From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / Harry Potter (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (marked as High-importance).


I made a minor edit to the section about the 'top box' being similar to the 'front row' at muggle events. It's more likely that this was based on the corporate and private boxes found around football and rugby stadiums in the UK (and Europe). Front row seats aren't really that prestigious at UK sporting events of a similar nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Break off into new article suggestion[edit]

This article, though not marked, most definitely falls into the class of articles that are written in an in-universe style. That said, I think I am going to make the suggestion that this article be broken off into two articles, perhaps one Quidditch (Harry Potter) and the other Quidditch (sport). I say this only because Quidditch is now not only played by muggles everywhere, but is even a division sport played intercollegiately, with its own set of rules (NCAA regulated? probably not) apparently. Obviously the rules are different for that variant since the players don't fly, and the snitch is a person who runs around. I am not making this change but merely suggesting it to see what other editors think. Slugmaster (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree with your assessment, and have tagged to article to invite comment. --emerson7 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the description of a top box as being like a front row seat very wrong. A top box in Quidditch is just like a center box in muggle sports. (for those who don't know, a box is a glass square above most seats that incircle the field.) Those who are seated in a box get free food and other luxuries. The boxes are also much more expensive. in Harry potter, the box does not have glass but is the exact same otherwise.

Dates for players + James Potter[edit]

I think most of these dates should be removed. An assumption seems to have been made that any character who was on a Quidditch team when Harry came to the school had been so since they had entered Hogwarts. This is despite Harry being told it is very unusual for a first year to get on the house team, and despite us seeing people much older than their first year join the teams in the last two books.

Unless there's a canon source for this information that I've missed?

Also, James Potter is listed as a Seeker. This information is from the first movie, but it does not apply to the books. In an interview in 2000, Rowling confirmed that he was a Chaser. Philip Reuben 03:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you give a list of all the games mentioned in the 6 books: houses, final score, players (where given) and notable occurances? Thanks, David Freitag

Please sign your posts by striking the tilde key four times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-gravity claims[edit]

Hi all,

Periodically, there's this claim about anti-gravity technology. It was deleted by 3 other users and is against, I think, the WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball policy. I'll treat it as vandalism from now on. Hit me up on my talk page if you think it's wrong. Tony 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bowman Wright[edit]

WHY didn't you include Bowman Wright? He was featured as Wizard of the month at J.K. ROWLING'S OFFICIAL site. He created the golden snitch. Can someone please add him there?!? -Lil_Flip246

Why didn't WHO do WHAT? You realize of course you could have added this information yourself at any time, right?
I added a note about it anyway, but I was seriously considering NOT adding it, precisely because anyone can edit Wikipedia, and complaining about what is or is not in an article, and then not adding it yourself when it's a fairly minor addition to boot, well that's just plain silly. Runa27 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I think there should be a section added that discusses the criticism JK Rowling receives about the potentially flawed scoring system in quidditch- if you catch the snitch you almost always win, therefore making the other players in the game completely pointless

I came here wondering if there was any such mention. It really is a terrible scoring system. Bakert 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Maybe someone should add a section, if people have actually pointed out the inanity in a formal way (so as to avoid the whole OR thing) 17:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While the scoring by other players often isn't a factor who wins individual games, it is important to who wins tournaments. Gryffindor won the Quidditch cup on total points, not most games won, all three times that they won it during Harry's years in Hogwarts. Don Sample 05:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I had always assumed that the matches portrayed in the books were unusually low-scoring. (Perhaps because of Potter's exceptional ability.)
If scores routinely go into the several hundreds then the rest of the game matters a lot.
The snitch would still be caught mostly by the winning team, however, since no seeker in his right mind would end the game if the scores didn't add up in his favor. I suppose if you were losing by more than 250pts and you spotted the snitch, the winning strategy would be to distract the other seaker away from it somehow. APL (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the explanation that games are played in series and scored by total points rather than wins. This only blunts the problem a bit, however. Then the scores posted by all the rest of the players may have a 10-20% effect on the overall season score rather than 0%. In effect, the whole rest of the game only functions as a tie breaker. Further, scoring by total points also introduces other probably unintended effects. For instance, the failure of one weak team during one game could make a situation where the opposing team is able to score a virtually unlimited number of points. After all, fallen players are not normally replaced. So just knock out most of the other team's players including their seeker, and then just don't catch the snitch until your team has scored as many points as you'd like to have. I love the Harry Potter series, but it seems pretty clear that the author has little understanding of ball sports and didn't really think it all the way through. Quidditch appears to have been designed for literary purposes to emphasize the importance of a single player on the team, who would of course be Harry Potter. (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what would be cool? Through wires, mirrors or some other special effect is have a Quidditch game at the Opening Ceremonies in London in 2012. Or better Yet, re-enact the Quidditch World cup which was cut from the movie. The Harry potter Fans would go nuts!

Yes, the Quidditch World Cup from Goblet of Fire could be a full-length feature film all by itself. It could be done entirely with computer animation, so there would be no need to employ the film's actors. Das Baz, 15 April 2006, 3:53 PM.

You lnow, I bet that quidditch could be made into a real sport now. I mean, if people can make flying saucers now, I bet we could make flying broomsticks... or something like them. Wouldn't it be awesome if in a few years you could say, "Oh yeah, I'm on a high school quidditch team." Cool idea... (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)  Tuesday, December 18, 2007


Its really not that fictional any more now that theres a video game. That'd be like saying Halo is a fictional game. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still fictional. A video game representation doesn't make it real (except once in a while). -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What are you smoking man. Halo is fiction, while game itself its real everything inside of its its fake. Covenant are fictional for example.
yeah but halo is not a fictional game. an example of a fictional game would be Dudleys playstation game "Mega-Mutilation Part Three" (mentioned in goblet of fire in harrys letter to sirius)
--Numberwang 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Has Harry ever played three matches in a school year? Rmhermen 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

in Poa he does.

Youngest in a century vs. only first year in a century[edit]

Page 152, paperback Sorceror's Stone, about halfway down:

Seeker? [Ron] said. "But first years never—you must be the youngest house player in about—" "—a century," said Harry.

Ron does NOT say "You must be the only first year", he says "you must be the youngest", meaning there may have been other first year Quidditch players over the years, but none as young as Harry. Unless it is mentioned elsewhere and I have missed it, saying he's the only first year in a century cannot be verified.

E946 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Ron saying it doesn't make it true. VdSV9 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your fiction[edit]

Some parts of this article, especially history, tend to blur the fictional Harry Potter world with the real world. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Thanks, --EngineerScotty 04:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Middlebury College[edit]

Removed from article. Unsourced. Possibly unnotable.

At Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont Quidditch exists as a pick up sport with matches Sundays at noon. The players are required to wear capes, usually blankets or towels, and while playing they must also have a broom stick between their legs at all times. The game, for obvious reason, has been adapted: the snitch is a cross country player dressed all in yellow and one must grab the sock ball attached to their back and the capture of the snitch only earns 50 points (for practicallity); the quaffle is a volley ball; the bludgers are dodgeballs that the bludgers throw at the opposite team's players (when hit the player must drop the quaffle, if they have it, and they must stand still for five seconds); and the hoops are hoola hoops taped to chairs instead of 50 feet in the air.

-- Ec5618 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What's this nonsense?[edit]

Possibly the best way for a death to happen is fatal cheating, especially with spells and flying creatures. Harry Potter constantly experienced this during his Quidditch matches at Hogwarts.

Firstly, what does it even mean, "the best way for a death to happen"? Secondly, POV. Thirdly, the way it's worded makes it sound like Harry Potter constantly experienced deaths during his Quidditch matches!!!

I would suggest you just make the changes. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


It's interesting to have all (or most of the) translations here. We could include, of course, seeker, beater, chaser and keeper to the list... All I know is in portuguese:

Apanhador, batedor, artilheiro and goleiro.

VdSV9 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regional teams[edit]

What are the sources for the names of Regional teams outside of the UK? These should all have sources. I deleted one team, that was added a week ago, that had an offensive name. Tuyvan 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Towers or tribunes?[edit]

The article says the quidditch pit at hogwarts has towers for spectators, but nothing of this is mentioned in the books. Furthermore, events like the one described in the first book, atthe first match, suggest ongoing tribunes, not towers. How else would Hermione be able to quickly run around to Quirrels place? - Redmess 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


5 out of the 7 major sections are entirely in-universe. Much of the intro is in-universe. I believe this article qualifies being labeled "primarily in-universe". Neitherday 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Game Sports[edit]

Why is there a category box for game sports at the end, this is fiction?

International Quidditch Teams[edit]

G'day everyone, In the paragraph about international Quidditch teams, there are teams that have been mentioned in the Harry Potter books, films and games, but there are many national sides that having been placed on seeminly at random, as there is no evidence from the books, films, or games the these national teams exist. For example; Albania, this country is not even mentioned in any of the books, and yet it is still said to have a Quidditch team. There are many more like this, and I was wondering how the writer(s) managed to work out which un-mentioned countries had Quidditch teams. Thanks, Furry9 12:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Albania is mentioned several times and is very important in the book, the team is not mentioned though-- 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And why are there American, Australian, Canadian, German, etc. teams listed under "British and Irish Quidditch Teams"? Don Sample 07:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I put up a request for sources and will denote the ringers in four weeks. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The teams are all discussed in Quidditch Through the Ages. Cheers, faithless (speak) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Faithless: It would be nice if you had inserted the source. I had to do it, based on your say-so. And when you say "discussed," do you mean "discussed" or simply "mentioned"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Holyhead Harpies are forgotten. A Welsh all-witch team founded in 1203 (the only all-witch team in the world). Ginny Weasley becomes one of the team's the Chasers post-Hogwarts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do the books ever say what happens if there is a tie?[edit]

If one team scores 15 Goals and since each goal is 10 points that make 150 points so if the other team scored no goal but caught the snich there would be a tie. So does anyone know what happens then?

The team with the Snitch would win (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) December 18, 2007

- The above is untrue. The game ends in a draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Team sports[edit]

I think the team sports template should be removed from this article. Quiddich isn't even on the template! Codelyoko193 Talk 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Genuine Snitch?[edit]

The Golden Snitch's artist depiction in the history section at the Golden Snitch looks more like a 5 year old child trying to draw a snitch than a real depiction by a real artist to me. I'll bet that the picture was put up by some father who wanted their offspring to be famous. Personally, I would waqnt the picture taken off. Do you agree? Gunnerdevil4 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but would like to see another image put in its place if removed. A poor image is better than no image, IMHO. I realize that there is another picture of a snitch in the article, but still... faithless (speak) 03:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that thing looks like a chicken nugget with Kid Icarus wings. --Prell 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No Quidditch[edit]

"The game features in every Harry Potter book but the seventh, as Harry Potter plays an important position for his house team at Hogwarts." There was one other book, I believe, that didn't have a Quidditch match.GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no Quidditch at Hogwarts in GoF due to the Triwizard Tournament, but there was the Quidditch World Cup, so there technically was Quidditch in that book. The sentence should probably be rewritten for accuracy. Really, this entire article needs an overhaul. faithless (speak) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I added it. (The only way to get an "overhaul" past the eagle eyes of the HP fanatics is a little bit at a time, and it would help if each revision were sourced.) Yours on a broomstick, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in 'The Order of the Phoenix', Professor Umbridge banned Quidditch, though in the table, it says that Griffendor was the champion house. Matthew.toffelmire (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right to carry wands[edit]

I've inserted an uncited reference to Quidditch Through the Ages under "rules" - specifically the right to carry wands at all times was granted during the height of magical persecution by Muggles. I'm going to cite it when and if I find my copy of said book, but if anyone else has the book (or a third-party web source), please insert the citation so it doesn't go uncited. (It'd also help to say the year this right was granted, which I'm pretty sure is in there.) --Dbutler1986 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quidditch and Cricket[edit]

The play has been described as a cross between "cricket, Association football (soccer) and hockey"

I don't like this sentence, even if it does have a source. Quidditch has vague similarities to soccer and hockey, but doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to cricket. The source itself is an article written by an American author, which arouses my suspicion because Americans are not known for having any knowledge of cricket. In fact, I've seen evidence to suggest some of them even confuse it with croquet, which, while still not particularly similar to quidditch (or cricket, for that matter), does feature hoops through which a ball passes. Even if the author is well aware of the rules of cricket, it is still not a particularly valid or helpful comparison. The long and short of this is that I do not feel this sentence adds anything to the article, and am going to remove it unless anyone can give a good reason to keep it. We shouldn't be including any old gibberish someone has written on a subject merely because it has been written. (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to disagree with the assertion, but The New York Review of Books is a reliable source, and there's nothing at all wrong with saying that Quidditch has been described as a cross between those games. If it was written differently (i.e. "Quidditch is a cross between...") I might agree with your argument. But I don't see any problem with it the way it is currently written. faithless (speak) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So the fact that it is published in a 'reliable' source merits the inclusion of any old drivel someone has written, as long as we make sure to wrap it in weasel words? In what way does it benefit the article to have a line mentioning what sports some random hack thinks Quidditch is a cross between, especially when it is blatantly incorrect? All that it achieves is to suggest to people that Quidditch actually does in some way resemble cricket. (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, while the New York Review of Books might be a reliable source for the discussion of literature, I don't see why it should be considered a reliable source for the discussion of sport. If it was written by Richie Benaud, on the other hand, I would concede the point. (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, where to start...I suppose with your last point. In case you've forgotten, Quidditch is a fictional sport from a piece of literature. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them a "hack" nor does it make what they write "drivel" (and quite frankly this is laughable, considering who you're making these charges against). Furthermore, there are no weasel words in the sentence. You may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's stance on original research, so allow me to paraphrase: we are concerned only with what has been published by reliable sources - our personal views and opinions are irrelevant. As another Wikipedia policy puts it, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Again, you're free to disagree, but when the choice is between Alison Lurie and a random IP, Wikipedia is going to go with the Pulitzer Prize-winning Ivy League professor every time. faithless (speak) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not quidditch originates in a piece of literature is irrelevant. The sentence in question is describing the mechanics of a sport in comparison to other sports, not its function or merit as a literary device. In that respect, a literary critic is no more qualified to comment on the subject than anybody else, and the only thing verifiable here is that it is a statement of opinion. One could easily clog an article with all kinds of fatuous opinions drawn from supposedly reliable sources. As for original research, what has that got to do with anything? I'm suggesting the removal of dubious content, not the addition of more.
I'm proposing the removal of this sentence because it is an opinion, and a misleading one at that. I do not see why it is a notable opinion for this subject; a comparison of sports might be notable coming from a sports commentator, but otherwise it might as well have come from Worzel Gummidge for all the difference it makes.
If you really must keep it for no other reason than somebody with a pulitzer prize wrote it, I think it should at least be removed from the intro, which should focus only on verifiable facts regarding the rules of the game or its significance in the harry potter universe. As it is, it is simply misleading and unhelpful. By comparison, notable people have published all kinds of nonsense opinions about chess, but none of them appear in the intro to that article, regardless of how verifiable they are.
By the way, 'has been described as' are the weasel words in question. They appear to lend the statement more weight by making it sound like common knowledge, obfuscating the fact that this is just what one person thinks. (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to removing it from the lead. faithless (speak) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
However, I can't see anywhere else in the article suitable for it either, without the addition of some kind of 'Opinions on Quidditch' section, which would be a bit daft. Obviously when new content is added, it must be verifiable, but does that necessarily work the other way? i.e. mandatory inclusion of all content that can be verified? If that is the case, then we should also mention that USA Today has described it as 'a cross between soccer and basketball played on broomstick', and that the BBC thinks it is a bit like something called 'horseball'. Or, maybe it would be better if we didn't include any of these 'has been described as' type comments at all. (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake Professional Quidditch teams[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the Barcelona Bombers are a fan made-up team, and the name was added to the end of the list on 2 January 2009, by Theogb.

I've not found any cannonical sources for the Barcelona Bombers team. The only sources outside Wikipedia, copy-paste this very article, or are from fan forums.

And of course, is not listed in Quidditch Through the Ages, as the section starts saying.

(I haven't checked if other teams on the list are fake/wrong...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gorodok team[edit]

Even tho no source is given, i reverted my own revn of an IP user's conversion of Gorodok from Russky to Litvak team: several Web pages do give a direct quote from QTTA supporting it. But i unl'k'd the Dab Gorodok, which reflects only Russ locations, and can only confuse users. Either figure out how to put a new entry on Gorodok that won't be immediately deletable under MoSDab or Dab, or leave the place name unlinked. The existing Dab lk was an invitation to to revert.
--Jerzyt 03:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When I saw the IP edit earlier I checked my copy of QttA and, sure enough, they are a Lithuanian team. Agreed that it should not be linked. faithless (speak) 09:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you have checked the reliable source, perhaps you'll add a ref on "Lithuanian" to protect that surprising fact (WP search on
    Gorodok Lithuania
invites the inference that a Gorodok was once in Lithuania, but not in Harry's time) from future well-intended reversions.
--Jerzyt 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry's Performance as Seeker section[edit]

... needs to be fixed. It only lists years 2-6, though Harry clearly played in Year 1. The obvious inaccuracy of that omission make the rest of the listed results suspect. Someone should confirm with the source material to ensure accuracy. PK9 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fixed. —thedarklordtrombonator 10:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ballycastle Bats[edit]

Why is the Republic of Ireland flag shown for Ballycastle Bats, who are supposedly located in Northern Ireland? Skinsmoke (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is too lengthy[edit]

This article needs to be condensed to an appropriate length. The fact that the article is longer in length than that of football ("soccer"), the most popular sport in the world, is compromising to the integrity of Wikipedia as a legitimate informational resource. It is nearly as long as the article for American football and tennis, and longer than that for golf. A credible encyclopedia should not have more to say about a fictional sport created primarily within the scope of seven fantasy novels, than for a sport steeped in at least seven centuries of history, with countless generations of players, followers, and devotees. It should be more of a stub; an offshoot of the Harry Potter article. If Quidditch is still being talked about in 700 years, then this article will be justified. Otherwise, we have some SERIOUS additions to make in the articles for Golf, football, tennis, etc. I understand there are many Harry Potter fans, but Wikipedia is not a fan blog. When the broad scope of the resource is observed, and one sees that Quidditch is given more attention than the most popular sport in the world, how credible is that resource? It is a demonstration of skewed priority, and a failure to achieve realistic and unbiased perspective among content.

Has nobody addressed this? I'm happy to whittle this sucker down to an appropriate length. Admiral Bimbo (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Should be cut down significantly. I think as is its longer than the article on Australian Rules Football. :D 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurtleMelody (talkcontribs)

lack of link to Q3D[edit]

could anybody find a link for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error[edit]

Just pointing out a minor error, I would fix it myself but the article appears to be locked. In section "Players", the word "practice" should be spelt with an s, as it is being used as a verb. (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Gerardw (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Muggle Quiddich in Russia[edit]

Hello, there is the version of muggle quiddich in Russia since 2004, championships since 2006, - the base article Маггловский_квиддич, there are some links, the main resource with some videos is It is based on handball rules, players don't use any brooms, all the balls are actually the balls, mixed or female teams strictly etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Quidditch skills vs broom skills[edit]

The article states that Harry uses his "quidditch" skills several times to accomplish tasks in the novels. It seems obvious to me that he is a skilled at flying a broom, and hence a good seeker and also effective at accomplishing said tasks. It never states or even infers in the novels that he accomplishes the tasks because of quiddicth, quite the opposite, that he is good at being a seeker because of his natural skill on the broom. Beach drifter (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 15 August 2011[edit]

Gryffindor did not win the Quidditch House Championship in the first Harry Potter book. I even checked the reference, in chapter 7 of Chamber of Secrets Wood states that they have to train harder because they should have won the year before, but did not. The Harry Potter wiki states Ravenclaw won in Harry's first year. (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I've changed the result from "Gryffindor" to "Unknown". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fouls vs. basketball fouls[edit]

In The Philosopher's Stone, Harry describes the sport as similar to basketball, a real-world Olympic sport. A lot of the common fouls are indeed very close to the fouls and other offenses in basketball. With this sourced analogy in mind, would it still be too OR-y to name the closest foul in basketball, so that readers familiar with basketball can more quickly understand the description of each Quidditch foul? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 05:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags in this section[edit]

I was bold and added the Northern Irish flag to the table for the Ballycastle Bats, it was reverted, so here we are; per WP:BRD. There are three solutions to the problem of what flag to assign to Ballywick. We can either (1) leave it as is, (2) add File:Ulster banner.svg, or (3) Use the UK flag for all teams in the UK. 1 is a problem for me (as an American) because I had no earthly idea where Ballywick was, upon looking at the table. 2 and 3, I understand are politically tricky (and I do not want to be involved in that in any way). It appears that the inclusion of the English, Scottish, and Welsh flags were done to mimick was was done in Association football. Association football uses these flags because each of the UK's constituent countries has their own FA and fields there own team in the World Cup, for instance. Is there any example of there being, for instance, an English National Quidditch team in the source texts? The MOS says we should not use the flags of subnational entities unless the organizations in question use the flags themselves. So, absent an example of a constituent country fielding a national Quidditch team, I think we should go to what is most Verifiable (that Appleby, Ballycastle, Montrose, and Caerphilly are in the UK) and side with Option #3, instead of Option #2. Achowat (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Option #2 and the use of the Ulster Banner is out as it is not the flag of Northern Ireland, the only flag that is official is the Union Jack so if flags must be used then Option #3 would be the best one. Personally I'm not a fan of flags being used in tables the way they are used here. Mo ainm~Talk 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
But you do recognize the need for a Northern Ireland flag in certain sporting situations, right? (Such as footballers who've played for the Irish Football Association since the partition) Achowat (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I accept that usage as the governing body of football in NI use it. Mo ainm~Talk 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and change all the flags to UK ones until a source can be found that the Home Nations are used in Quidditch contexts. Achowat (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
agree with Achowat's edit. Bjmullan (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Champions of Hogwarts in first book[edit]

I made an edit as I'm pretty sure Gryffindor did not win the Cup in the first book. I do not believe we are ever told who did win it - if Ravenclaw won even one of their other two games they would have been champions as their points difference would have been best because of the result against Gryffindor, but if they lost both their other games, then either Slytherin or Hufflepuff would have been champions depending on who won the match between them. We know for certain that Gryffindor didn't win, though - the first book hints at it, and the third is pretty explicit that they haven't won since Charley Weasley.MyName2 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on "Golden Egg" Card Game?[edit]

I wonder if Quidditch is based slightly on the obscure card game "Golden Egg" considering that the idea of both is to capture something golden, and the rules are rather Draconian... (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Move to Wikia?[edit]

Is it just me, or does the vast majority of this article belong at Wikia? NickCT (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Addition of an infobox [1] clearly designed for real sports just adds to the in-universe issue. --NeilN talk to me 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Game Progression Change[edit]

Took out "It is never explained why a Seeker would catch the Snitch in a situation where doing so would give the victory to the other team, i.e., the leading team's score exceeds the losing team's by 160 points, instead of simply waiting for the score to change" simply because it's logically not true. The Seeker's goal is to catch the Snitch nonetheless simply because it may be caught by the other team's Seeker first. Of course, the Seeker can maneuver a plan to distract the other team's Seeker; however, that would be difficult considering it's difficult to distract someone from catching the Snitch when their sole goal is to catch the Snitch. Mosammad93 (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC) how do you do fouls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In-universe, time to get real[edit]

Ok this article has been tagged with {{in-universe}} for more than three years now. Further, 18 of 26 references depend on a primary, fictional, in-universe source. This needs to end. No, there is no deadline on Wikipedia, but there's also a serious issue here of not being encyclopedic. If people want to do in-universe writing, they are welcome at the Harry Potter Wiki. I'll wait a bit, but then begin restructuring this article to conform to our writing standards here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly there is lots of cruft in this article, with little amount of it devoted to real world content and lots of section with in-universe information. I think that the best way is to trimm and present the content of most sections into one single, short "Quidditch in the books", removing the History, Fouls and the Hogwarts Cup sections, and also removing all text that is taken almost entirely from Quidditch Through the Ages. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)