Where in the books does it it say she married a Muggle? Prissymis 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere, but Rowling confirmed it.--Rodolphus 09:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


The article says that Cho was born into a Wizarding family of Chinese descent? Is there a source for that, or should it be changed to Asian? --Parodist 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's based on the fact that Chang is a very common Chinese family name. However, according to Wikipedia, it's also a Korean surname, so I agree that "Chinese" should be changed to "Asian" in this article. Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

The Youtube video in the bottom of the article is dead. --Muhahaa 12:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this mean that she still likes harry?

"She seemed disappointed when this was fiercely denied by Ginny, which indicates that she no longer had any hard feelings for Harry." that sounds to me like she still like him, so why does it say "which indicates that she no longer had any hard feelings for Harry."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arisheps (talkcontribs).

That means she is no longer mad at, or upset with Harry. Please sign all comments with four tildes (~), thanks! --Margiechocoholic Medieval Broomstick Owl me! 02:48, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that when Cho kept answering Harry, offered to him to the Ravenclaw Common Room (I wonder what she wanted to do in there... lol) and then eventually sat down dissapointed because she couldn't accompany him, it probably means that she still had feelings for Harry. Can we at least say that she might have liked him? GinnyPi 02:52, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

An old discussion I see, but I just read that section and changed it a moment ago along those lines. I think the emphasis should be on Cho still linking Harry somewhat, not that she got over her dislike. Tarc0917 18:37, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that necessarily means she still had romantic feelings for Harry at all. She literally only offered to help Harry find the diadem, there was no flirting implied at all. Her relationship with Harry also ended rather harshly, and after there "Go and cope with it then" talk in Order of the Phoenix she never approached Harry romantically again. MiakoSamuio (talk) 16:59, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Article is a year off

Every entry is the wrong year of hogwarts, she went with cedric in the 4th year not the fifth, and the fifth year she kissed Harry, not the sixth, and so on and so on....

Actually, it isn't. Cho was a year ahead of Harry, so... --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:50, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Although, there are contradictions to that affect when in OotP she should be in year 6 if she was really a year ahead of Harry, but in the movie (can't remember the book quote), Hermione mentions that she is worried about passing her OWLs, which are taken in the 5th year. --BachLynn23 21:04, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The book specifically say Cho is a year above Harry. They are higher canon that the movies. See:Harry Potter Wiki:Canon --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 21:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


The fact that she is still present in Hogwarts in the seventh book (Deathly Hallows) confirms that she is of the same year as Harry (and therefore the same age as Harry). If she had been one year older than him, she would already have graduated from Hogwarts in the Half-Blood Prince and should not have been present in Hogwarts at the time in the seventh book (that is, during the scene in the Room of Requirement). -- 16:29, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

She returned to Hogwarts through Aberforth´s secret passage, just like Angelina, Oliver, Alicia and Katie did.--Rodolphus 16:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

yes she did return using Aberforth´s secret passage as well as the other D.A members, cause nevile using the D.A coins called for all old D.A members to return to hogwarts to help fight voldemort at this point in time which will take in deathly hallows part 2 she is already finished hogwarts and comes back to help fight, and also trys to help harry. maybe in the movies they have made it so she is 1 year behind harry or in the same year so they can keep her in part 1 and part 2 , tho in the books she is 1 year above him. Methstix 18:43, November 20, 2010 (UTC)


Harry: "I was just wondering if maybe you wanted to go to the ball with me..."
Cho: "Oh. Harry, I'm sorry but someone's already asked me. And well, I've, I've said I'll go with him."
Harry: "Okay, great, good, fine, great, no problem."
Cho: "Harry! I really am... sorry."
— Harry asks Cho to the Yule Ball[src]

this was in her fourth year. i would know, i am her biggest fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

-- Not true. It was Harry's fourth year, therefore it was Cho's fifth year. And keep the discussion about "being her biggest fan" to a minimum, since this is just for corrections about the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Seventh Year

"Ron Weasley: "Michael - but - But you were going out with him!"
Ginny Weasley: "Not anymore. He didn't like Gryffindor beating Ravenclaw at Quidditch and got really sulky, so I ditched him and he ran off to comfort Cho instead."
— Harry, Ron and Ginny discussing Cho dating Michael Corner"

It said that this is in Cho's seventh year. It was in her sixth as this happened in book 5. Also, this is not about Cho dating Michael Corner, it's about Ginny dating him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Just because Cho and Michael began seeing one another at the end of her 6th year, it doesn't make it exclusive to that year. They very well could have still been dating in her 7th year. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 23:10, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


Oriental is the correct British term for someone of east - asian decent, Asian is Arabic / Indian. Even though it's considered offensive in the US in the UK it’s the politicly correct term. If this is a british wiki it should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Source? S*a*p*h*n*a 12:27, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

cho chang deathly hallows part 1

thye have made a mistkake with cho chang in the movies she is suposed to be 1 year above harry yet in deathly hallows part 1 she is listed as being a student of hogwarts sugegsting she is finishing her final year of in deathly hallows part 1 , and in part 2 she is said to be a part of the wizarding world so by part 2 she has finish school , which is stupid so they are saying she did half a year at hogwarrts as her seventh year in part 1 when she should have been gone by them.

maybe they have done this so she can be in 2 parts. anyway i have found another screencap of her in the half blood prince. here is the link to it :

she is behind luna lovegood who knows why she is supporting gryffendor , when she and harry broke up and she is on the ravenclaw team lol. Methstix 18:34, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's Cho, I think it's another student who looks like her, although it's worth noting that there are several non-Gryffindor students wearing red and gold in the crowd, including Luna and Padma Patil. Since it was the Slytherin game it's possible students from Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw were picking sides for the one game, not for eternal allegiance... 01:01, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Section

under the harry potter section where u have a picture of cho supporting harry at a quiddich match, infact that screencap is from the half blood prince where she and everyone else is chearing on ron. just to let u no ;P

Methstix 10:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC)


I don't like Cho because (not racist) she just interrupts great films. I don't like her character. The actors ok cause she's real and not annoying but I hate Cho character. But thats my opinion User:Donut4

Cho Chang's name in Chinese characters


This is for talking about the article. Not personal opinions. Alumeng 12:58, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Differences between books and movies

I think the current explanation given for Cho's status as an Hogwarts student in the DH movies is inaccurrate :

"In the fourth book Cho takes her O.W.L.s, but in the film adaption whole that year is about the Triwizard Tournament and she has to take O.W.L.s in the fifth film. This explains why she is still at Hogwarts in the last film, she has been taken back a year. This makes her and the students in her year, from all houses, the only students that has been at Hogwarts for the longest time (for a student)."

The tournament didn't interrupt any courses, so why should it have interrupted exams ? Only quidditch stopped this year. Moreover, Cho isn't a challenger in the tournament, so it's not as if she had any schedule problems.

The simplier explanation is that in the movies, Cho's year has been changed, as it was for Romilda Vane and Katie Bell in HBP.

Another point :

"Cho Chang is well known for being Harry Potter's first crush, first kiss, and first ex-girlfriend in the Harry Potter series"

=> why "first ex-girlfriend" and not simply "first girlfriend" ? It's a quite strange formulation. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for Cho lovers or haters. It should remain as objective as possible.

Hugo patil 09:39, July 20, 2011 (UTC)


The article incorrectly uses the word "ironically" to describe coincedence, twice.

Can you say where? And please sign your comments with 4 ~ or the signature button Alumeng 13:01, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Name in Chinese

Although it's entirely possible that her Chinese name (Zhang Qiu) may imply meaning, it was almost certainly chosen due to the similarities in pronounciation (qiu being pronounced like "cheeo"). This should probably be mentioned. 19:13, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Michael Corner

For the record, when she returns to Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows, the book says that she goes to sit by Michael Corner, implying that their relationship had continued on some level (in response to the above discussion about the extent of their dating -- her 6th/7th yr...)

Blood status

I wasn't sure whether to remove it from the page, but this page makes the claim that because Cho's mother worked at the Ministry and Cho supported Quidditch since she was six she must be half- or pure-blood. This is not so. If her parents both are Muggle-born she will be Muggle-born (her father couldn't be pure Muggle or her mother wouldn't be allowed talking about Quidditch), but her mother would have knowledge of Quidditch and might have told Cho of it. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:18, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What's more, she's currently labeled as a Blood traitor. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:30, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
I did wonder, though...
  1. Is "blood traitor" a blood status, like pure-blood, Muggle-born, half-blood, etc.?
  2. Is Cho supposed to be at Hogwarts in the seventh book/film? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:36, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

Cho Chang's wand

The picture there is obviously not what her wand looks like. Go to the Noble Collection website; it's completely different. PeppermintButler77 (talk) 02:38, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:09, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

Corrections without personal views?

Roger is simply her team captain? They are seen talking and she says during her date with Harry that he asked her out but she refused in an attempt at making Harry jealous. Harry also sees her talking to her captain in the Ravenclaw Vs. Gryffindor game in book 5. He was with Fleur for the Ball and had a girlfriend during Harry's fifth year, so I believe this fact is wrong and simply inserted there by the OP.

Also, I vote the 'first and ex girlfriend' part get removed. The article is suppossed to be for information but it keeps on taking subtle jabs at the character from the writer's PoV.

The use of 'bessotted' repeatedly when discussing her friend also shows signs of personal opinions. This should be a clear view of the character, nothing else. It also questions Cho's idea of friendship, as the article says she seems to have poor judgement when it comes to them when in reality that was a comment made by an angry Harry, who also had issues with his friends walking out on him.

The 'jumping from boys to boys' comment that's there also seems a bit odd, as Ginny had three boyfriends as well in total (that we know of) and broke up with the first two near the end of two of her school school years. Why do numbers matter in the first place?

As Cho seemed rather interested in Harry by the end of book 7, it seems to point that she still has feelings for him. Mrs. Rowling added on a set of notes as she plotted book 5 that Cho is madly in love' with Harry despite her moodswings as she mourns Cedric, so the actions at the end of the book make sense.

Cho also did not 'start crying' when Harry refused to forgive Marietta, it is mentioned that her eyes widened, I believe? But little else, which seems to show she was hurt by Harry's sudden aloofness.

Also, the comment about Ginny ('who would become Harry's true love') also shows this article was writen by someone who clearly has views on a particular ship. This entire parragraph about Ginny trying to become better than Cho at quidditch to impress Harry is incorrect, as Ginny wasn't really playing to surpass anyone.

Seeker years

In PA, Oliver tells Harry that he has just learned that Cho plays Seeker for Ravenclaw. Does the wording impky that Cho was made Seeker that year?--Rodolphus (talk) 11:16, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

The exact statement is - "Harry, I've just found out who Ravenclaw are playing as Seeker. It's Cho Chang. She's a fourth-year, and she's pretty good ... I really hoped she wouldn't be fit, she's had problems with injuries".
Cho may have started playing as Seeker that September, but Ravenclaw have only played two games so far. Wood makes it sound as though Cho has played more than that, and has had more than one problem with injuries and her playing. But Ravenclaw flattened Hufflepuff in the previous game, so maybe her reputation started then.
I don't think the wording implies that Cho only started playing that year, or that game. I was unable to find any more hints in PS or COS as to who was Seeker in the previous year. Maybe just say that she was Seeker by 1994? -- Kates39 (talk) 11:25, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Unneeded emphasis on Japanese etymology conjecture

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

"Cho Chang" is almost certainly a Chinese, or possibly Korean name. However, (and this is coming from someone who lived in East Asia for decades), there is no possibility that it is Japanese. So why the emphasis on what her name could mean in Japanese?

It'd be like if I took Harry Potter, a profoundly English name, and started speculating on its meaning in Polish. It seems like unnecessary conjecture. Brainwasher5 (talk) 17:55, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Ditto; I remember seeing that a few years ago, and scoff it as people thinking all Asian names are interchangeable. I mean, I can kind of understand wanting to be thorough, and let's face it, there is the extremely odd chance that Cho actually had a Chinese/Korean dad AND a Japanese mom, or something just as unlikely to make it work, but really? I have the same problem with Tulip Karasu's etymology. If that's a Japanese name, that's heck of unconventional. But yeah, I'm guessing most people didn't have an issue with it, or it wouldn't have lasted on the page this long. Sighs. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 08:59, June 22, 2018 (UTC)


GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Sup folks! I have a question about when it is okay to "assume" where the character is from. For Oliver Wood, the introduction paragraph, the infobox, and category, all identified him as Scottish, when in reality:

Oliver was portrayed by Sean Biggerstaff in the film adaptations [...] Biggerstaff portrayed Wood as a Scot, although this is never mentioned in the books.

Now, Cho's page has something similar:

Cho was portrayed in the [...] film adaptation [...] by Scottish actress Katie Leung, who portrayed her as a Scot, although this is never mentioned in the books.

YET, her page does not have the Scot reference other than the above blockquote; with the category she's in being the generic "British individuals" instead of "Scottish individuals" as used on Oliver's page. Isn't that pretty double-standard? Is there a reason why she's not identified as a Scot when Oliver is?

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 08:59, June 22, 2018 (UTC)