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.
For discussion on Fred Weasley.
- This article has several thing needed to be done:
- Quotes: Though this article has many of them, there are some places where they are needed
- Relashionships: We need to add a couple more relashionships such as Lee Jordan
- Images: Once Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) comes out, it will need more of them
I think that it is more likely that Fred and George took different subjects. Fred was the more flamboyant twin, the more likely to do well in Transfiguration, while George, the gentler, would perform better in Herbology, like Neville. Remember that they had to pass to do the subject, not just because they wouldn't want to be seperated. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Toon Ganondorf. So lets try to catgory which owls they did:
- Charms - He had a Newt level Charms lesson, inspected by Umbridge
- Defence Against the Dark Arts - Was told off for playing Exploding Snap in Umbridge's class, year after OWLS.
- Trnasfiguration - McGonogall told him to shut up and continue transfiguring his racoon in 1994, the year after he finished his OWLS.
- Charms - He had a Newt level Charms lesson, inspected by Umbridge
- Defence Against the Dark Arts - Was told off for playing Exploding Snap in Umbridge's class in 1996, after OWLS.
- Herbology - George expressed his desire to sell Extendable Ears before Herbology in 1996.
I noticed that the Project Page is different from the actual page for fred Weasley. Is this supposed to be the case? ShirleyA 10:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just like Toon said, that's the entire point. Every one or two months we will work on an article to expand it to Harry Potter article status. We will have a vote for the nex article. So please do not post things you wrote hear to the actual page until I say so. Hope I cleared that up. Cheers! -- Madam Hooch(Which Broomstick)
Looking over the draft, I feel that the table of contents is on the long side (two pages in my word processor), and that perhaps some things in the article could stand to be shortened or consolidated into other sections. I think that the "Weasley's Wizard Wheezes" section is unnecessary because it duplicates content from the biography section and the WWW article. I also think that "Magical Abilities and Skills" should be a single section, as seems to be the standard, as opposed to being broken into multiple sub-sections. "Relationships" could use some pruning. I don't think there's enough information on Malcolm Baddock to warrant his own section. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 12:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the section Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, should not be it's own section so I added the info to prossesions. It seems that Magical Abilities and Skills HAS to be split up as we could not fit in the quotes without splitting. I agree that someone needs to monitor the Relashionships to find any with not much info. So I have created jobs below to fix these things. -- Madam Hooch(Which Broomstick)
- I cleaned up the "Magical Abilities and Skills" section recently, but I didn't want to cut out large amounts of info, though I still feel it could be trimmed significantly. Most articles with that section do not have subheadings; they use bold text to break apart and describe each skill. I know we wanted a lot of quotes, but it's becoming excessive.
- There are similar issues with the "Relationships" section. There is no need for there to be so many subheadings; it just clutters things and lengthens the table of contents, a concern Starstuff brought up above. There are also too many (and too long) quotes in many sections, such as Percy Weasley's or Hermione Granger's. Personally, I think each relationship should have only one quote, unless the relationship is a particularly strong one and the section is long enough to allow two quotes. But definitely not more than two. There are also some characters that, in my opinion, Fred did not have enough of a relationship with in order to merit a section. "Dumbledore's Army" is an organisation Fred joined, not a character he had a relationship with. The only thing we know about the twins' relationship with Snape was that he often deducted points from them - which he did for just about any Gryffindor and isn't indicative of a relationship. Fred had an opinion on the Ministry of Magic, but he didn't have a relationship with what is, again, not a person but an organisation. Oread (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have fixed all those promblems, do you think thats all we can do with the article. If it is, we will vote for an new article to work on. -- Madam Hooch(Which Broomstick)
- I just did some more clean-up of the "Relationships" section. Per our discussion, I removed some of the subheadings, as well as adjusted some images, so it's less cluttered and the table of contents not as long. I also removed some quotes when they weren't appropriate, or were excessive or repeated, and expanded the Sirius Black section a bit. It's still a really, really long section though. We shouldn't confuse quantity with quality. Oread (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that, overall, the article has been brought down to a reasonable length, but I think there are still a few sections that could probably be streamlined further. For instance, the section on Percy under "Relationships" is longer than any other, and contains a lot of repetitive material. The section should give a general summary of Fred's relationship with Percy rather than a point-by-point account of everything that ever went on between the two. The sections for Oliver Wood, Filius Flitwick, and Mundungus Fletcher contain multiple grammatical errors, and the smaller sections, like Peeves, could use some fleshing out, as they seem perfunctory. I do agree with Oread that the section is still very long: while a high level of detail can make an article fascinating, there is a point when an article gets so long that it becomes tedious to read through, even for people who consider its subject one of their favourites. Less is more, as they say. I understand that the goal of this project is expand expand Fred's article to the same length as Harry's. However, I'm not sure that Harry's article should be used as a standard, as Harry is something of an exception. He is the main character, and, as the story follows his life, it's only natural that there would be a lot of material to cover in his article and that his "Relationships" section would be longer than average. Fred is a major character, but the books don't focus on him as they do with Harry, and this leaves us with less information on which to build our "Relationships" section. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
For the quote; "E for Exceeds Expectations. And I've always though Fred and I should've got E in everything, because we exceeded expectations just by turning up for the exams." —Fred Weasley I think that somewhere in here is wrong because it says Fred and I, then the quote is said to have been by Fred. If Fred really said this shouldn't it have said George and I? Skyreader 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There has been some very good edits being done but we need to seprate these tasks into jobs so please sign your name below:
Cleans up, expands and add quotes to the Magical Abilities and Skills.
Works with the Prossesions.
Expands, cleans up the Relashionships.
If I were to work on this project I feel that I'd need to consult you all here first. I personally feel that there is ALOT of uneeded stuff in this article. This is a list of things I feel should be deleted from this article, that don't really add anything to it and just make it too long:
- 7 Possessions - This section is pretty scraping the barrel to find Fred some possessions. Alot of it is just clothes, clothes doesn't really count as possessions in the terms of what this Wikia normally includes, for example: The Invisibilty Cloak or The Elder Wand. Also stating things like Fred owns a wand and a broom, they're really basic wizard essentials so I think it is common sense to know he has them and that it doesn't need to be stated. (Personally, I think this section of the article could all be deleted!)
- 8.7 Sirius Black
- 8.8 Mundungus Fletcher
- 8.9 Slytherin House
- 8.10 Zacharias Smith
- 8.11 Hogwarts Staff
* 8.11.1 Dolores Umbridge * 8.11.2 Minerva McGonagall * 8.11.3 Albus Dumbledore * 8.11.4 Filius Flitwick * 8.11.5 Rubeus Hagrid * 8.11.6 Argus Filch * 8.11.7 Peeves
- 8.12 Ludo Bagman - I think that all of these characters, though have a relationship with Fred in some way are completely irrelevant to his relationships section. Relationships in general on this Wikia state who people like and dislike, not every minor character that has associated with them. They add nothing really and make the relationships too cluttered. Sometimes less is more.
Also, 'regarding relationships', I think that when is speaks of Fred's family it should just be "Ginny" or "George" and not "Ginny Weasley" as it already states that they are members of the Weasley family.
AND finally, on a whole I think this article is having too many quotes added. Whilst quotes are good I think one/two quotes per SECTION is fine, but when you have two quotes in one sub-section of an article it really looks odd. (For example: Hermione Granger, relationships) It looks like those quotes have been added to space her section out and not have image-overlay that might occur if you removed it.
I hope you take what I've said on board, I really do feel this article is good, but is getting far too cluttered with barrel-scraping information. Patr0nus 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned up and removed SOME of the articles you have suggested. I am now working on the quotes. -- Hellabore