Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Ive noticed that we have family articles like the Potter family or the Macmillan family pages, that include people like Harry potter, and Charlus potter in the same family, yet there is no proof that they are related. I think something needs to be done about these kind of articles. It could lead to people looking at the potter family article, and assume Harry potter and Charlus potter being related.
I dont know, but maybe we could make it:
Potter family (I) for Charlus Potters family then Potter family (II) for Harry potters family.
Just to stop confusion
- The wizarding community in Britain is small and insular, so, unlike in the world at large, people with the same surname are likely to be part of the same family line. We know that James Potter was pure-blood (HBP16) and Ernie Macmillan was a ninth-generation pure-blood (CS11), therefore we know that the Potters and the Macmillans are pure-blood families. We know that the Blacks only accepted pure-blood marriages (OotP6), so we know that Charlus Potter and Melania Macmillan, who both married Blacks, must have been pure-blood. Why speculate about the existence of two completely unrelated pure-blood families called Macmillan in the UK? I object to the idea of splitting up family articles because there's not a solid enough basis for it. It would lead to a lot of redundant stubs, as we don't know enough about Millicent Bulstrode's or Violetta Bulstrode's families to fill two unique articles, and I think that the duplication and scattering of information would ultimately have a detrimental effect. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 21:24, December 23, 2009 (UTC)