Should this article be moved to Andros?--Rodolphus 22:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

No. When used, epithets have usually a long-established usage, (see Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, etc.) and are, sometimes, historically required to distinguish the bearers (see William Pitt the Younger, William Pitt the Elder). Besides, the character is referred to as "Andros te Invincible" in all his appearances, and moving this article under "Andros" would set a precedent that would make us move Bran the Bloodthirsty to "Bran", Fulbert the Fearful to "Fulbert", and Beedle the Bard to "Beedle", which would be, in my honest opinion, preposterous. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:29, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


Just curious here: what about the text on the Chocolate Frog card indicates that his Patronus was uncorporeal? All sources I've found simply states that "[he was] Alleged to have been the only known wizard to produce a Patronus the size of a giant." The lack of a known form, and seeing as he lived in Ancient Greece so information is probably scarce, does not suggest that his Patronus was incomplete (I also doubt the shape of one's Patronus (given the difficulty of the spell and rare use in peace-times) would go recorded, unlike that of Animagi). Kaldelar 18:19, April 1, 2012 (UTC)