http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jack_%22BtR%22_Saxon (Vaudree (talk) 13:00, January 4, 2016 (UTC))
- Your point being? -- 14:07, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
The last person to edit referred to Ollivander's deceased daughter as Ms Ollivander which is presuming information that we don't have. It may or may not turn out to be correct, but we don't know that yet.
- First name unknown.
- Age at death unknown.
- Cause of death unknown.
- Marital status at time of death unknown.
- Surname at time of death unknown.
I may have my opinion as to who she is, since having one's eyes referred to as pale and/or grey is quite common, only Garrick Ollivander and one other character have their eye colour described as "silver" and both are also described as "unblinking". But those would be speculations on my part. Just as declaring her surname at time of death as Ollivander would be pure speculation - likely based on someone else's theory concerning her age at death. (Vaudree (talk) 14:35, January 4, 2016 (UTC))
- As the daughter of Mr Ollivander, it is incredibly likely that she was born with that surname. -- Saxon 16:00, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
I would presume it canon that she was born with that surname - that she was Ms Ollivander when born and for some time after. What is not known is whether or not she was Ms Ollivander when she died. (Vaudree (talk) 16:07, January 4, 2016 (UTC))
- Her surname when she died doesn't really matter. "Ms" is not related to marital status. -- Saxon 16:24, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
- Ms can be any marital status. Lily Evans and Nymphadora Tonks died Lily Potter and Nymphadora Lupin - they did not revert back to Evans and Tonks when they died. When you put down Ms Ollivander, you are assuming that this was her name when she died. Anyone reading the entry will assume that you have canon to back up that assumption.
- You don't have canon to say that it was. You don't have canon to say that it wasn't. Thus, the wording has to be such that no assumption is made. Sometimes staying within canon means being intentionally vague - so as to avoid making assumptions not backed up by canon. (Vaudree (talk) 19:30, January 4, 2016 (UTC))
- I really don't understand what you mean -- this is being intentionally vague. All we know is that she was, at some point in her life, called Ollivander, so it's all we can say, really (it's not at all saying that she didn't marry -- that way, we'd refer to her as "Miss Ollivander"). We couldn't really refer to her as "Mrs Something-or-other in the event that she married". There are literally hundreds of articles in a similar situation (who's to say that Parvati Patil didn't marry since the 1990s, and now doesn't use her maiden surname? Same thing goes for Susan Bones, Marietta Edgecombe, Pansy Parkinson, Katie Bell, and I could just go on and on.)
- As "Ms" is marital status-neutral, we are not making any assumptions about it. -- 21:24, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
Ms is NOT in dispute. In my private notes, all the Madams have been changed to Ms and Ms is used when the first name is unknown.
Seth, you have inadvertently revealed the unwritten "as of ..." that allows the wikia to function. If one chose "as of 3014" then one can assume that most, if not all, of the characters we were introduced to in the books would be dead. The two possible "as of"s are the Battle of Hogwarts (where we know the status of most characters) and the year Albus Severus Potter and Rose Weasley start Hogwarts (where we know the status of only a few characters). For most characters, the "as of" would be the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Hogwarts - the late '90s. During the immediate aftermath, the characters you named were both single and alive and the future is yet to happen. Colin Creavey and George Weasley are single and dead (their marital status will never change nor will they ever have offspring). They have been denied a future. That is what their wikia entries say.
The thing is that sometime before the "as of" Garrick Ollivander's daughter died. If she married, she did so before, rather than after, she died. She could have been single, married, common-law married, divorce, or widowed at her time of death. She could have been a little girl like Ariana or Moaning Myrtle Warren or an adult. She may have had children or she may have been childless - but, that would be before she died. Even in the muggle world, children born after their mothers are dead tend to be rare (machines keep the body functioning until baby is born and usually they are born within a month of their mother's deaths).
Ollivander's daughter died prior to a certain point of time - her status at time of death is unknown, but preceded her death.
What is wrong with referring to her as the daughter of Garrick Ollivander and his wife! That was the way she was originally written before they changed it to Ms Ollivander. Hoping the entry is changed. Don't think that I have any more points I can make. I've either convinced you or I haven't.
- There's no "as of". We write what we know about the characters -- things we don't know about their lives are missing from their biographies even if those things did happen in-universe. In an in-universe point-of-view, time did not stop to any of the characters just because that's when we last heard of them. If we're to look at it from an in-universe point-of-view, people don't cease to exist following the Battle of Hogwarts or the Epilogue, and we're not "stopped" at that point: the proper way to look at it is that the characters moved on with their lives, and our pages may simply not be completely up-to-date or exhaustive, due to lack of sources (there's a distinction between biography and biographee -- see Newt Scamander's example: his sojourn in New York had already happened long before we knew about it; his biography was just incomplete up to now [still is to some degree, but I digress].).
- Anyways, I don't think I even follow your argument. You seem to be arguing that we don't know what Ms. Ollivander's martial status was at death, something which we agree on, and is not indicated in the article (for good reason; we don't know what it was) -- the wording "Ms. Ollivander", as has already been pointed out, is not any indicator of marital status. (Oh, and the article does currently refer to her as "the daughter of Garrick Ollivander and his wife" -- in fact, it uses those exact words!) What seems to be the problem, then, and what are you proposing? -- 00:37, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
It is an indication of her surname at time of death. We know that she died, but not her surname at time of death.
People's lives only go on if they are alive when we last saw them or heard of them.
One can change one's mind about someone who is dead, like Harry did of Snape - and of his father back and forth a few times. Historical events can be reinterpreted based on new information. But basic facts remain constant.
If you write "witch Ollivander was the deceased daughter of Garrick Ollivander and his wife" in the opening sentence, you are indicating that Ollivander was her surname at time of death. Alternatively, you can explain that her surname was unknown at time of death and then proceed to refer to her as a girl Ms Ollivander growing up in a household where her father was obsessed with a narrow body of knowledge (which most wizarding children would know little about). Or you can keep it as it is and sacrifice accuracy. Accuracy is very important when it comes to theorizing.
JKR only mentioned the Males that Garrick was descended from - and the only thing about Garrick's mother was that she was muggle-born (which is why he knew all about the Elder Wand but absolutely nothing about the cloak and stone or the three brothers). And she gave him a daughter then killed her off. Usually, when told about families, we have a few more details than that about the witches in the tree (which makes this unusual). The male line had Gar-Ger names - mostly sword names except Gervaise. Statistically, the odds are that the son also had a Gar-Ger name (though it could have been something else). Less so for the women since they married into the Ollivander family and since Gar-Ger name for females are next to nil. So the odds are that the naming traditions for daughters and mothers and grandmothers was different than for sons and fathers and grandmothers.
Statistics/playing the odds is not canon, but a component of theorizing - of trying to use what you know to figure out the blank spaces - such as what one does when one does the Suduku and the Cryptoquote. If you are given misinformation, it throws all theorizing off. With Suduku, if you put a number in a space when it can be one of two numbers, unless you are very lucky, you just prevented yourself from solving the Suduku.
If one assumes that the daughter's surname was Ollivander at the time of death, one is either very lucky or one has just increased the odds of being wrong.
Confession: Had a theory that Luna was Garrick's granddaughter based on the large silver non-staring eyes before we found out that Garrick had a dead daughter or Luna's mother was named Pandora (naming seer name). Not saying that the theory is correct, but putting down that Garrick's daughter was named Ollivander at the time of death means that she can't be Pandora or anyone who died fighting Voldemort or anyone else's mother who died when they were young. (Vaudree (talk) 16:07, January 5, 2016 (UTC))
- It doesn't indicate that at all. Cho Chang married but we don't know her married surname so we just call her Cho Chang. It's the same for Ms Ollivander. -- Saxon 18:04, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
- You would have a point, Vaudree, if we were to call her "Mrs. Ollivander". Which we don't. Ms doesn't give marital status, ergo, it doesn't say when she used the surname Ollivander. All we're saying is basically all we know -- that she used the surname Ollivander from birth until some later point in her life, if she did until death is unknown and never said. -- 22:06, January 5, 2016 (UTC)