Talk: Ronald Weasley

I wanted to leave a note because i just removed a lot of text from this article and i didn't want it to come off as a vandalism. There were numerous references to "the books" in this article, which I removed to place it "in universe." There were also paragraphs with repeating information and (not intending to insult the original author) almost what seemed like book summaries which I felt made the article very lengthy. Some information was written in a conversational and essay-type format. Links also appeared multiple times, along with lengthy quotes, and those were taken out as well. I also rearranged some of the info to follow the formats of the other main characters' articles. Anyway, I spent several hours editing this article, so if there is something amiss hopefully we can discuss it and add to it. Mafalda Hopkirk 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Do you think Ron could do with a better quote at the top, maybe a more funny one? Palmala 13 June 16:20

Probably, do you have any suggestions? -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had some ideas, perhaps:

I want to fix that in my memory forever. Draco Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret...-Ron

or maybe....

Just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all have-Hermione

As it's quite a big page I thought I should get some more opinions before I change it. Any preferance? Palmala 13 June 21:57

Both good. I feel like the Hermione quote is better for a different place in the article, as for the Malfoy one -- I'm not sure it describes him as a whole. I don't know. I like 'em both though. -- DarkJedi613 ^(Talk) 04:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am not sure about you but don't you think the line in the first book when Hermione says "You have dirt on your nose, did you know?".

"Sunshine, daisies, butter mellow, turn this stupid, fat rat yellow." 24.99.14.141 02:36, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I know the top quote is from the first book, but it says a lot about Ron's personality. He was always taking the backseat, putting up with whatever, taking one for the team. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 02:40, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the current top quote really reflects Ron's personality. I mean, yeah, he and Harry have an argument but there are lots of better ways of describing him. Besides, that particular quote was said in very special situation when Ron's under the "effect" of the locket, he didn't really mean to say so. Anyway, I believe it's giving a bad impression of Ron which is not really accurate. 190.137.12.71 18:22, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sexual References

Urgh, do we have to put 'sexual tension' in the Hermione section? It's disgusting and completely unnecessary. You might forget that there are a certain amount of underage minors who are avid fans of Harry Potter (I being one of them) and I don't think that they would take it very well. Ginny and Harry's relationship is a lot deeper and we don't have any sexual references there! ~ Hermione's Gone Asian 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree --Lupin & Kingsley 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree! They never made any sick refrences, EVER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intrudgero98 (talk • contribs).

When they say 'sexual tension' it actually means that they are friends of the opposite sex/gender Jamie Quest 05:52, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Difference to Hermiones article

1) "Hermione poured herself into defending Buckbeak" not a single word about Ron helping her, which is mentioned in Ron`s article.

2) "Ron was forced to face the reality that there were bigger things at stake than his success with girls when his schoolmate Cedric Diggory was murdered" Stupid, stupid Ron??? Is that what you want to say with that? The whole event is not mentioned in Hermiones article.

3) It is not mentioned that Ron was part of the second task, too.

4) Compare "Ron became a member of sorts, though he was too young to be a full-fledged member." with "Hermione Granger was made an underage member of the Order of the Phoenix in 1995."

5) Compare "over-the-top exhibitionist relationship" with "very public relationship". The first one is judgemental.

6) Compare "The trio ... freed some Muggle-born witches and wizards" with "she and Harry managed to free the Muggle-born prisoners". The trio or only Hermione and Harry??

7) "This earned him Harry's forgiveness, but Hermione was still furious with him for his abandonment for some time." This sounds like Hermione knew what happened with the Horcrux and decided to ignore it to be mean.

8) Compare "Ron disarmed Bellatrix and pulled Hermione from the wreckage of the fallen chandelier, Disapparating them to Shell Cottage." with "Hermione and the other prisoners were rescued by Dobby the house-elf, who brought them to Shell Cottage".

9) "who likely was unaware that Ron was mostly trying to make Hermione jealous" Truth or wishfull thinking on behave of the rabid Hermione fan author?? May want to read this: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2434233/38/DragonHeart

Answer to above

First of all, I'd like to point out that of course there are going to be some differences between Ron and Hermione's articles. Hermione's article is centered on her; it is not going to be as detailed in describing what Ron has done because that's not its aim. As for individual points:

1) Is it untrue that "Hermione poured herself into defending Buckbeak"? No. Ron's offer to help her came after they made up. This probably should be mentioned in Hermione's article.

2) I agree that statement is a bit funny, too speculative, and in need of editing, but I don't see what it has to do with Hermione's article.

3) I agree that Ron's participation in the Second Task should certainly be mentioned in his article, but not necessarily in Hermione's. It has very little or nothing to do with her.

4) I don't see a major difference — both make it clear that Hermione and Ron are affiliated with the Order, but are underage.

5) The first one is judgmental, but it's based on Harry's perception of Ron and Lavender's relationship in HBP. But I agree it could probably be phrased more neutrally.

6) "The trio ... freed some Muggle-born witches and wizards" and "she and Harry managed to free the Muggle-born prisoners" are both correct. Remember that Ron was separated from Harry and Hermione for a time because Yaxley sent "Cattermole" to fix his office. He wasn't there when Harry and Hermione knocked out Umbridge and Yaxley and rushed the Muggle-borns out of their cells. He assisted at the end.

7) I disagree on your interpretation of that sentence — I think it makes it clear that Harry forgave Ron because he'd just saved his life, whereas Hermione did not feel that Ron had earned her forgiveness yet — but you could always change it slightly to be clearer that she did not know what happened with the Horcrux.

8) Some more detail should probably be added to the escape from Malfoy Manor in Hermione's article, I agree.

9) I'm not entirely sure what you're disputing in that sentence. That Ron was with Lavender to make Hermione jealous? That, if he was, Lavender was unaware of it? That Hermione was jealous at all? In any case, a fanfiction piece is not evidence of anything, for one. Also, there is no need to accuse someone of being a "rabid" anything. If you disagree with something in an article, simply start a discussion about it, outlining your point with support from canon.

Feel free to reply here or on my talk page if you want to discuss this further. Oread 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Dolores Umbridge

Is it really necessary to have this relationship on this page. Although Umbridge was Ron's teacher, they really had no direct fights as she did with Harry. And this article is all about Umbridge and not her relationship with Ron. I think it should be deleted. --Adumb1881 11:29, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Animals

What animal got Ron after 'Scabbers'?--Station7 12:31, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

No help, I see it.--Station7 13:05, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

The asnswer to that is in the article (Pigwidgeon) Jamie Quest 05:55, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Main Image Choice

Okay, I think the main image of Rupert Grint as the first image in the article has to go. Yes it's recent (obviously one of the leaked on-screen shots from the 'Deathly Hallows' film set) but it is just too much of a 'natural shot'. There are countless images of Rupert Grint actually facing the camera and smiling that we could use instead.--Yin&Yang 13:12, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a actor's photoshot. In actor's photoshot's they're not meant to be all smiley and cheerfull. And as you said, Yin&Yang, this is a recent photograph. Jamie Quest 05:58, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Later Career

Either citation is needed for the statement "Following this, Ron obtained employment through the Ministry of Magic as an Auror, along with Harry." or it needs to be removed. The only reference I've seen regarding his post Hogwarts career is when JKR says "Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner..." (interview located here).71.87.178.212 08:15, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

I've read a lot more than that and J.K. Rowling did say that he became an Auror along with Harry Jamie Quest 05:59, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Which came first: the Auror or the Wheezes?

I've been checking some of the interviews JKR gave after Deathly Hallows was released, and this is what I've found regarding Ron's post-War career:

"Of course she'd [Hermione] go back [to Hogwarts]. She has to get her N.E.W.T.s. Ron was really done with schooling. It would be kind of tempting to go back just to mess around for a year and have a break, but he goes into the Auror department. He's needed. Anyone. Anyone who was in that battle on the right side, Kingsley would want them to help clean up the-- I mean, anyone who's old enough to do it, who's over-age. But Kingsley would've wanted Ron, Neville, Harry and they would've all gone, and they would've all done the job. And I think that that would've been a good thing for them, too. Because to go through that battle and then be religated to the sidelines, I think they would've felt a need to keep going and finish the job. So that would've been rounding up, really, the corrupt people who were doing a Lucius Malfoy and trying to pretend that they weren't really involved."

— www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html

Q: "At the end you say that, or you tell us that Neville is a Professor at Hogwarts. What do Harry, Hermione and Ron do for a living?"

A: "Yeh, I think that's what everyone wants to do. Harry and Ron utterly revolutionize the Auror Department. They are now the experts. It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they've done. And Hermione, Well I think that she's now pretty high up in the Department for Magical Law Enforcement. I would imagine that her brainpower and her knowledge of how the Dark Arts operate would really give her a sound grounding. They made a new world."

— www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0726-today-vieira1.html

"The Ministry of Magic was de-corrupted, and with Kingsley at the helm the discrimination that was always latent there was eradicated. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny et al would of course play a significant part in the re-building of wizarding society through their future careers."

— www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html

Q: "Hi jk, first of all thank you for all the books I have enjoyed each and every one of them could you tell us what professions Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny and Luna go on to have did the trio do their final year at school and take their newts?"

A: "Thank you! I’ve already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department. Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn’t mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years). Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner..."

— www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html

"Well, I don’t think that George would ever get over losing Fred, which makes me feel so sad. However, he names his first child and son Fred, and he goes on to have a very successful career, helped by good old Ron."

— www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html

Q: "Where do the main characters work as adults?"

A: "Harry and Hermione are at the Ministry: he ends up leading the Auror department. Ron helps George at the joke shop and does very well."

— www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1695388_1695569,00.html

The way I see it this leaves two possibilities: Either Ron became an Auror, then went to work at WWW (see 1st quote for support about him going into the Auror Department first), or he became an Auror, went to work at WWW, then went back to being an Auror. The last quote listed (from Time.com) seems to support the first possibility. Unless anyone can provide any further references, those parts of the article will need to be rewritten. If there are no objections or further comments within 24 hours of this post, I'll go ahead with the changes. - Nick O'Demus 01:29, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Two Problems

1.'"Honestly sir, I think it did more damage to us than we did to it." —Ron Weasley to Severus Snape in 1992' should we add that he was talking about the Whomping willow or not? Considering that there is a link to it.

2.It says hes Pure-blood but doesn't Lucius Malfoy refer to him and his family as "blood traitors", or is he just doing this to insult him?

TheKillingCurse 16:39, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

(1) Since there is already a link to it, I don't think it's necessary to mention that's what he's talking about.

(2) Yes, Ron is pure-blood. "Blood traitor" is an insult that simply means one doesn't discriminate against Muggles and Muggle-borns.

--Cubs Fan ^{(Talk to me)} 19:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

"Old image" remains main image. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

With the release of an Official Promotional image of Ronald Weasley from the film adaption of Deathly Hallows I think we should change the infobox image accordingly, as we have done in Hermione Granger article. --El Profeta Vespertino 17:38, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Old image

New image

Support for "Old Image" (File:Ron DH.PNG) (+3)

1. This image has better quality. Besides, in the "new image", it looks like Ron is blond. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 13:19, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 14:55, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
3. There's not much point in changing these images right now, seeing as it is widely agreed we will be using epilogue images for the main characters eventually. Jayden Matthews 15:03, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support for "New Image" (File:RON_HP7.jpg) (+0)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about this image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abrawak (talk • contribs).

Should Epilogue images be used as the main images?

I think not. The images should stay the same or at least stay the images of the trio as Teen-agers not old 30 year olds. Support if you agree below:

1. Firefox1095^{All is well...} 02:39, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The characters have grown up, and as a in-universe wiki, we should use the most chronologically recent pictures. If we wouldn't, that would be like having, I don't know, a picture of a fifteen-year-old Queen Elizabeth II on her infobox in her Wikipedia article: it just wouldn't make sense. Anyways, this isn't the right place for this discussion. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:36, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: wait until after DH: Part 2 comes out before using the epilogue pictures. Stick with the pre-epilogue pictures from the DH films until then. - Nick O'Demus 08:52, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Post-DH2 infobox images#Ronald Weasley

Too many images

2 section has way too many images. Ronald Weasley#Leaving and returning to his friends and Ronald Weasley#Battle of Hogwarts have too many images. --Station7 14:50, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Once again I disagree with you. Articles are always better with more images. —Firefox1095 22:48, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can see the images also on other sites. It looks to much. --Station7 11:36, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

But seeing the images on other sites is a bad thing for WIKIA. This will decline the number of visitors that come to the Harry Potter wikia. The article is better like that. Just leave it the way it is. —Firefox1095 22:57, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, now looks the article fine with the images. Now the 2 sections are better :) --Station7 14:11, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Possessions

To be quite frank, shouldn't Ron have even more possessions? Like Scabbers, although it was a former posession I still think it should be down there, his owl pigwidegon, and the car? and not to mention a lot more others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JuniperAlien (talk • contribs).

The car belonged to his father Arthur; he borrowed/stole it (whichever way you like to view the events of 1 September 1992), but it was never legally a "possession" of his. -- RobertATfm (talk) 18:08, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Prefect

I still can't believe he became a prefect over Harry. Head.Boy.Hog (Talk To Me) 13:43, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

i think we should put bloody hell as his quote 70.17.231.4 00:47, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image vote

Forum:Post-DH2 infobox images#Ronald Weasley

Follow the link. Nominations are still open. Voting starts in 3 days. - Nick O'Demus 14:48, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Australia

It says that he went with Hermione to Australia to reverse her memory charm she had done on her parents. Hermione was to emotional, so he undid the spell. This smells like fanon, but I may be wrong. Please cite a source or remove this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.81.221.237 (talk • contribs).

Removed it. Not sure why you couldn't have done it, the page isn't protected. Also, always sign talk page entries with four tildes (~). -Shorty1982 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

{{Youmay}}

The reason I added a "{{Youmay}}" tag to the page was that Ronald redirects there, so someone may have been looking for that Ronald but been redirected to here.

Octopus

Tom Marvolo Octopus

At 20:47, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Boggart

The infobox lists Ron's boggart as an acromantula. More specifically, Rowling stated that the acromantula was, in fact, Aragog. -- SaXon 18:17, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. I'll change the article accordingly. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:30, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Should Ron having a gut be mentioned in the article?

The films, which, as per canon policy, are second only to the books, show that Ron has gotten fat by the time of the epilogue; nowhere does the book state this (as appearances aren't stated for Ron, Harry, Hermione or Ginny) but nowhere does the book deny this, so should it be added into the article, or not? HarryPotterRules1 01:59, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but from what I can tell, when discussing characters' appearances on this wiki, we usually only refer to the novel's description, not what is in the films. —C Teng 16:15, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Cared more about harry then own family

Should we mention that he was only a little upset when fred died but when he though harry died he was really upset? It seems like he cares more about harry then fred —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamza721 (talk • contribs).

We don't house opinions in our articles, only facts. Ron's reasons for leaving the group temporarily earlier in the book clearly shows how much he cares about his family. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 05:55, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

He forgets about fred after the battle though, he didnt really seem to care that he died

Hamza721 (talk) 06:05, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well actually, in the DH2 film, Ron is crying over Fred's body but doesn't show much emotion when he sees Harry's "dead" body in Rubeus Hagrid's arms. MrSiriusBlack (talk) 18:17, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Height/Weight

Should Ron's height and weight, as given in the film supplementary material, really be mentioned in the article? Given that this wiki goes for book information as more canon than movie? In the books, Ron is clearly specified as tall, the tallest of the trio. Exact heights are not mentioned, I am aware, however, 5'9" is not 'tall' in any case for a male. The impression the books give of Ron (and indeed, Arthur, Percy and Bill) are that they are likely above 6 feet. Harry's article does not have a height listed, and I can only assume that despite any movie material that lists Daniel Radcliffe's height for Harry is not taken into consideration because it contradicts the description of Harry being tall. So why should Ron, or any character, be different? Miraitrunks766 (talk) 04:58, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the books to contradict that Ron is 5'9; Harry is short, so 5'9 would be considered "tall" for him. Until the books give an actual height, we use the ministry files. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:21, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

• Harry is not short; only his actor is. The later books describe Harry as being 'tall', like his father, even if he is shorter than Ron. Granted, yes, heights are hard to guess, but in no way is Daniel Radcliffe's height of 5'6" considered tall; its barely average, nor is it listed as Harry's actual height. My point is that the books contradict the ministry files from the films, regardless of whether heights are listed numerically in the books or not. Books are the highest canonical source, and supersede the films and props not even seen in the films. It is not only Ron's height that should be removed from info boxes, it is every height taken from the film prop ministry files that does not logically correlate to the descriptions in the books.Miraitrunks766 (talk) 04:27, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, until order of the Phoenix, Harry is described as "scrawny" and "small" and Fred and George even call him a "scrawny specky git" in Deathly Hallows. Nothing in the books give an exact height (e.g the books do not say "Harry was exactly five and a half feet tall") so the Ministry files are canon as they do not contradict anything. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:06, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

--Hermione's Surname== Can Hermione's surname in the infobox be changed from Weasley nee Granger to Granger, as we now know from Pottermore evidence of the Quidditch World Cup that married Hermione kept her surname? Rosie Sourbut (talk) 11:20, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

This page is a bit of a mess

I seriously hate to say this, but this page is not well-made at all. There are spelling and grammatical errors everywhere, it is far too detailed and often goes off the topic of Ron, a fair amount of the information on it is flat-out incorrect, and it's written in an almost fan fcition-esque style. --Amanda C Owens (talk) 13:28, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Irish?

Aren't the Weasleys Irish? I noticed they had Irish dancing at the wedding, and it seems with their red hair they may be Irish. Just curious! Mandini76 (talk) 16:46, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Alias

I think that maybe we should keep Ron in the alias section. It is a self-choosen nickname, so why wouldn't it count? Other short forms have been listed in the alias sections (Stan, Perce, Ernie) Should we readd Ron to the alias field or should we remove Stan and Ern, and other such cases, from the alias section of the respective articles? it's a very similar situation.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:19, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Way to try to obligate the other changes if you don't get your edit. Ron is much more used than your examples. Also Ron INTRODUCES himself to Harry as Ron. If we want to add it anywhere it should be in a preferred name section. Goofyd00d (talk) 11:44, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Ron is a name that Ronald is also known as which is why it should be included in the alias field. The definition of alias is that it is "used to indicate that a named person is also known or more familiar under another specified name." Ron is a nickname that he is also known as more familiary. --Kates39 (talk) 14:07, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Rodolphus & Kates39. His full name is Ronald, but his is also known as (AKA) Ron. It meets all the criteria for the AKA/Alias guideline requirements so it should be added back. --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:37, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Ok ok, but I would like for it to be differentiated from other aliases as he calls himself Ron, unlike the examples provide before, which are names others call those people (ie: Percy doesn't refer to himself as Perce). Maybe: "Ron (preferred)" or something like that Goofyd00d (talk) 20:10, October 15, 2016 (UTC)