I don't know what ⊙ in Pisces, ☽ in Leo means. Can someone explain to me what it translates to? --KiumaruHamachi 01:09, April 26, 2011 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi
I know this is a bit old, but to explain: At the time of Mafalda's birth, the sun was in Pisces and the moon was in Leo. The former means she was born in late Feburary-early March, but moon signs are more complex; it heavily depends on not only your date of birth, but the time and location as well. In other words, it's nigh impossible to translate that to an actual date without a higher amount of knowledge in astrology than a quick Google search can give you. Leave it to wizards to use a horribly imprecise and overly complicated dating format that'd you need a degree in astrology (or a N.E.W.T. in Divination, as it were) to understand it. 1337star 00:46, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
- The moon moves through the entire Zodiac every lunar cycle, and thus it's going to be in Leo at least once every time the sun is in Pisces, which is between February 20 and March 20 every year. Thus we can't use Mafalda's known astrological information to try to pin down her possible birth years. Plus, since the moon isn't always in Leo on the same days whenever the sun is in Pisces, we can't make her potential range of birth dates any narrower than "between February 20 to March 20." ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:20, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that a photo of an interview with the actress? I seem to remember the interview I just don't remember where.....should we change it to an actual one from the movie? Alumeng 21:12, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (specifically, the "Ministry of Magic" featurette on the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 DVD, according to the image page). However, does it really matter? Visually, it's Mafalda Hopkirk in the Ministry of Magic. Who cares if it's really Sophie Thompson dressed as Mafalda giving an interview on a Ministry of Magic set piece? If she wasn't dressed in character and wasn't on set, it'd be different, but visually this could be a shot from the film if you didn't know better. I agree if another suitable image exists, it'd be preferable, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the current one either. -- 1337star (talk) 22:29, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
"Given the politeness of her warning notices and that Hopkirk's Polyjuice Potion was described as having a "pleasent heliotrope colour", it is possible that she is a kind witch and not nasty like her superiors."
I have no problem with the first half of the statement, but wouldn’t it be better to leave out the "nasty superiors" part? I mean, is “nasty like her superiors” really necessary? Oh, and I thought that commas were suppose to be inside the quotation marks, not outside them like it is here.
EDIT: I changed the problems I had with the line. If you disagree, we can discuss that. - Deathislife2011 20:14, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not very clear on how she could be a Pure-blood. I guess my reason for not being clear is because she was often looked down upon by her superiors, which could suggest that she isn't a pure-blood.
It says in the article that she's probably either a pure-blood or a half-blood. I assume that she's a half-blood. There's no evidence hinting that she is a blood traitor - should she be a pure-blood. I thought that she could have been Muggle-born, but then I noticed this reference on her page. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:56, October 8, 2014 (UTC)