on as well, except those that may need it for disambig purposes. As for the actual page name, the very first sentence of the story calls it "the Fountain of Fair Fortune", so it seems like a cut and dry move to me. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
Treacle fudge to Treacle toffee Edit
According to this here, this was changed from treacle fudge to treacle toffee, but I can't recall ever seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Can anyone verify "treacle toffee"? ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- In the books, it is always refered to as treacle fudge. Treacle toffee wasn't metioned once.18.104.22.168 23:18, March 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I think the renaming is suspect. Fudge is similar in composition and taste to toffee, but it isn't the same; fudge is crumbly, toffee is chewy. The illustration for "treacle fudge" shows slabs of a very light brown; treacle toffee is much darker, almost black.
- And by the way, the Trio once used some of Hagrids's toffee to stick Fang's jaws together to stop him barking; I think this was treacle toffee, though as it has been a few months since I last read this passage, and I can't remember which book it's in, I'm not certain. — RobertATfm (talk) 19:43, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I've just checked the Lexicon reference, and the corresponding passage of CoS, and it seems that not only the name of the article needs to be changed (fudge wouldn't have stuck Harry's jaws together), but the associated picture (which is definitely of fudge, not toffee) needs to be changed as well. Not only is treacle toffee much darker in hue than shown, but it is usually glossy or semi-glossy (like all toffee), whilst fudge is always matt. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I looked up the difference betweent the two, and fudge is made with sugar, milk, and butter, while toffee is made with sugar and butter. And besides, I never remember seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Dr. Galenos (talk) 19:08, December 17, 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Fudge is unquestionably in both the CoS video game and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and therefore the current page stands as is. If the novel changed the wording to toffee, then a separate "treacle toffee" page should be made. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:27, December 18, 2013 (UTC)
King's Cross Station -> King's Cross station Edit
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 Edit
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. 21:39, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
- 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 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 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
- If you move this to Lily Potter, there are disavantages:
- 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 harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Potter 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 harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Luna_Potter (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 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)
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 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)
- 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)
Renaming of Ollivander's Wand Shop employees to Ollivanders Wand Shop EmployeesEdit
Will there ever be a decision? It's lasting already so long.14:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
I think the name of the Category Ollivander's Wand Shop employees is incorrect because its contents is about the supposed employees of the shop in the The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, so the name should be "Ollivander's Wand Shop employees (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)" to distinguish of the shop that appears in the book series. Andre G. Dias (talk) 02:39, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)
- Bumping! 21:29, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Bumping! 10:44, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rumEdit
Standardization of non real characters/things nameEdit
I suggest to create a policy to standardize the names of non real characters/things to distinguish from the real ones. For elucidation, what I mean when I say: 1) "non real characters", are those characters/things who either appear in a book which is cited in the series, or in some franchise work like The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, or in some work created based in the Harry Potter series like the Wizard rock bands and other works, for example: Elder Tree, Peasant woman, Wizard, Dragon Challenge, Tonks and the Aurors, etc.; 2) "real characters", are those characters/things who don't appear only in a cited book (like The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, etc.) but in the 7 books and/or 8 films, for example: Harry Potter, Sirius Black, Ministry of Magic, etc.
Examples of "non real characters" which could be renamed: 1) "Dragon Challenge" to "Dragon Challenge (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)"; 2) "Babbitty Rabbitty" to "Babbitty Rabbitty (Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump)"; 3) "The Hopping Pot" to "The Hopping Pot (The Wizard and the Hopping Pot)"; "Tonks and the Aurors" to "Tonks and the Aurors (Wrock band)" etc.
To shorten, I'm suggesting to add a reference in the title, about where does the text appear.
Lily Potter and EvansEdit
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.
- 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 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)
Molly Prewett and Molly Weasley IIEdit
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.
In the book the Trick wand is called Fake wand. The article Fake wand is called Wand dummy in the Daily Prophet newsletters.
So I suggest to use Fake wand with the text of the now called "Trick wand" and rename Trick wand to "Wand dummy"!
20:59, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Bumping! 10:44, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Renaming of The Cave IslandEdit
I don't agree. Pottermore speaks from "The Cave" and not from the "Crystal Cave", so the island should not bear the name "Crystal Cave Island", that would be confusing. The name "The Cave Island" is the best considerung the Pottermore name for the cave is: "The Cave".20:08, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
- The same could also be said of T. M. Riddle's Diary. -- Saxon 21:50, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
- "Crystal Cave Island" sounds like an 8-bit-era coin-op. — RobertATfm (talk) 22:37, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
German woman to German-speaking woman Edit
It's never been conclusively established that this woman was from Germany. It's only an assumption based on the fact that German seems to be her native tongue. However, it's possible she was from another region in which German was widely spoken as a primary language, such as Austria or Switzerland.
Priori Incantatem Edit
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 (talk • contribs).
- 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)