|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dumbledore's Army article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Redirect.|
- 1 Lavender Brown
- 2 Served in Battle?
- 3 Wrong Name
- 4 Framing Dumbledore
- 5 DA Image
- 6 Pronuciation
- 7 Cho Chang's apparent betrayal
- 8 Marietta Edgecombe service
- 9 References
- 10 guy in the left of the picture
- 11 Justin Finch-Fletchley
- 12 "Battle" and "war"
- 13 In-universe
- 14 Page protected
- 15 About Cho Chang
- 16 Merge proposal
- 17 Ginny Weasley
- 18 Cho Chang
- 19 Roger Davies
- 20 Suggested replacement image
- 21 Deathly Hallows
- 22 Snape
- 23 "Impact in the real world"
- 24 bamf
- 25 Reversing the lede
- 26 Edits
- 27 Infobox
- 28 Fred and George
- 29 About this page's article titles
I saw the film last night, and her character does appear in "Deathly Hallows." She is NOT the girl who is attacked and killed by Fenrir. That character is unnamed. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah no it is Lavender, as to 'almost attacked' i'd like to point out the large gaping wound on her neck and the blood around Fenrir's mouth, I think it was a little more than almost 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
J.K. Rowling never actually addressed whether Lavender died in the end of DH. In the novel, the last mentioned of Lavender was that she was stirring feebly and crawling away, but never was said to be dead. In fact, when talking about where they placed Voldemort's body, it is said that his was placed away from 'Fred, Tonks, Lupin and Colin Creevey, plus some fifty others who fell.' Lavender was important enough that I think she would have been mentioned here had she died Iheartthestrals (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Served in Battle?
Okay, next to some people's names under the list of members, it mentions that some of them "served in battle". Wouldn't something else be appropriate? Served in battle sounds like they were in the military or sounds like they fought in a war. According to what I remember, they didn't have any MAJOR battles or anything. Wouldn't something like "active in combat" be better?
- I think "Battle" is appropriate, as it refers to the "Battle of Hogwarts" where they fought against the Death Eaters. Almost all DA members were present to fight.
--Airox 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The real name is Defense Association or something alike, not Dumbledore's Army. hello!
- Incorrect! Defense Association was an idea for the name, but after Ginevra suggested Dumbledore's Army, it became the official name, and Hermione recorded it at the top of that sheet with all their names. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 04:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect her name is genny not ginevra
--CranberryJ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Genny is also wrong The girl is most commonly known as Ginny.(E-flah)
- Cho Chang suggested the name "Defense Association" and the abbreviations "D.A.," so they can talk about the secret organization in public without blowing the whole secret to others. Ginny liked "D.A." but suggested "Dumbledore's Army" instead to mock the Ministry of Magic, who thought Dumbledore was building up an army.
--Airox 06:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ginny's real name is Ginevra. Ginny is her nickname.
- That is correct, her full name is Ginerva Molly Weasly but more commonly known as Ginny.
In the section where it remarks Dumbledore rescued Harry by framing himself, then escaping the Aurors; are we first sure that these could be called Aurors, given that Cornelius Fudge was at that point adamant no Dark Forces remained active? Furthermore, should it be acknowledged that one of these, Kingsley Shacklebolt is a member of the Order of the Phoenix and assisted Dumbledore - by surreptitiously modifying Edgecombe's memory?
- While that may be the case, the Ministry is still training Aurors, as can be seen by Tonks, who had only completed the training the year previous to OoTP. - Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 11:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The ministry may deny that Lord Voldemort has returned, however I dont think they have ever claimed that there are no Dark Wizards still at large or indeed former Death Eaters, (for example the sequence at the Quidditch World Cup in GOF). Therefore this may account for the continued need for Aurors. Dan 03:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The fan-drawn image doesn't really seem appropriate. I'd request its removal, if other people agree... --Cruci 13:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? No other image is yet available. When OoTP movie comes out, use one from there, but until then what's wrong with the fan one?
- I was going to say the same thing. I think it should go. 18.104.22.168 19:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's not particularly well drawn, and is in a style wholly alien to the series, for starters. Can we agree to follow what the majority of replies here suggest? It's rather like putting in pencil drawings on paper knapkins for all of the other characters that we haven't yet seen - it's simply inconsistant.--Cruci 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I like the image, actually, in the sense that it's a good drawing, but I don't know about whether it's good to use fan art to illustrate articles. Also that is a point about being in anime style, which is a little out of place. Everyking 05:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be rather in favour of the image, especially since no film has yet be made about this, so this is one valid personal image of the little band; however, I would be more comfortable if the image had a proper licence. Rama 13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Firstly the movie is not expected out until 2007 so where is the harm in keeping the image there until then. Secondly the idea that we cannot illustrate characters in works of fiction until those books have been addapted into a major motion picture is troublesome. The motion picture itself is nothing more than the filmmakers conception of characters. What if the in the movie characters are absent or their appearence is different than that described in the novel, wouldn't that presentation be inconsistant? While it would be ideal for J.K. Rowling to provide us with an illustration of the group, as far as I know she has not published one, so any reasonable illustration of what she has written (Film included) should be valid. While there is still the issue of the Eastern style of the portrait, no one here has supplied an accurate illustration that is consistant in style with English fantasy.
kmmck, 16:46, 6 September 2005
Do you pronouce it the DA (rhyming with la) or D.A. (2 separate letters)
- I believe it is meant to be said the "dee ay." Just like you don't sake the "ussuh" for USA or "uck" for UK. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
pronouncing it: DAA!! wud just be stupid.....srry...
- Well daa... ;) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Cho Chang's apparent betrayal
The article mentions the trailer showing her alongside members of the Inquisitorial Squad, and a parenthetical rebuttal mentions that it appears as if Draco Malfoy is holding her by the back of her cloak. According to this particular still photograph from the movie, it's quite clear that Draco is holding her by the back of her cloak. This means that Cho is not responsible for willingly betraying the D.A., and the paranthetical rebuttal statement is also unnecessary. Therefore, I am removing both the betrayal statement and its rebuttal. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, she gave them up under the influence of Veritaserum. But if that should be considered betrayal... I dont know, I really don't even think that the changes they made in the movie should be found here, but only in the film articles under some sort of "differences from the book" ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Marietta Edgecombe service
I think it's safe to say the Marietta didn't serve in battle. She wasn't even mentioned in Deathly Hallows, so I'm going to change it from unknown to none. Lionheart08 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can make it so the references are point 5 instead of point 4.2 that would be great (I don't know how to do it myself).Wild ste 19:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
guy in the left of the picture
does anyone knpw who the guy on the left is in the picture?
- No idea :/ Ravenclaw at least. So Anthony Goldstein, Michael Corner or Terry Boot. CHANDLERtalk 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anywhere in Deathly Hallows explicitly say he returned to Hogwards to fight? As a muggle-born he wasn't allowed in the school I know. Small5th 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"Battle" and "war"
That's going to be a tough issue to solve because Rowling didn't talk about the D.A. too much in interviews. Beemer69 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As to why this page is currently protected by an administrator, there is a dispute on merging the Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom articles into this one. See discussion at Harry Potter WikiProject: Merge Proposal Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom. --Oakshade (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
About Cho Chang
I come with this merge proposal because of several reasons. First of all, many other important characters have been already merged, such as Sirius Black, McGonagall, Lupin, James and Lily, the Weasleys, etc., most of them as important or more important than Luna. Also, her article violates several Wikipedia guidelines. For example Wikipedia:WAF, all sections of the article have in-universe plot description, even the intro and the "Character development" section. The "Appearances" section is extremely long if compared to the rest of the content (even the "Life after book series section", is larger than any of the "Epilogue" sections in other articles such as Harry's, Hermione's or Ginny's). Furthermore, it also violates Wikipedia:N. No sections about deep analysis, attributes or true character development have been added. That's why I propose to merge it into Dumbledore's Army, as it was basically her involvement in the organization which made her important. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge - There's far too much topic-specific content in the Luna Lovegood article to be merged into the already long Dumbledore's Army one. Not completely following a style guideline like Wikipedia:WAF is a matter of article improvement, not deletion/merge (I never subscribed to the “We must destroy this article in order to save it” mentality). The topic also easily passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as this topic has received very substantial in-depth coverage by secondary sources, the very core criteria of WP:N (examples: ). Just as a reminder, the General notability guideline of WP:NOTABILITY states:
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
--Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The "too much topic-specific content" is violation of Wikipedia:WAF, as it is mostly overdetailed scenes. Just look at Hermione's article, which is rated GA, and it has smaller sections in Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, and is by far a much more important character and has obvioulsy more appearances in those books than Luna. Even without a merge proposal, that article needs trimming and improvement.
- The first link you provided is not about Luna, is about Harry Potter and talks about lots of characters, including Cho Chang, Filius Flitwick, Padma Patil, and even Trevor (Neville's toad). I don't think that because of a small mention in a list of characters' profiles, Trevor and Padma Patil are notable. The second link talks about lots of things including wands, Quidditch and Hogwarts Houses (which are also an important topic in the HP universe and have been already merged). Thus, Luna's article has not proven the Notability you claim. In the other hand, it is entirely plot re-tell, and you have done nothing to improve it and have not even made an edit since the last proposal. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The chapter entitled "Luna Lovegood" is not about Luna Lovegood? (Never claimed the book was about her.) It seems you're under the false impression that WP:N stipulates an entire book must be written about a topic to be notable. Not the case in any manner. As long as the coverage is substantial not "trival" (defined by WP:N as a "passing mention" or "directory listing"), the coverage suffices. An attack on a specific editor for having edited an article or not is a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of article inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Case in point: These are the changes in the article since the last merge proposal four months ago (i.e. not much). The article still has a long way to go to become a GA (or even just B-class), if that's even possible. I think I stated in the last merge proposal to first trim the plot summary of this character and then compare article sizes, because I admit that 48kB+15kB isn't the best proposal. But if the HP wikiproject wants to write a Featured Topic on the characters on day (which is certainly doable), then I don't think Luna would be part of it as a stand-alone article, hence I support a merger in principle. – sgeureka t•c 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Observation - Sadly, evidence of violation of WP:VOTESTACKING is already occurring for this discussion. Two currently active users who “voted” in favor of the merge position in the last merge discussion have been notified of this current merge proposal by the nominator  while he didn’t notify any active users who were opposed to the merger. We have no problem with strongly having a point of view, but guidelines like this were set up in order to always acquire a proper gauge of consensus --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Two editors is not "mass canvassing". And neither Judgesurreal nor Beemer are "Keep/Delete/Merge only voters". They have always provided well-thought arguments. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll add my two Knuts here. Luna appears late in the series and consequently doesn't have a whole lot of backstory that's truly worthy of an individual article. While she was involved in the climax battles in the last three books, it was in a supporting role each time, and it's not until Deathly Hallows that the Lovegoods play a significant part in the overall storyline. Everything else pretty much consists of Luna's mannerisms providing comic relief (her appearance, nonsense words, The Quibbler). If Potter powerhouses like Sirius Black and Minerva McGonagall can be couched into one main article, it doesn't quite make sense that a lesser character like Luna continues to have her own page, which I think is merely because she's a fan favorite. That being said, a good portion of the article is indeed mainly superficial information that needs paring. Therefore, you'll get no argument from me if the merge goes through. sixtynine • spill it • 06:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment / Question - Should we not have (or quickly develop, if not) some sort of agreeable notability criteria for deciding if HP characters "deserve" articles on their own merit, as opposed to characters being en-forcibly merged into (for example) a group article or a book article (along with with appropriate redirects for convenience of all users)? Perhaps we need to come to consensus on a set of "rules" that clearly state how a character must demonstrate a "significant presence" or "active role" in at least the majority of the seven books. This presumably would provide a level field for a fair debate on whether a character meets the threshold of "significant presence" or "active role", since it is relatively easy to filter for their appearances or not in "the majority of books". Having a relatively firm agreed-to consensus requirement should eliminate the problem of ongoing merger wars that seem to continue come around every few months. Or perhaps we already have one in the HP Project archives, and it has been forgotten or ignored? For the record, I don't know off-hand if Luna would qualify for her own article or not under a rational set of criteria, so I am neutral for now. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The thing here is that no matter how important a fictional character is within a story, for encyclopedic purposes it should have significant popular culture impact, coverage by reliable secondary sources (not characters' guides and lists), and all those requirements established by Wikipedia. Appearances in books are not that relevant without this stuff, take McGonagall as an example, who appeared in all books with strong presence, or Sirius Black, the eponymus "Prisoner of Azkaban"; these two are examples of characters already merged (and there was no problem when merging them). Taking into consideration the Wiki guidelines that Luna's article has failed to meet, and even comparing the character's role with other characters (again, McGonagall or Sirius have much more relevance within the story than Luna), it is evident that Luna does not qualify for her own article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK - so just exactly how does
mergingdeleting Luna's article and redirecting info-searchers to a "merged" Dumbledore's Army article (and also any other generic HP characters related page) satisfy the stated requirements for "significant popular culture impact" and "coverage by reliable secondary sources (not characters' guides and lists), and all the other requirements established by Wikipedia"? Shouldn't Dumbledore's Army also be mergeddeleted and redirected to Harry Potter? I understand the policies and guidelines (and the differences) very well, thank you. What is perhaps most alarming is the ongoing trend towards strong-armed information "deletionism", backed by various user's interpretations of the policies and guidelines. I also know a lot of folks spent a lot of time and energy creating and contributing towards HP related articles to the Wikipedia, and these are being systematically deleted, redirected, merged, and generally eliminated, and the participating contributors are being silenced or run off the site in shame under the policies and guidelines hammer. Is it in fact the long term goal here really to essentially eliminate all HP pages except for the one core base one, on the grounds that all such articles have no "cultural impact" or "reliable secondary sourcing" outside of the HP universe itself? It can certainly be argued that way - at least it appears to be so. After all - it is just a bunch of books about an imaginary universe, and nobody will ever provide significant reliable second sourcing for their theoretical lasting importance on society. It is an inherent impossibility. So - shouldn't everything HP-related then be redirected to Harry Potter, and then politely refer folks who want more details on certain specific characters and aspects of the HP universe to a more appropriate and perhaps "friendly" web site (perhaps an HP-Wiki?) that has no such information restrictions? Just wondering where we are really going with this. What is the end game? Again, I am just theorizing here, trying to capture the mood of the consensus - not pushing or !voting one side or the other. I understand both sides of this issue. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK - so just exactly how does
- I understand your point, but, in the other hand, Wikipedia shall not be a detailed guide on every aspect of Harry Potter or any other fictional universe, especially if each individual element has not proven notability, and is written in an primarily in-universe style. Of course the intention is not and will never be to merge everything into the Harry Potter article in the end. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must work with encyclopedic content, not with overdetailed scenes and descriptions. If you take a look at Voldemort' or Snape's articles you will see what is expected from an individual article to be encyclopedic enough. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I am simply trying to understand your criteria for keep / no-keep, and your action-plan and process. So ... can I assume we have already assembled an agreed-to and organized list (perhaps in a consensus discussion held at the HP Project?) of overly-detailed non-notable in-universe HP-related articles that need to be immediately merged away, in the least painful way, with a demonstrated and conclusive consensus? Or are we randomly going around picking on arbitrarily-targeted articles one-at-a-time for maximizing pain and anguish (which is how it seems to be)? It seems to me this could be decided and done en-masse in one single event, rather than dragging it out for weeks or months. What else could be the purpose of the HP Project than to clean up the "riff-raff" as quickly as possible, and be "best-in-class"? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Final note - please remember ... "But Wikipedia is more than a website. We share a common cause: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment."(Jimbo) --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been more than two weeks that the proposal was made, and more than a week since the last comment. Only one user voted against the merge and 3 provided arguments in favor which means it is 75% merge 25% oppose. The last time a proposal was made votes also favored the merge, but it was 8 vs 7 (around 55% vs 45%). This time it is clear that the result is to merge, which is supported by the fact that, since the proposal, there has been only one small addition. The article remained without the addition of any real world content and it is entirely plot synopsis written in in-universe style and being extremely overdetailed. Given this, the merge is being performed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Being part of a character guide in which also Padma Patil or Trevor the Toad are mentioned establish no notability at all. Look at Dumbledore's, Voldemort's or Snape's articles and you would see what is expected to be in an article to establish notability. Furthermore, notability is not the only issue addressed in the nomination. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Merge As a supporting character, there isn't really a whole lot to say about Luna. Does Luna meet Wikipedia's notability guideline? Sure, otherwise we'd be talking about deletion rather than merging. But just because we can have an article about something doesn't mean we should. The information on Luna would be better presented in the Dumbledore's Army article, along with comparable characters. faithless (speak) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Per Oakshade's request, the time for discussion was extended a month, which finishes today. Oakshade told me that, while he disagrees with the merger itself, he respects current consensus. Thus, Luna is merged into this article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I Believe Luna should have her own Profile because she is for one a very notable character within the Harry Potter series and the description about her now in the Dumbledore's Army is very short and doesn't really give as much information about her as it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbane (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does have it's own page. This bring up the question of why a wiki search for Ginny Weasley brings me HERE and not to the Ginny Weasley main page . . . --Redwulf25 ci (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. Someone doesn't. Just because she is a character in the HP series doesn't mean she should have her own page. Off to harry potter wiki if you want to be on a fan page. Ccrashh (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why add Chinese characters to this character's name? She's created by a British author who presumably has no knowledge of Chinese. Whatever the Chinese translator cooked up for their translation doesn't matter and is irrelevant. DHN (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, is the name she uses Mandarin or Cantonese-based? Or some other Chinese language (Wu, Min, Hakka,...)?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Suggested replacement image
Exact same image, much higher resolution. Unfortunately I don't know how to upload images so if anyone could do it for me that would be great :) Image location: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/film/op/DA.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applenerd96 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I realise most of the articles below were posted in 2007 but it is now 2011 so I would like some opinion in The Deathly Hallows Part 1. It's really good but I think they missed out a part, Harry was supposed to tell Ron "I love Hermione as a friend, I thought you knew that" in their fight. Why didn't it say that?!?! I realise Dobby's death was a main part in the book but why, why, why?!?! I love Dobby to pieces and they had to go and kill him didn't they. I despise Belatrix more than anything else in the world. Stupid Mrs. Malfoy's sister.
We all know that Snape was on the side of the Army, but every mention of him in the article makes it look like he was on the Death Eaters' side. So what can we do about that? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, now that you mention it, a lot of the references to year 7 do sound like they were written by someone who's not a big fan of Snape. I would suggest that you be bold and go through and change what you think is biased wording. I don't have time to do it myself, but I think rephrasing references to "Snape's reign/regime as headmaster" would probably not go amiss; additionally, that reference to the Carrows as "Snape's deputies" is completely uncalled for and nonsensical since he was actually working behind the scenes to ameliorate their actions.
- So yeah, please rephrase as you see fit. If you don't do it, I'll probably eventually go in and do it myself but I don't have time right now. Princess Lirin (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"Impact in the real world"
- Generally impact in the real world sections have little to do with the books, they are based on parodies, criticism, influence, etc. In this case, the goal of the D.A. inspired the actor to do a protest group in a similar fashion. Also, that section is the only real-world content in the article and proves notability of the subject, thus it shall not be removed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no objections to the original comments about the "real world" DA being (re)inserted into the article. It does seem to have gained some minor notability, and is obviously named after the Harry Potter DA, but I do take umbrage to the extra comments that I removed here which I feel are not necessary to the article - Slack's intentions to "highlight the crisis in Sudan... etc" are enough. The rest is just excessive.
- I also take issue with editors who use statements such as "shall not be removed" and "must remain" - which are basically demands or commands - normally I would take an opposing stance simply on the grounds of the defending editors attitude, however this time round I agree with the inclusion, but not the way it's being argued. a_man_alone (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah - I'm not sure why Neville is a primary target for vandalism. But hey, anythign goes on the internet I guess.
- Just keep removing it. a_man_alone (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Reversing the lede
It seems to me that the primary purpose of the DA was to learn Defence Against the Dark Arts, because Umbridge refused to teach it. It was only secondary that they were secret and standing up to Umbridge's regime. Therefore I propose to reverse the two sentences in the lede to reflect their primary purpose. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the subsection title “Ginny Weasley” to “Ginevra Weasley” in hopes that it would get rid of the redirect of “Ginny Weasley” to said subsection. When that was unsuccessful, I reverted the edit. This was so that I could then create a separate article on Ginny. I really want Ginny to have her own page in Wikipedia, as many others have asked for. I know Wikipedia is not a fanpage, but is inexcusable that of the following languages - Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, Icelandic, and Swedish - English Wikipedia should have the fewest individual Harry Potter characters with their own pages (lists of characters, such as Order of the Phoenix, don't count); only 8 in English, but 11 in Icelandic, about 70 in Estonian,.... It is also inexcusable that there should be only 8 individual HP characters with their own pages, but 9 for Animal Farm, 42 for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 10 for Hamlet, 17 for Midsummer Night's Dream 10 for Romeo and Juliet, and 9 for Twelfth Night (the Shakespeares are each less than half the length of Sorcerer's Stone, making the existence of large numbers of pages on individual characters harder to justify; and Twelfth Night is not nearly as influential as the other Shakespeares I just mentioned). (Not that I dislike Shakespeare; I am actually a big fan of him.)
How do I get rid of the the redirect of “Ginny Weasley” to “Dumbledore's Army” so that I can launch a separate article on her? I have already constructed much of such an article.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do not do that, as it will be deleted. The article on Ginny Weasley has already been merged into this page twice. See past discussions on Talk:Ginny Weasley Mezigue (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The infobox currently claims that the leader of the DA is 'room of requirement' and that the location is Harry, Neville, Ginny, and Luna. They are the correct way round in the source though, and I can't work out why they're not like that on the actual article (It's wrong in both FF22 and IE10). I've played around with the infobox and the only way I can get them to appear correctly in the article is to put them the wrong way round in the source, I'm therefore going to switch them round as a temporary fix, but could someone else have a play with it and work out why it isn't displaying properly. Will Bradshaw (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Fred and George
About this page's article titles
I'm user of ja.wikipedia, so I can't speak English well. So I say requirements only. This page's article titles is Dumbledore's Army now, but the article titles doesn't include other students of Hogwarts. So I think it should be Moving the page to "Hogwarts student". --ミランブラジル (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article is only for characters in the series who were members of Dumbledore's Army. I think what you're after can be found in the following pages: