This is the talk page for the article "William Weasley."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

In use

I replaced the in use tag because I am actively working on a rewrite. See User:Cavalier One/Parchment for progress. Please do not remove it again. thank you. - Cavalier One 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The inuse tag is only supposed to be used for two hours, at most, according to the main Wikipedia help pages [1]. The tag had been up for three days when I removed it. I'll leave it though; I only wanted to fix one link and one sentence so it doesn't matter too much to me. PinkRibbons 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? Two hours? Wow. I didn't know that. I confess though, that I don't edit the main Wikipedia much, but wikis like this one. Several allow the inuse tag to remain for days while large scale rewrites take place. When rewriting, I usually do it away from the article page to give me more freedom. Sorry if I seemed a little prickly over it. - Cavalier One 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're supposed to put it up as you're adding the information back into the main article, but actually work on and include edits (done over a period days, etc.) back into your own page that you're working on it in. I should probably add that to the template usage section... -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's right, inuse tags are only for direct work on the article. The main reason they were created was to prevent edit conflicts, so putting up an inuse tag and leaving it there for a day or so would deter others from editing same article and would be considered "hogging" the workspace. If you're working on a rewrite under your namespace, the inuse tag would be superfluous; you could use it though when replacing the main article with your rewrite, but frankly, with the negligible traffic flow here, I doubt you'd even need to do that anyway. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually needed it while adding my rewrite of Rubeus Hagrid back onto the real page. Its a good idea to use it during that phase. And hopefully people will abide by it. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully I can get rid of it soon anyway - I plan to finish off the rewrite tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest. I'll bear the template usage in mind for my next work :) - Cavalier One 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill marrying Fleur

I think Bill desevres better than her. Getting into married like that was not to last. -- HallieryElizabeth 02:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well what really matters is that they both love each othe. -- GrouchMan 01:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First name

How is it known that his name is William? He could be Bilius (after his uncle) or maybe just "Bill".

"The Wedding" chapter in DH. Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gryffindor ?

If Bill Weasley was sorted into Gryffindor, shouldn't he have a Gryffindor infobox? Just wondering! Thanks.

Iluvgracie129 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill's infobox is the Order of the Phoenix one since it's his most recent affiliation. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Is there a chance that anyone might be willing to accept a discussion on changing the articles name to Bill? I know its his fully name, but I really don't think it works when he has been called Bill throughout the entire book and is called William once. I'll probably get shut down, but I think changing the articles name to Bill is a good idea. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We had a voting on this. Full names won. So, Ludo Bagman turned Ludovic Bagman, Ron Weasley turned Ronald Weasley, Bill Weasley turned William Weasley, among others. -- Seth Cooper Moon (Owl Post) 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New Image

I'm not for the new image. You can't see his face, and it is not a photograph from the movies like the previous picture was, but rather fan art. --Parodist 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaa... It's not fan art... It's a promotional picture from Deathly Hallows (film). -- Seth Cooper Moon (Owl Post) 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
But here it says that Bill will not be attacked by Greyback in the movie, and so I thought that there would not be any pictures of a scarred Bill. --Parodist 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of that cut on the HBP/f before... Well, I can assure you this picture is from the DH/f (if I remember correctly, it's from one of the scenes on the Shell Cottage). -- Seth Cooper Moon (Owl Post) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay. But we'll have to change the HBP (film) page, where it says MR. Weasley will be attacked by the werewolf instead... I still preferred the other picture, in which you could see his face, but if this is the most recent we have. . . --Parodist 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like the new picture. The old one was blurry and inaccurate anyway. Bill does have long hari. ShirleyALuna Lovegood(The Quibbler) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this image of Bill is the best one we have, it shows him in his most recent form, scarred. And to clear things up the dierector has said that Bill Weasley will be attacked durinng the 7 Potters sequence at the start of DH so he is scarred after this scene. Patr0nus ( Expecto Patronum! ) 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally think this image would do better, simply in the fact that, as he is facing the screen, it is more encyclopediac, where as the one we have now is more artsy.
Bill weasleyDH

This picture is scary. Not a very becoming picture of Bill.--Adumb1881 12:35, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Fenrir Greyback's picture is scary with those eyes, but we still use it. This image is the best we have at the moment, but if we get one better in Deathly Hollows, we use that one instead. Simple.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:51, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

This guy looks too much like his dad, Brendan Gleeson (he plays Mad-Eye Moody). --Mark Order of the Phoenix logo (Owl me) 21:05, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the guy in the new photo is actually Domhnall Gleeson? Just check his page: doesn't look like him at all... could this one just be a stunt? 13:37, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too sure, it is possible that this man is just Domhnall Gleeson's marker, which is a hired look-alike in costume who marks through the scenes before the actual actors/actresses do them so that the dierector can see if it works for them, it helps keep higher-paid actors/actresses work load down. As he doesn't look that much like Gleeson in the picture, it is feesable that this is his marker. Patr0nus ( Expecto Patronum! ) 14:12, January 2, 2010 (UTC)


Is it necessary a relationship section for Children, Nieces and Nephews? I don't think so.--El Profeta Vespertino 18:11, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

More etymology

I've read somewhere that the German root of this name, Willhelm, can mean "magic helmet" (Will-helm, a helm(et) that facilitates focusing the will). This is another way in which the name is appropriate. Perhaps, if a cite is found, it could go into the article? -- RobertATfm 10:54, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I changed the photo from the previous one because the new photo looks better. We see more of his face, More of his scar, A less akward view of his head, And overall better colors. The photo was a promotional image so it should be good to use. Hamza780 (talk) 23:28, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Newer photo

I changed the photo from the previous one because the new photo looks better. We see more of his face, More of his scar, A less akward view of his head, And overall better colors. The photo was a promotional image so it should be good to use.Hamza780 (talk) 23:30, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but please don't change an infobox image without discussion. If you wish to change the photo, then start a discussion. I've included the image in question here, so a discussion can take place, though the image needs proper copyright/sourcing information in order to remain. I'll absent myself from any further discussion as I like both images equally and given that, would maintain the status quo. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:52, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
I myself prefer the image to the right. -- Saxon 18:08, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
I personally prefer the one we already have in the infobox, as it shows his full face, his eyes, eye colour, facial structure, etc. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:25, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
Bumping. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:17, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


Shouldn't his infobox be changed to Gringotts given he still worked fot the Bank after the Second Wizarding War, making it his most rescent affiliation?--Rodolphus (talk) 09:50, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Bumping. --Rodolphus (talk) 21:49, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. -- Kates39 (talk) 22:05, June 5, 2017 (UTC)