Talk:Ginny Weasley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Date of Birth

Can someone please tell me where they found the supposed Date of Birth for the Harry Potter characters? I've found no evidence to suggest these dates are true. And I mean evidence from the actual books. Written by JK Rowling. Any other dates of birth given by other sources should NOT be used as evidence as this, as it is not confirmed by the author.

"All you need to know about Harry Potter" books, not accepted if they are written by someone else. Sorry!

So unless someone can confirm that the author has said this is the date of birth for the characters, I will be deleting this within the next few days. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 19:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ginny's and many other characters' dates of birth have appeared on JK Rowling's website, where she has told us she writes all of the text herself (thus making it canonical). Happy birthday wishes to Ginny have appeared on August 11 each of the last three years. Look at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com.html and http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-birthdays.html for more information. --Zequist 01:30, 1 April 2007

(UTC)

Yes, it does show the birth date, but where does it include the year of birth? Sorry, will be deleting it, unless someone can show me. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 12:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

She's never stated a year for Ginny, but she doesn't have to because with the canon information that she has given us it can only be 1981, and ironically we have Malfoy to thank for knowing that. The short answer is that we have canon information that Draco was born in 1980, therefore because of Hogwarts' admission rules Ron must also have been born in 1980, and since Rowling has told us that Ginny is a year younger than Ron, she must have been born in 1981. For the more detailed explanation and all the source links, keep reading.

• Canon point 1 - On the "Black Family Tree" that Rowling hand-wrote and then donated to Book Aid International for them to auction last year she explicitly told us that Draco Malfoy was born in 1980. There's no sparkling hi-res photo of the thing online that I can find, just one that's so-so, but it was on display before the auction and many fans looked at it and reported the information that was on it to message boards and to the big HP news sites, so the 1980 date is definitely confirmed. (sources: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/images/blackfamilytrees/fromlarepubblica0212.JPG - Draco is in the lower right, http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/whats_new-2006.php?year=2006 - scroll down to Feb. 12 and Feb. 20, and http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html)
• Canon point 2 - Rowling has told us that you must be at least 11 to attend Hogwarts, and that Hermione was nearly 12 at the start of the series (source: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=90). This establishes that the birth window for any given class of Hogwarts students runs from the beginning of September through the end of August the following year (Hermione was born on September 19 and is one of the oldest in their year; Harry, being born on July 31, is one of the youngest).
• Canon point 3 - She's given us Draco's birth date on her web site. It's June 5. He was therefore born on June 5, 1980, and is one of the younger students in the class. (source: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-birthdays.html)
• Therefore - Draco being born on June 5, 1980 and 11 being the minimum age to attend Hogwarts canonically establishes the following:
  • It means the students in Harry's year were born from September of 1979 through August of 1980, and they made their first trip to Hogwarts on Sept. 1, 1991.
  • It sets the time frame of the books at 1991-92 (Sorcerer's Stone) through 1997-98 (Deathly Hallows).
  • It fixes the birth dates of Hermione on Sept. 19, 1979, Ron on March 1, 1980, and Harry on July 31, 1980 (the dates are all explicitly given in the books or by Rowling, the years must be true because of Draco being born in June of 1980).
  • The above three points are corroborated by Canon points 4 and 5 - Sir Nick celebrates his "500th Deathday" in Book 2 Ch. 8, and the date of his execution is given on the cake as "October 31, 1492." 500 years added to 1492 puts the Deathday Party on October 31, 1992, which is consistent with Harry and Draco being born in 1980 and in their second year (1992-93) at the time of the party. Also Book 6 Chapters 21 and 22 re-confirms the Hermione-Ron-Draco-Harry sequence of their births - Ron and Hermione are old enough to take their apparition tests on April 21 of their sixth year (and therefore have turned 17 by then) but Draco and Harry are still too young.

So taking that back to Ginny, we don't need it written in blood to know her canonical birth year. Rowling has told us Ginny's birthday is August 11 (as previously cited), and she's also told us that Ron is one year older than Ginny (source: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=63). That of course is also consistent with the fact that she's one year behind Ron in school, so since we know that Draco being born in June of 1980 puts Ron's birth in March of 1980, Ginny could only be born in 1981. August 11, 1981 makes her a year younger than Ron like she's supposed to be, and neatly within the window for turning 11 in time to attend Hogwarts in book 2. Had she been born in 1980 she'd be the same age (and in the same year) as Ron, and had she been born in 1982 she'd be two years younger and too young to attend Hogwarts until book 3. --Zequist 22:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Newer Picture

I think the article could use a newer picture. One where she is older or in her robes would be more appropriate I think, since she is now a major character in the series.

John Reaves 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this has been done yet. Since the new movie is comming out soon, perhaps we could source a promotional photo of Bonnie Wright in her hogwarts robes? GavinTing 14:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Choice of Words

How am I being negative? The word 'disreputable' means that they have rather a poor reputation in the wizarding world: partly because of their Bloodtraitor status, partly because of Arthur's plug fetish. I thought that Rowling had very thoroughly made it clear that, yes, they are superficially a nice family (even if they have a tendency to scream in public, bully Neville and other students, ostracise family members that don't agree with an old man who appears to going senile, ostracise friends of the family because they believe Rita Skeeter's trash, spout mysogynistic comments, allow themselves to be bought off with money and presents, behave appallingly towards a new prospective member of the family - and in the process totally ignore the fact that the son has chosen her as his wife, attempt to murder Slytherins in vanishing cabinets merely for attempting to take points, etc, etc, the list does go on), but that they aren't particularly well thought of in wizarding society. How would you define 'disreputable'? Michaelsanders 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As for close-knit: I'm not sure that that is appropriate (Percy is cut-off, the twins have an on-off relationship with their mother, Molly spends most of her time telling the kids off or telling Arthur to shut up about his muggle rubbish) and no-one appears to have given any thought to Bill whilst they were busily abusing Fleur... Michaelsanders 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would define 'disreputable' as not being respectable in character and having a negative reputation. The Weasley's are only viewed as "bloodtraitor" by a small sect of pure-blood wizards, most of whom dabble in the Dark Arts. Any reasonable person could deduct from the text of the series that they are portrayed as loyal, courageous, kind, accepting, etc. I hardly think that the opinion of a sector of wizarding society that essentially lives on the fringes of society is a valid one. All families have discontent, What mom doesn't tell of her children? The Twins squabbles are harldy anything serious. I'll give you the Percy fact, though the remaining family is close-knit. Molly's occasional comment to Arthur is hardly notable. After Bill was attacked by Fenrir Greyback and they found out he would retain scars for life, Fleur still stuck with him, and Molly accepted her.John Reaves 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But the Weasleys do have a negative reputation: not amongst us readers, who have seen them in private, but amongst wizarding society (Crouch hardly seemed keen on Arthur, and Bagman - who did like Arthur - seems to have based his mateyness on the fact that Mr Weasley was willing to accept a bribe in exchange for not charging Otto Bagman. In any case, we seem to be regarding the idea of reputation differently: I am taking it as 'opinion amongst their fellows, in particular the purebloods, which they are included amongst'; you are taking it as 'opinion amongst the readers', who for very obvious reasons are not part of wizarding society. For a realworld comparison, consider the various 'ladies (or men) of ill-repute' who have nonetheless been popular amongst readers (I can't think of any of the top of my head - I don't remember if Nancy in Oliver Twist is actually such a woman, but I think she is pretty popular amongst readers). But in any case, the opinion of the other purebloods (who still appear to be a dominant caste - the ministy was hardly in open rebellion over Malfoy's influence) is that they are bloodtraitors (or thus far, at least; we don't know what the Longbottom web thinks, except of Ron personally, and I suspect that if Neville's gran heard anything about the twins' bullying, it would not give her a good impression); on the rest of society, we have been led to believe that other wizards are rather scornful of the Weasley's because of Mr Weasley's blatant yet uniformed muggle fetish (and because they have a tendency to brawl in public). As for close-knit, I really disagree about that. By the sixth book, they have shown a degree of alliance together, partly because of Voldemort, partly because they are all scapegoating Percy. But in the first four books - where they are in their 'natural' state, they are quite clearly portrayed as factional - Molly and Percy vs the twins, twins vs Ron, twins vs Ginny, Ron vs Ginny, Molly vs Arthur, Arthur and the two eldest staying firmly out of it. How is that close knit, when there is a blatant amount of hostility between the various members?

I also think that there should be more mention of those occasional bouts of what I would term either nastiness or viciousness from Ginny (you are welcome to suggest an alternative term). She is unpleasant about Percy (despite his being the only family member willing to stand up for her in her first year); she is unnecessarily unpleasant about Fleur, and shows no regard at all for the fact that Bill wants to marry the woman (and we get no indication that he bothered to stick up for Fleur, or impress upon the family that she was his fiancee, so they were to stop criticising her); she is almost scientifically horrible to Ron, rubbing his nose in the fact that he has never had a girlfriend and that Harry and Hermione have both had relationships (despite the fact that she knows he gets horribly jealous of both of them, and is likely to have observed that he and Hermione both wanted to go to the Slug Club together, if not more), and deliberately hurts him emotionally (making disturbing comments about him supposedly having a crush on his aunt). That is a pattern of behaviour, of the sort you requested evidence for, and I think it ought to be referred to. Thanks. Michaelsanders 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly "viciousness", it's harmless sibling/teasing/joshing/etc. Percy has estranged himself from the entire family, she treats them just as the other do: with little regard except for the occasional disparaging remark. True, she did treat Fleur poorly, behind her back, but with the events of the attack on Bill, and Molly's acceptance of her as her future daughter-in-law, Ginny's stance should know be considered unknown. Her attacks on Ron were provoked by his older-brother jealousy/protectiveness comments and behavior. The view we see should be the view represented in the article, it is in keeping with canon and prevents articles being written in a in-universe style.

John Reaves 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Between Ginny and the three mentioned, it is both nasty and disproportionate - her reaction to Ron's mildly offensive comments about her was far more offensive (it was reminiscent of Morfin Gaunt's taunting of Merope). And how many 'close-knit' families have that amount of back-biting? Disfunctional seems to be the more generally applied term, appropriate or not. Broken home is another such term. I would really disagree with referring to them as a close-knit family. As for the use of the term 'disreputable', it is hardly essential for inclusion in this article, but I feel that it is nothing more than a statement of the family's status within wizarding society. Michaelsanders 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting a relation to the Gaunts? That's what makes them "close-knit" or whatever term you'd like to use, that type of harmless interaction makes them the tight clan that they are. And you already know my views on "disreputable". John Reaves 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You do have an active imagination. I am not suggesting any OR kinship between the Gaunts and the Weasleys. I am pointing out that few people would hesitate to condemn Morfin, yet similar behaviour from Ginny does not, according to yourself, even merit the term 'nasty'. And no, the behaviour between the Weasley family members does not make them a tight clan, and it is not harmless. It is damaging destructve: look at the state of affairs prior to the end of GOF, look at how easily they all slung Percy out, largely through the groundwork laid in the first four books. Look at how disunited and argumentative, and less than satisfied they were in the first four books, before they went into their fear huddle. Consider Ron and Molly's relationship (sandwiches she knows he hates the first time ever he leaves home at eleven, jumpers she knows he hates every christmas - what, she couldn't buy a different coloured wool, in between making Harry his elaborate jerseys? -, doesn't bother to buy him or find him a new wand - he didn't tell her it was broken, but the school would have written, he couldn't do his lessons properly with that thing - robes which she does nothing to make more amenable, instead handing them to him in a 'sod you' attitude whilst going to a great deal of trouble to buy Harry robes she thinks will suit him), which only changes when he becomes a prefect and she sees him as a Percy alternative, a new child to play as favourite. Consider that Bill and Charlie went as far from home as possible as soon as they left Hogwarts, and that Bill only returned when he was called up by Dumbledore (and Charlie still managed to wiggle out of returning). That is not a happy family, that is not a tight knit or united family, that is a supremely damaged family, one which is only waiting for all the kids to leave home before it ends up disintegrating into a disparate group of people who only meet at Christmas. Actually give it real consideration - can you think of any family in real life who act like the Weasleys and yet are described as happy or close-knit? Because I cannot. Michaelsanders 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How are they similar? Ginny's behavior is hardly equivalent to Morfin's, Ginny has never terrified and torturedo Ron to the point that Morfin did to Merope. Percy ostacized himself, and only after repeated attempts of reconciliation did the family, especially Molly, give up hope. These are minor squabbles, hardly the types of things that tear familes apart. Perhaps you are forgetting that they are poor? Harry owned no robes, and his were most likely paid for by hi emmense fortune. Romania and Egypt are hardly "as far from home as possible" It has been stated that Bill and Charlie have a difficult time getting away from work, and they probably lack the financial means needed for frequent travel. Fortunately, this is a work of fiction, and somehow the Weasley's maintain a close-knit relationship through all thier "hardship." John Reaves 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy walked out, yes. They did nothing to stop him, instead seeming to gloat that he was gone ('"I think we're well shot of him", said George, with an uncharacteristically ugly look on his face' - well, isn't that loving and close-knit?). They did little to bring him back, with the exception of Molly. I am not forgetting that they are poor at all. The robes issue is not relevant because he got *better* robes, but because Molly took the trouble to choose them carefully, so that he could look his best. By contrast, giving Ron a pair of robes which were not only second hand (so what) but ugly (that was the *best* the shops had?), and which she clearly expended no time on to make at all more presentable, even when Ron told her that they were ugly (Ron managed to get them looking more presentable using a severing charm. Molly couldn't - or didn't - even do that? The woman is a skilled knitter, she'll have enough basic sewing skills to make the things more presentable). In any case, if a mother expends more care, attention and effort on her son's friend than the son himself, then something is very wrong. Rumania and Egypt - the dragons are kept in the wilds of Rumania, making it very difficult, even without the expense, for regular visits (given that there are Welsh and Hebridean dragons, if they really were so close-knit, Charlie could have worked with those, and been much nearer). Egypt, we don't know about. We do know that it is too far for it to be anything more than an occasional holiday. That doesn't sound close knit. And what about you? How do you reason that this perenially arguing, unhappy, factional family is close-knit? At all?

Lets keep this on the Weasley family page. I've already answered there. It's been established that dragons are kept in seculded sanctuaries and are strictly controlled. We getting into canon issues that cannot be verified. He took a job doing what he liked, this hardly escaping his family. John Reaves 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Shoot, I know I wrote up a big long review of this article when I read it, but it doesn't seem to have been saved. The last section the Half Blood Prince needs to worked on, particularly the paragraph wherein Ron gets poisoned. I personally think there needs to be some citations, particularly in some of the less known facts. There were some other observations that I had, but I'm going to have to re-read the article to make them. Her dating Michael Cronner occurred in which book? I'll try to get back to this article to give you more of a critique, but those were the points that I remember off the top of my head.Balloonman 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article is way better than what it was a few months ago but ALL of the quotes form the books need to be refrenced (with page numbers). Dalf | Talk 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed

I am sorry to say that I failed Ginny Weasley for GA. Here the reasons as of WP:WIAGA.

1. Well written: neutral - the opening section could be better as of WP:LEAD.
2. Verifiable: FAIL - far too little references. Much of the text is borderline WP:NOR. -
3. Broad: FAIL - no words about real-life phenonema, such as e.g. on Shipping_(fandom). Also, the article is mostly firmly in-universe, thus violating WP:WAF, which article about fiction must adhere to. Also, WP:NOT dictates "wikipedia is not a plot summary", which most of the article unfortunately is. If a Wikipedian comes and slashes 90% of the "Role in the books" out, you will have a hard time arguing against her/ him.
4. NPOV: Pass.
5. Stable: Pass.
6. Images: FAIL - where is the fair use rationale of the Bonnie Wright picture? See e.g. Scarlett Johansson how to do it correctly. Weak pass - ok for now, but I am wary of images without explicit Fair Use rationale, especially in GAs or FAs
7. Misc: please read WP:WAF carefully before renominating, especially WP:WAF#Out-of-universe_perspective
8. Misc2: also WP:CITET (cite book) should be applied. I really would like to see facts backed up by lines like (X happens) "HP4: p 199-210" or "Y happens) "HP2: p.21-25" or such.
9. Misc3: this article was on hold for (edit) 7 days, but no major improvements (referencing!) were made

Sorry, but this article still needs work before becoming a GA. Still, happy wiki-ing! —Onomatopoeia 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you give some more detail here? I have not worked on this article in a while and when I did it was mostly deleting stuff that was inapproprate but the opening seems to be pretty good at the moment.
2. I agree 100% in addition to what I said above about all of the quotes or refrences to the books need to have ref tags and have page numbers there is a small amouhnt of as you say borderling litrary criticism that nees to be refrenced (but not as bad as it use to be)
3. I had the same thought about the shippign stuff. I think it was removed because it was bate for people who wanted to editoralize, and made NPOV hard. I think there are a few reputable fan sites (especially the ones that JKR has called out as good) which are firmly established that can be used as good secondary sources for this. There are a number of other fan sites that can be (very carfully) used as primary sources but that is a bit tricky and hard to keep people in line. Regardless the materal needs to be covered or the article is incompete. I disagree about the role in the books stuff being in danger, it is based almost completely in the facts of "there were the scenes she was in" and thre is a minimum litrary criticism (Which woudl be in danger) if someone simply adds page numbers to everythign in quotation marks or secene refrences then that shoudl be fine.
4. I was suprised at how NPOV it manged to be though it did so by simply removing the sections that were problematic. Once the coverate is restored this one might be a problem.
5. Ok
6. I am annoyed by the use of the movie actors pictures for Harry Potter charcter articles. The move version of hte univers is diffrent in amny ways from the books and we really should get some wikipedian to provide some images with proper copyright that are not photographs of actors. I would not want any harry potter article as GA if it is exclusivly illastrated with pictures from the movies or pictures of the actors form the movies.
7. Can you give some examples of the Out-of-Univers standard that you feel have been violated? This article talks about her role in the books in terms of the main character, it is never confusing about what is real and what is not. Everything is written in terms of scenes and chapters. If there is a problem here it is small.
8. Amen!!
9. The refrenceing is the biggets problem IMHO.

Dalf | Talk 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone please give examples of what needs citations from the book? Tagging them in the article (or at least some) would be useful. Also, examples for formating the citations. Seems to me that having them all inline would clutter the page. Perhaps a footnote type format would be better. Also, thanks for the reviews. John Reaves 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As of WP:LEAD, I can demand for a mid-length article that it limits itself to 2 concise paragraphs. It also contains a plot spoiler (looks ugly); the Weasley family info should come lower, and not in the lead. As of WP:WAF, please apply a real-life POV: e.g. "In 1997, K.K. Rowling wrote (HP1) and introduces Ginny as the younger sister of Ronald (ref => add chapter, and if you add pages, also version, British or American, as page numbers differ)". To give a more elaborate example, here how I would start the HP2 section:

Have a look at Horcrux that article mostly uses the correct style. Dalf | Talk 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998), Rowling fleshes out the character of Ginny. Rowling involves her more, letting her attending Hogwarts, a year after Harry and her brother Ron. While she appears to play a mostly behind-the-scenes role in the book — looking mysteriously ill(ref: HP2, chapter x) and providing light humour with her obvious crush on Harry —(ref: HP2, chapter x), Rowling established that Ginny turns out to be behind the year's biggest mystery, a series of unexplained attacks that leave several Muggle-born students petrified. Rowling lets Harry eventually discover that a magical school diary made by Tom Riddle (the young Lord Voldemort) has been possessing her in order to access the Chamber of Secrets and unleash a Basilisk on the school.(ref: HP2, chapter x)

For the referencing, please use WP:CITET. Hope I could help. The article has a good core, and we all look forward to award that green cross if it makes that magical step from B- to GA-class. —Onomatopoeia 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions on which country's version to use? John Reaves 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but it's better to either stick to one publisher (which would open up a can of worms), or (IMHO better) just limit the reference precision to chapter references rather rather than to page references. IMHO, it's better to have a 20-something-page scope where you can read XYZ up, than an imprecise page scope or a too broad book scope (nobody will read 700+ pages of book just to find out one trait). —Onomatopoeia 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I helped do this on Horcrux and dffrent p[eopel willing to help all had diffrent vrsions. SImply be nice and specific that it is the american hardback or the uk paper bck or whatever and the page number and where approprate (if the text is citing a fact but not a quote) include the quote that estabilshed the fact. Doing this keeps us in line abut not using them for anything but primary sources with no literary criticism. Dalf | Talk 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixing up this article

{{editprotected}}The Deathly Hallows needs to be changed for rediclous and unaproipate editing to she gets busy with harry and has 3 kids. Thats a serious wha... {{editprotected}}

I've been overhauling this article to get it up to Good Article quality. I haven't got my new version ready yet, but I thought I'd let everyone know what I have in mind.

The GA review on this page pointed out that this article is written in a primarily in-universe style. I'm pretty much totally rewriting it to be out-of-universe. I've never tried this before, so it probably won't be perfect, but it will definitely be a lot closer. The review also mentioned that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that a lot of the trivial detail and plot summary in this article should be axed. I agree, and I'm doing a lot of trimming. As much as I love completeness and would like to leave in things such as how many times Ginny grins at Harry in book two, whom Michael Corner dates after Ginny dumps him, etc. (and I'm not being sarcastic; I really would!), Wikipedia isn't the place for that. There are plenty of fan websites out there which can and do store such information. For example, I'm deleting Ginny's birthdate (birth and death dates of fictional characters are considered in-universe style).

At this point, there are hardly any citations on the entire page. I'm currently citing all claims from the books in footnote format... I just think that looks nicer. After checking out JKR's website and doing a Google search, I can't find a source for the claim that JKR posted a "chapter plan" of OOTP stating that she intentionally contrasted Ginny and Cho by having Ginny outdo Cho both at Quidditch and in Dumbledore's Army. Therefore, I'm going to delete this claim, but if anyone can find that source, it would of course be great to have it back in.

As the GA reviewer said, this article needs more information on Ginny's role in fandom/shipping. If anyone reading this is an expert in that area, it would be wonderful if you could write up that section. I have a cursory knowledge of the subject and can write it if necessary, though.

I'm going to be doing this update within the next couple of days. By the way, there's great stuff in this article already and though I am doing a major overhaul, I'm trying to retain some of its current phrasing. Meredith March 19:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The plan in question is this one: http://www.bitchnmoan.net/images/oopplan.jpg You see that she has Cho and Ginny both in the same subplot column, although this is obviously a very early draft because many things changed between here and the actual novel, including chapter titles and even the name of Harry's DADA group.

As for re-entering the fandom/shipping section, good luck with that. We used to have a section about that here (you'll find it if you go back and look in the archives about 6-7 months or so back), but it got taken down. Partly because it was a lot of "some fans think this, while other fans think that" stuff without much in the way of citations to back anything up, and partly because it seemed to be a magnet for Ginny-haters who were constantly either adding negative perspectives or just outright vandalizing it. If you (or anyone) could somehow write or rewrite that section in a way that doesn't lend itself to future fan editorializing (from Ginny-lovers or Ginny-haters), that would be awesome!--Zequist 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that chapter plan. (How cool!) Do you think it would be acceptable to just include a link to that image as a reference for any statements about it? It seems to me that if we do that, there won't be any evidence that some fan didn't just draw up the plan on a piece of binder paper. Am I right in thinking that we should have a reference that proves it's real (like a mention on a reliable website or something)?

I see your point about the controversial nature of the fandom/shipping section, which I've now checked out in the archives. It seems to me that if the section comes back, it should stay away from a discussion of whether Ginny is admirable character, whether fans like or dislike her, etc. That was kind of the direction it was taking before, and like you said, it was treading dangerous ground because much of it was subjective and not backed up with citations. I think the section might be better off focusing on concrete fandom phenomena, like the long-standing contention between Harry/Ginny and Harry/Hermione factions and the fact that some H/H shippers reacted with anger and disappointment when H/G became canon. Those kinds of things can be discussed in a factual and unbiased manner. That said, I'm kind of torn on whether any of it is important enough to be in Wikipedia. Would it add the real-world relevance we need here? Or would it be too specialized? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards including it.... Meredith March 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The chapter plan image is available on Rowling's web site, but there's no way to link it directly from there because it's one of the "hidden treasures" that visitors can unlock for themselves. The HP Lexicon keeps a guide to her web site though, so we can use this link here, or one of the pages that it connects to, and I think that will be authoritative enough: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-tips.html#revision

The reviewer above who rated this article said that we did need a section on her place in the fandom, so for better or for worse we'd better include that information. However, I think that it is possible to do that without detailing and cataloging long lists of specific fan opinions, which is where the real minefield lies. If we stick to the cold, hard facts, it might work out alright. I'll have a go at that section over the next day or two and see if I can do anything with it. If I can I'll post whatever I can come up with here, if I can't I'll let you know that it was beyond my power. :-) --Zequist 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I agree that the Lexicon link would be sufficient. Also, I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with for the fandom section. I think we're on the same page about sticking to hard facts only. I had already experimented a bit with writing the section, so I'll post here what I came up with. (I'll just list the references I found as links in parentheses.) Maybe you can make use of some of this, or we can combine our ideas:

Ginny's character plays a specific role in the phenomenon of Harry Potter fan culture, familiarly known as fandom. Ginny is one of several main Harry Potter characters focused on by "shippers", fans who support the idea of romantic relationships between specific pairs of fictional characters. Some shippers enjoy imagining and writing about their pairings of choice without expecting those pairings ever to become canon, but in fandoms such as Harry Potter in which that canon is still being produced, many shippers maintain hopes that their favorite pairings will indeed materialize. Among shippers in Harry Potter fandom who focus on pairing the character of Harry with a female character, there has long been a major faction who favor Harry's close friend Hermione Granger as a match for him and another major faction preferring Harry with Ginny. (How can we prove this? The best I've come up with is illustrating the popularity of each pairing by citing statistics from FanFiction.Net or someplace like that.)

The opposing preferences of Harry/Ginny and Harry/Hermione shippers have kindled debate and contention between the two communities, with fans engaging in detailed analysis of the Harry Potter novels in order to support their opinions. After the publication of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, some fans who had hoped Rowling was setting the stage for a romance between Harry and Hermione expressed anger and disappointment over the author's decision to introduce a relationship between Harry and Ginny instead. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/03/DDG0RE1DDI1.DTL) Some of these fans have criticized Rowling and claimed they will not support the final installment of the Harry Potter series unless Rowling replaces Ginny with Hermione as Harry's love interest. (http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ultimate_betrayal/) Meredith March 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've come up with. Although like with you, I'm having trouble sourcing some of these statements even though I know they are true, because unfortunately so much of it comes out of reading forums and livejournals and other such places that aren't normally considered "authoritative" sources. I took the tack of not getting specifically into the H/Hr-H/G argument, because I know plenty of Harry/Luna shippers and anti-shippers (call them the Harry/nobody crowd) who dislike Ginny just as much. Still, we may decide that needs to be included anyway. I've marked (cite?) at points where I feel like a citation might be in order, but am not sure where to go to get a good one. Some of those might not even need to be cited, but I tried to err on the side of conservatism. Anyway, see what you think.

Ginny in the Harry Potter fandom

Ginny’s lack of character development in the first four books led to a great deal of speculation and debate among the fans about her true personality. Fan fiction authors prior to the release of book 5 portrayed her in many different ways: as a quiet and studious girl who wrote poetry in her spare time, a quidditch-loving tomboy, even a future Death Eater on occasion.(cite?) One of the most enduring fanon traits given to Ginny's character in this era was a habit of stealing socks. A fan fiction story named Carpe Diem introduced this character quirk, and it quickly became popular with fans and other fan fiction writers.(http://www.siye.co.uk/siye/viewstory.php?sid=9247&chapter=1) Another topic of general fan interest was and still is Ginny’s relationship with the memory of Tom Riddle, especially what happened between them that wasn’t shown in ‘’Chamber of Secrets’’ and how it might affect the remainder of the series.(cite?)

Like with most of the characters who did not have romantic pairings already established in canon, fans have paired Ginny with a wide variety of other characters over the years, both male and female. By far the most popular pairings for her have always been with either Harry Potter or Draco Malfoy. On the FictionAlley Park forums, where many of the early debates on romantic pairings were held and shipping in general remains a popular topic, both of those pairings still rank among the most heavily discussed, much more so than any other pairing involving Ginny. As of March, 2007, Harry/Ginny had been the subject of 87 dedicated threads containing over 15,000 posts, and Draco/Ginny the subject of 96 dedicated threads containing over 18,000 posts, with new posts still regularly added to both pairings. (http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/forumdisplay.php?s=bc11680d1d3cda3e77c97f031289fa7a&forumid=36)

The shift in Ginny’s role from a background character through the first four books to a featured character in book five forced many readers to re-evaluate their opinions of her, and the fallout effectively split the fan base, with some welcoming her newfound confidence and increased involvement in the story and others highly critical of it.(cite?) The split widened even further with the paths her character development and relationship with Harry took in book six.(cite?) The reasons given by fans on both sides for liking or disliking her are straightforward, but the root causes of why Ginny has become such a polarizing figure remain a mystery.(cite?) Many forum discussion threads on the Internet,(http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117652) and entire seminars at fan conventions,(http://www.thephoenixrises.org/programming/accepted/), (http://lumos2006.org/programming.shtml) have devoted themselves to examining this question. Various literary theories (examining how Ginny has been characterized and developed in the series),(cite?) sociological theories (examining the fans themselves and how their own personalities would affect their reaction to her),(cite?) and even feedback-loop theories (that the ongoing argument has driven moderate fans to choose sides, further fanning the flames)(cite?) have been suggested and debated, but there is still no consensus. Zequist (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the editprotected tags - I'm not sure what is being requested, exactly. Plerase put them immediately beside the requests. But this page is only semiprotected, so any username more than 4 days old can edit it. There is no need for admin help to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

I disagree about Ginny's "birthdate" being needed in the article -- obviously, since I deleted it. :) Like I said earlier on this talk page, the birth and/or death dates of fictional characters don't belong in Wikipedia (perhaps because they were never actually born, nor do these dates have any real-world significance whatsoever). If you don't believe me, look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style for writing about fiction, where it says so explicitly. If we want this article to be a GA, we need to follow those guidelines. Ginny's birthdate is indeed referenced, but that doesn't mean it should stay. It's in-universe trivia. Meredith March 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Her age is relevant - for a start, it explains why she is in a different school year to the protagonist; I also seem to remember that one of her reasons for embarassment was that Harry was older than her. In any case, the article is written the way it is, and birthdates are part of that. If you intend to change it, then the birthdate will be mentioned in the character biography (as is the case with Ron Weasley). Michaelsanders 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough that if you're in the next year down from someone in school, you're about a year younger than that person. Also, if Harry's being a year older is a factor in Ginny's embarrassment around him, it's a small one -- the main point is that he's a famous "rock god", as JKR put it, and she has a crush on him.

That said, I looked at the article again and you're right; the "Role in the series" section neglects to explain exactly why Ginny doesn't start attending Hogwarts until the year after Harry and Ron begin there. I can see how someone who's unfamiliar with HP might think there was some other reason for her late arrival. So how about this: I'm almost finished with a rewrite of the "Role in the series" section, and in it, I'll make sure it's clear that Ginny is a year younger than Harry. I'll leave the birthdate until that new version is posted, but at that point, I would like to delete it. It belongs at the Lexicon and other such places, but it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state that. Meredith March 19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced, stated specifically by Rowling, and is allowed to be worked into the text. Probably in the new role in the series section. But it'll do as it is for now. Other than that, the new section looks good - though I assume that the authorial references to her being designed as Harry's 'ideal woman' will be restored under the spoiler warning. Good work. Michaelsanders 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to lead and name sections

Since I've made significant changes to the first part of this article, here's an explanation of some what I've done. If there's disagreement, let's discuss it!

The lead and name info sections really needed to be in a more out-of-universe style, so I had to pretty much rewrite them, especially the lead. At the same time, I tried to make them more accessible and informative for those who aren't familiar with HP. The lead (meaning everything before the first section heading) should basically be an introduction to Ginny's character (assuming that we're talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about HP) and a preview of what the article is going to address. I left Ginny's physical description and personality traits in the lead, and when we get a fandom/shipping section up and running, I'd like to add a line or two about that in the lead, too.

The GA review said that having a spoiler warning in the lead "looks ugly", which I take to mean that it's kind of a minus point against the article. Therefore, I changed the lead so that it no longer needs the spoiler warning, and I moved the warning down to the beginning of the "Role in the Series" section. Obviously, this means that the lead can no longer explicitly say that Ginny ends up as Harry's love interest. I know, I know, nobody's going to like that... but I think it has to be done. Everybody needs to be able to read the lead, even those who don't want to be spoiled. I still made it clear that Ginny takes on an important role in Harry's story as the series progresses.

The lead seemed a bit long, so I added a "Background" section and moved some of the information about the Weasley family there. I also removed some trivial information about the Weasley family, especially since all that stuff can be found on the Weasley family page.

I changed the "Behind the Name" section to "Name Etymology", which I think sounds more encyclopedic. Other than that, this section is more or less as it was before, only a little more out-of-universe and with an explanation of why an analysis of Ginny's name is relevant.

And finally, these first three sections are pretty thoroughly referenced now. Meredith March 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I entered this talk page so I could ask whoever it was who rewrote the lead section to work on the rest of the article as well. Wonderful job. --AceMyth 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

name etymology: original research

While the etymology of Ginny's name is relevant to the article, I think we must rely on published sources that specifically relate to why Rowling chose "Ginevra". Both the "Guinevere" version and the "Juniper" etymologies are interesting, and both are sourced (the second better than the first), but neither source relates the names to Ginny Weasley. For us to make that connection ourselves, I think, is original research. For all we know, Rowling might have picked Ginevra arbitrarily. (Unlikely, but still.) --Allen 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the section seems to be rather heavy with inaccuracies; most reputable sources I've seen have given Ginevra as the Italian form of Guinevere only, and not related to the juniper tree. Also, as far as I'm aware it's in no way connected to Genevieve, which is supposed to mean something like "white wave" from Proto-Celtic, but doesn't seem to have any certain Proto-Celtic etymology. Of course, if I stated any of this in the article, it would be original research; but as it stands, the section seems to have plenty of that anyway, which is very troubling. -- Goueznou, 69.248.140.84 01:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete the section, then. I think the only way we could have a section on name etymology is if we had a published source that said something directly about Rowling's choice for this character's name. --Allen 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently read a novel by Agatha Christie, named Appointment with Death, where one of the main characters first name was Ginevra, and her nickname was 'Jinny' (note the 'J'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonOfLegend (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix patrounus?

Where does it say that?

Her patronus is seen quite clearly in the movie of Order of the Phoenix to be a horse. I've tried to edit it, but nothing. As for Phoenix? No idea, it isn't. --Harlequin212121 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that J.K.Rowling mentioned that her patronus is a phoenix. The movies are not taken as canon by the fandom. However, due to her involvement in the filming of the movie and my inability to find proof, I guess her patronus is a horse.Bananastars 03:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I had read in an article, can't remember where off the top of my head, that J.K. had always intended Ginny's patronus to be a horse and that's why it had been chosen for the film. Aula^TPN 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

i think harrys was a horse wasnt it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeknoitall234 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eye Color

It says her eyes are brown. But they are clearly blue in the picture.

That is because JK Rowling writes in the book that all Weasly Children have brown eyes, freckles and red hair. Bonnie Wright, the actress that potrayes her, has blue eyes, but "officially" they are considered brown Loopywelshemz 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ginny's Name Change?

Just a thought, but the epilogue of DH never refers to Ginny as "Ginny Potter." For that matter, it never explicitly says Harry and Ginny are married (though it clearly implies they have children together). It's probably reasonable to assume they are married, but is it reasonable to assume that she would take Harry's last name? Is the name change justified? Given that many women today do not take their husband's names, is it necessary to change a name that was not explicitly done by JKR? 24.147.123.99 12:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The epilogue does name Ginny as being a Potter, though (the exact quote is "the five Potters approached the barrier," and it's made clear the "five" in question are Harry, Ginny and the three children). I think Ginny being called a Potter is sufficient evidence that they are married and she changed her name. 81.1.92.41 14:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but this does not mean that her name should be altered in the article. For seven books her name has been Ginny Weasley. To add the Potter name for the sake of a five page epilogue is inappropriate. --Tailkinker 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is right now (article named Ginny Weasley, with her full name ended with (Potter) in the first sentence) is appropriate. Articles generally are titled by the name a person is best known for, so of course that shouldn't be changed. But if it's in the books that she becomes one of the Potters, we can't just completely ignore it. How many pages JKR devotes to the fact that Ginny becomes Mrs Potter is irrelevant. How many pages has JKR devoted to the fact that Ginny's middle name is Molly? I bet less than the epilogue. Yet no one is suggesting we should omit her middle name.81.1.81.22 00:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Her name is changed to Ginny Potter at the end of the series, so it needs to be noted in the article. Since she is refered to as one of the "5 Potters", it is confirmed. Therefore, having her name have Potter at the end is completely appropriate. Gtompkins48 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate to include her middle name because Molly is her middle name throughout the entire series of books. She does not become Ginny Potter until the final five pages, and therefore that name should not be included in the header section. Her marriage to Harry is, at best, a footnote to the character and should only be mentioned in the appropriate section regarding her future. --Tailkinker 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Her marraige to Potter is a big deal. Much more significant than her middle name. Making a mention of her Potter last name makes sense and should be included in the intro. Showers 07:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it is important, to include her married name in the introduction gives away the outcome of the series. The revelation of her married name should probably be kept out of the intro.

Like I said, if she changes her name by the end of the book, it should and be noted at least. 24.91.189.35 12:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it is important, to include her married name in the introduction gives away the outcome of the series. The revelation of her married name should probably be kept out of the intro. And the excuse that "people should realize there will be spoilers before coming here" is irrelevant, this is a reference page Twister10 07:46, 22 July 2007.

Perhaps we should vote on it, inorder to avoid an edit war. Showers 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to state, no matter what personal views people have about name changes, it should be based on J.K.'s views, not of what you want it to be. She is listed as one of 5 Potters, It should be Definetely Ginerva Molly "Ginny" Potter, and state that her maiden name is Weasley, very well known to those who have read the book. I beleive that this change needs to be falicitated somewhat soon, but giving some people the time to read, maybe a week? I think that should eb teh question of when, but definetely not the other, that is the authors wishes, and if you would do otherwise that is what you would do, we should really honor What J.K. Rowling wrote, So I believe that Ginerva Molly "Ginny" Potter would be more than appropriate, as it is the fact, according to our author. Lets help decide when it happens to help stop from ruining peoplees experience too. Go Ginny/Harry! :D Tigerhawk47 05:06 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should stay at Ginny Weasley, but should begin "Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (nee Weasley) is....", or something similiar Exploding Boy 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current policy regarding spoilers is that they can be used liberally, without the need for spoiler warning, inside sections of articles specifically relating to plots or character histories, as people should realise that those sections will, by their very nature, be spoiler heavy - the spoiler warnings are considered redundant in those cases. Ginny's eventual marriage to Harry represents a major spoiler in that it confirms her survival of the war against Voldemort. As such, putting it in the header for the article is inappropriate. Besides, continuing to use the maiden name as a middle name is extremely uncommon in the UK, so giving her name, as some editors have done, as Ginevra Molly Weasley Potter would be almost certainly incorrect anyway. --Tailkinker 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While it certainly constitutes a spoiler now, ultimately her actual name, according to canon, needs to be used in this article. Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (nee Weasley) conforms to both our manual of style and to custom in most of the English-speaking Western world. Exploding Boy 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my original comment, I did see the reference to the "five Potters", though I don't think even that necessarily constitutes appropriate reason to append "Potter" to her name in the header. As was noted in response, for all but 5 pages of canon, she is known as Ginny Weasley, and she is only once referred to as one in a group of Potters -- NOT as "Ginny Potter" (or any variant thereof). And, for that matter, why should her presumed name at the end of the series be granted privileged status? If, for some bizarre reason (secrecy, whimsy, who knows), on the last page of DH it said that all records and references to Voldemort were ordered by some leaders in the wizarding world to be referred to now as "Buster Keaton," should the first line of the article on Voldemort be changed to refer to "Buster Keaton"?? Obviously that would be a footnote to be referenced in the appropriate part of the article, not as the beginning of the header. Ginny's presumed altered surname seems to fit into the same category.

Moreover, the general practice among couples I know where the woman has not changed her name is often to refer to the family by the husband's last name anyway just for convenience. (E.g. Ann Jones marries Bob Smith and keep their names. If we wanted to refer to their family, we would generally say "the Smiths" not the "Jones-Smiths" or the "Smiths and Joneses" or (if their are children with the name "Smith") "the Smiths and Ms. Jones". You just don't say things like that generally... you say "the Smiths.") Therefore, I don't think even the reference to the "five Potters" is clear enough to warrant changing Ginny's name unless JKR says so. Just my two cents. 24.147.123.99 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The five Potters at the station says that her name is no longer Weasly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

In answer to your questions, yes, canon is canon. We refer to people and events as they are in the most recent canon, unles we're talking about some specific other point in canon. Thus, the Gaunt family was a pure-blood wizarding family, but Ron and Hermione are married. The last 5 pages of Book 7 represent the most up-to-date information we have on Ginny, and it's clear her name, like the names of all other married women in the books, has changed to that of her husband. Exploding Boy 05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The "five Potters" seems to show that her last name has changed from Weasley to Potter. However, there's no evidence of her altering her middle name at all. Editing the article to say that Weasley is now her middle name or second middle name is purely speculation, not from the canon. Thus, she should be listed as Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (née Weasley). Ariadne55 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The "five potters" doesn't mean that Ginny changed her name, for if she hadn't her family would still likely be calld the potters (one person's name "Weasely" wouldn't change the family name.) It is also of note that all the other married woman in the series are of an older generation. Lastly, the only reason Rowling made the other married woman in her book like this likely only for convenience sake, and since Ginny already has a last name, if anything, changing it would be more confusing.

The five potters does mean she changed her name, we need to leave any person views on wether name changes are bad or things like this out of this page, this deals with facts, that the author wrote. It shoould not be a debate on whether Ginny believed that she should not change her name or not, I beleive from the character she would, and would be proud to do so, but this inot about what we would do, it is about what J.K. said and wrote, it is Ginevera Molly "Ginny" Potter, that is how she wrote it, and should be honored beyond what people want it to be. Tigerhawk47 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Ginny is a Potter, but at this point naming her as one in the INTRODUCTION constitutes a massive spoiler for the series, in that it reveals that both she and Harry survive. The revelation of her married name should be left to the body of the article. Twister10 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For now, I agree. In about a week or so I think we can safely assume that anyone who cares has finished the book or already learned what happens, and we can put it in the first sentence where it belongs. Exploding Boy 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to introduce Ginny as "Ginny Potter" in any form. For seven books, she is known as Ginny Weasley. In an epilogue, she is vaguely referred to as being named Potter. Every reader knows her as Ginny Weasley. I understand fans wanting to spread their happiness by calling her Ginny Potter, but that's a bad reason for the article to do so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why the title of the article has not changed. Showers 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything in the epilogue stating explicitly that Ginny changed her last name. The bit about 'five Potters' simply meant the family as a whole. Her last name could still be Weasley. As vague the epilogue is with regard to last names, perhaps JKR intended that Ginny's last name be in the eye of the beholder. JKR would have some say over that, of course. I do find it interesting that Ginny's eventual last name has become a cultural values test. (Brumnoil, 05:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree with DaSuHouse's explanation in Talk:Hermione_Granger#A vote? - "Only the author of a series can determine the name of a character." The name Ginevra Molly Potter is never explicitly stated in the books and one cannot assume that the author intended as such. Therefore her canonical name is Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Weasley. -- Ladida 06:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't say that she's married in the epilogue either, but that is presumed. I think it should be like this. "Ginerva Molly 'Ginny' Weasley (Married name presumed to be Potter)", in that way, we keep canon, yet everyone is happy. Gtompkins48 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gtompkins - that's what I changed it to, but no, it couldn't be kept that way. It sounded like a good compromise though.

The book refers to 'the five Potters' - hence, in the epilogue of 'Deathly Hallows', I saw:

A Harry Potter - that's one; A Ginny Potter - that's two; A James Potter (and that's James Potter II) - that's three; A Lily Potter - that's four; and An Albus Potter - look at that! The magical number five!

I did not, however, see separate mentions of a Harry Potter, a James Potter, a Lily Potter, an Albus Potter and a Ginny Weasley. I don't understand how Jo's intentions are as yet unclear? I honestly can't think why Jo would refer to the five Potters as such if there weren't, in actuality, five Potters. Are there other Potters? Who and where are they? Abbag1rl 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear--I would say explicitly clear--that her name has changed, and though it may be one single mention, at the end of the final book of the series, it is still canon. The title of the article will stay at Ginny Weasley, per policy (ie: it's the name she's best known by), but her actual name should be given in the form Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (nee Weasley). Exploding Boy 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unattributable. The only source for plot-related things in this article is the book itself, so you have no way to attribute the claim that her name is "Ginny Potter". All it says is that she is part of the Potter family (of which there are five), but she wouldn't have to change her name for that. You're using a name in the lead of the article that the author never used, and I agree with Ladida that we need to apply the precedent that "Only the author of a series can determine the name of a character."

For now, I'm changing the lead to a compromise version that includes the speculation that she changes her name, because clearly some people insist it should be there, without actually altering the lead sentence to use a name that isn't the name of the article and that she isn't known by.

However, I'm not too satisfied by doing this. Extracting the claim into another sentence shows it for what it is: not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fiction say to describe this world, not the fictional one. In this world, she is not called Ginny Potter except by shipper fans declaring victory. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The "five Potters" suggests that they are all Potters. If it said the Potter family, that would be a different story. This is unlike Hermione, whom I discuss on her Talk page, who is never referred to as a Weasley even though JKR's intention is likely to convey this. I think leaving Ginny as Potter (nee Weasley) is fine. JKR may eventually address this, or she may not (feeling it is all conveyed), but this is unlikely until some time in the future when it is not such a spolier. --Cdman882 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the five Potters shows that her last name is Potter now. However, I'm puzzled by the two people who've said that the Ginny character would be "proud" of that being her last name. Ginny could change her last name to anything she wants, whether she's married or not, by deed poll for about £34. A name change isn't something to be proud of, it's not an achievement. If you meant that Ginny would be proud to be married to Harry, then tying that to a name change is absurd, because it seems to imply that he, because he didn't change his name, isn't proud to be married to her. We don't know why she changed her name, perhaps she simply wanted to move up the alphabet a few letters. Ariadne55 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe names can't be so easily changed in the wizarding world. We don't know. That's why we have to rely on canonical evidence. Exploding Boy 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why people are insisting that the page state she is a Potter in the introduction of the article. Argue you what you will (no one is trying to rob the character of her happy ending) but it is still a SPOILER. It is best left to the main part of the article, specifically the section on Deathly Hallows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

But you see, the thing is, no one is forcing anyone to check this website, in fact, the wise reader will avoid the internet altogether, if you don't wish to be spoiled, don't go where there are spoilers. And as to the issue at hand, I maintain that her name should be Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (née Weasley). Oh, and as to those referring to her as being "proud" I believe they are merely saying she would be happy to be a Potter. Locke ^{Non Omnis Moriar} 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's a spoiler. The problem is that it doesn't describe this world, in that it doesn't describe a particularly relevant aspect of the character Ginny, and doesn't call her by a name people call her in the real world.

Here's a comparison. The article on Harry Potter (character) describes him as a "child" or a "young wizard" in many places. That's how he's relevant to people in the real world -- when they are enjoying reading about a young wizard. Would you change the lead of his article to describe him as a 36-year-old father with an unknown profession, just because that's what he is in the epilogue? Of course not! So why does this article suddenly start out describing the 35-year-old Ginny Potter (if that is her name), instead of Ginny Weasley, a young witch who many have been reading about for years?

Spoilers are a red herring. Relevance, attributability, and Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fiction (read them) are the important issues here. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation rspeer. So essentially this is not a live person who will continue to live her life as Ginny Potter. It's a character who will always be read as Ginny Weasley. Her noted marriage to Harry and subsequent name change should be relegated to the final book's plot and involvement, possibly even at the end of her intro at some point; especially if JKR recognizes said change. --Cdman882 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I noted this below as well, but an example of a character whose name changed in the epilogue is Samwise Gamgee. I chose this since the Lord of the Rings articles appear to be well regarded. I think in her character box listing Ginny Potter as another name she would be known by, and redirecting Ginny Potter to this article would make sense, again... look at the article on Sam. Bloodycelt

I don't know, that sounds like an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to me. I don't think every name a character is ever called needs to be emphasized in the intro paragraph. I'd think it's justified when a character has two names with approximately equal prominence, but I looked up two LOTR examples -- Gollum/Sméagol and Gandalf the Grey/Gandalf the White -- and they actually do something stylistically better than that. They use only one name (Gollum and Gandalf, respectively) in the intro paragraph, and then use whichever name is appropriate to the plot at later points in the article. So I'd say that Sam's article is out of line with the other LOTR articles.

My apologies, I was trying to find an example of a character whose name changed in the epilogue of a book in an article that has no pending issues. Gandalf and Gollumn went by many names within the books. So i did not even look at their articles. Possibly a bad example, but even gandalf has under Other Names (Lefthand box) a link since he has quite a few. I am pointing that out since if there is a NEED to put 'Ginny Potter' anywhere outside the section on her marriage that is a place for it, rather then in the intro and title. And since she only has one other name, no need for a link as in Gandalf's case. 24.91.113.247 06:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But getting back to Ginny, this case is extremely clear cut. There's one name that she is called for seven books, and there's another name that she is never called at all (except possibly piecewise in the epilogue). If the name "Ginny Potter" was mentioned in passing in the "Deathly Hallows" section, it would still be speculation that I'd say doesn't belong there. It certainly doesn't belong in the intro or the infobox. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, you just reverted her name to Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Weasley Potter. And you left that lovely curt order for me to read the talk page. I've been reading and posting to the talk page for two days about how no matter what her last name is, Weasley is not her middle name. Ariadne55 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(Those curt comments have been there for a day or two, not that they seem to have been effective.) Personally, I'd rather not have her married name in the introduction, in either form. It doesn't feel right, when the marriage is only referred to in the postscript to this long story. The marriage needs to be mentioned down in the body of the article, of course.

—wwoods 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the curt comments rspeer made in the edit summary. I don't care which way the last name thing goes for Ginny's page, but Weasley is not her middle name. Also, I think rspeer doesn't realize that he reverted to an edit that he seems to disagree with. Ariadne55 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry -- I undid the wrong edit. There has been quite a morass of edits to the name, what with middle names, hyphenated names, and so on. I meant to direct the comment to the person who reinserted "Potter" into her name, not you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. I shouldn't have been so grouchy and argumentative. We both have the same goal of trying to keep the page as accurate as possible :) Ariadne55 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles for women married late in the series should definately not be renamed, but how about adding their married name to the first line of the article, and setting that name up as a redirect? -- AvatarMN 10:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the redirect idea, but their names should not be updated in the opening, for spoiler reasons. Spoilers in the plot summary is fine, but should not be in the title, opening or infobox. faithless (^speak) 11:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Can someone broaden Ginny's description in The Deathly Hallows section? Her role in the book warrants more than 2 mini-paragraphs. 2 things that should definatly be there are:

a) She dropped out of Hogwarts after easter (confirmed by Neville). This is a big deal.

b) She constantly shows signs of jealousy over Harry (Gabrielle, Cho)

These aren't really big things, but some of it should definatly be there. Like her dropping out. And the jealousy personality trait she shows for the first time. Those two should be there. Also, the current events in the article should be described in more detail. I would edit it myself but it's locked. Gtompkins48 05:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

--I can agree that A is sort of important, but I disagree with B.JCgirlandlegal 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Just some suggestions I thought I might add to that:

- The first time they meet since book 6, she finds out that Harry is going after Voldemort, which leads up to the reasoning for her birthday present (It couldn't be too big otherwise you couldn't take it with you).

- (The 17th birthday kiss, this is already in there)

- Her loud cough at Gabrielle when she batted her eyes at Harry, and Harry steering Viktor Krum away from her by saying he's got a large, jealous-type boyfriend.

- Possibly the reasoning why the small DA group tried to steal Godric Gryffindor's sword from Snape (though they didn't know it was a fake) is because Ginny knew Dumbledoor had entrusted it to Harry, so she wanted to do this for Harry?

- Harry longing to see her, looking at her dot on the Marauder's map.

- (Going into hiding after easter, this is also in there)

- (And finally, her involvement in the battle of Hogwarts, and the epilogue, both which are already in there)

Sorry this may not be tabbed across properly, I don't actually know how to do it lol 121.45.194.206 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

--I'm sorry, but most of this isn't important to who she is as a character. Why is it important to include? JCgirlandlegal 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think that it is interesting to note, although not necessarily here, but probably on the DH page itself or Harry's page, that the last thing that Harry thinks of before he "dies" in the forest is Ginny.

-- How is that important to include? This is not the place for shipping agendas to take place 76.168.183.86 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

--its important to have those in there because it describes details in the book that show her character growth and personality!

---I disagree. I don't think it has much to do with HER personality, much of it has to do with the signs of the times and what the wizarding world was going through (such as leaving Hogwarts)75.83.164.88 04:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

The "Role In Series" portion needs a spoiler warning.

By Wikipedia policy, it doesn't get one. --Tailkinker 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How about using the "current fiction" template at the top of the article, as suggested by WP:SPOILER? --Allen 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"17th Birthday Present"

Just a question.. where does it say Ginny intended to give Harry sex? She did say she wanted Harry to remember it, but what reason is there that that was just nothing more then the long, fully emotional kiss that she gave him? It was morning, they were in an extremely busy household, where anyone could have popped in at a moments notice (as did happen). I think it was more likely and in her character to give him a kiss for him to remember how much she loved him then actual sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.206 (talk • contribs)

I concur; nothing more is implied then "a kiss to remember". It says that Harry had a hand on her back and in her hair, and later Ron refers to it (as he was picturing going on in the room) as "snogging" and then "groping", and it is implied that Ron is imagining the worst. The particular quote in the article does not appear in the book at all. The line about sex should be removed from the article -- I would do it myself, except I can't remember my password and the page is protected at the moment... 69.221.73.89 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My first impression was that if there were no interruptions that they would have sex, but I don't think its all that relevant in a wikipedia article since it's rather subjective. 24.91.113.247

Yeah, I know it's just a small thing really, but thanks nonetheless =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.206 (talk • contribs)

User:Wikipedian06 has re-added this to the article again. I'll hold fire from removing it until someone else does, as I've reverted this article enough today. This is just idiocy - having sex in an unlocked room in a crowded house? Daggoth | Talk 06:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I definetely believe that Ginny meant it as a deep meaningfull kiss, this is not what you would have done, but what J.K. knew what happened, she gave him his present that gave him the srength to fight as he did, J.K. wrote this and this was athe present for Harry, I don't believe it would have gone any further, you do not have have to have sex to have something be the most powerfull and meaningfull thing in your world, sometimes t just takes a kiss and being with the one your love. That is what J.K. really is trying to show us. Tigerhawk47

I'm not sure where this should go, but one little tidbit that I found enjoyable in the book was how Ginny fended off Cho Chang's possible approaches on Harry, by ensuring it was Luna Lovelace who took Harry to the Ravenclaw common room to look at the replica of the lost diadem.

Hopefully this can be included somewhere, as it reveals a lot about Ginny and her feelings towards Harry.

This is in there, only it's in the OotP movie section, also it's Luna Lovegood, and thirdly, whoever thinks that the kiss in Ginny's room was anything more than that, needs serious mental help.Locke ^{Non Omnis Moriar} 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The scene was deliberately ambiguous, so you can take it one way or the other. There isn't really a right or a wrong answer as to whether she wanted to have sex with Harry as her ultimate gift on his birthday. It is going to depend on your interpretation of the event. Personally, I think she wanted to, in order to tell him she loved him. I only take that meaning because she seemed disappointed in her statement of "Happy Birthday anyway" which implies to me that she wanted it to go much further and was annoyed at being cut off by Ron. Also, the books get more complex, and the relationships get more complex (friendship to dating, snogging, breakups... it seems by this point sex is a serious consideration). Jclinard 06:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Locke, You are right about Luna's surname. Sorry. But I think we're referring to different things in re: Ginny's outmanouvering of Cho.

I'm referring to pages 584 and 585 of the U.S. Edition of HP7, where Cho offers to take Harry to see the diadem ("If you'd like to see .. wearing it in her statue", 584) and Ginny's retort (".... Ginny said rather fiercely, 'No, Luna will take Harry, won't you, Luna?', 585).

The next paragraph on 585, Rowling states that: "...Cho sat down again, looking disapppointed").

I think the whole point is that THERE is nothing in the book that states explicitly what their intentions were. It implies quite a bit, but then I don't see any mention of Arthur and Molly having sex even though they had 7 children. Bloodycelt

The book doesn't imply that the "present" was anything more than the meaningful kiss that it describes. Ginny may have been disappointed for a number of reasons. She merely wanted the kiss to go for longer, or was annoyed that Ron had walked in on them, knowing how he may react. PRDH 12:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, this is a children's book, alright? No matter how "liberated" the Europeans are in contrast to Americans, I think J.K. kept in mind who the core readers of the books are. You people are free to interpret that particular scene however you like, but nothing in the Harry Potter books contain anything more explicit than kissing, and there's a reason for that. Also, J.K. later revealed that Dumbledore is gay, yet she didn't include that tidbit in any of the books, for the pure fact she didn't want any unnecessary controversy distracting from the books. And I think the same goes for the "17th Birthday Present" thing. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. While I do side with those that feel it wasn't meant to be anything more than a forget-me-not-kiss, (Ginny's much too clever to believe that she could get away with something like sex in the middle of the day in a heavily-crowded house. If she really wanted to have sex with Harry, there's no doubt in my mind that she'd have found a way.) your reasoning is flawed. First of all, Deathly Hallows was by no means a "children's book". The first chapter alone contained torture and cold-blooded murder for crying out loud. This book had a higher body-count than any other one in the series, many of which were beloved characters in the fandom. If I remember correctly, JKR has even said herself that she never intended for Harry Potter to be a children's series, even citing the fact that Philosopher's Stone starts off with a double-murder. Obviously this doesn't negate the fact that the biggest group of readers are children. However there are many themes introduced as early as Chamber of Secrets that are much darker then one would typically associate with a children's book. One could even argue that the series phased from a "children's series" to a "young adults series" with the release of goblet of fire. Sure, there may not be anything more sexually explicit then heavy kissing. However, there are definitely scenes where more explicit things are hinted at. One notable example would be when Ron and Harry stumble across Ginny and Dean snogging in Half-Blood Prince. It's clear that Ron thought there was much more then a simple make-out session going on. At the very least, he was worried about his sister's reputation. As for your point about Rowling announcing Dumbledore being gay after the end of the series, so what? That could just as easily have meant that she didn't think it was an important enough fact to work into the story. It was just some random little thing that she had in the back of her mind when she was writing the character. Really, if it wasn't for that one young fan at Carnegie Hall last year, chances are we still wouldn't know about Dumbledore's sexuality today, over a year after the series ended.--TwilightDuality (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In the time since I have made this post, I have matured in my way of thinking, so actually you're quite right. I wish I could strike that comment. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Potter or Weasley???

yesterday, July 22, 2007, Ginny's name was "Ginevra Molly Weasley née Potter". Today, it's "Ginevra Molly Weasley" only. Can someone please tell me why some of you people are constantly editing her name, its frustrating you know!! I'm only asking, please don't take this as a threat. Thanks. Historyboy666 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Historyboy666 - I would tend to write it as Ginevra Molly Potter (née Weasley). Abbag1rl 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the lengthy discussion of this very issue a little above. Exploding Boy 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Samwise Gamgee it states the name he is known by in the bulk of the series, but also lists the other names he was known by. I suggest the title and name remain Ginny Weasley but mention her marriage to Harry Potter. Look at the article, the Lord of the Rings articles seem to be well regarded. Bloodycelt

The Epilogue Should Be Consistent

I orginially posted this above, but the more I think on it, the more I realize it's not so much her name that's the problem, as the epilogue itself:

The main article, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has had a discussion on referring to Ginny's marriage as well.here. The editors there have determined NOT to mention that they are married. This is the current revision: In the story's epilogue, set nineteen years later, Harry and Ginny have three children, James, Albus Severus, and Lily. Ron and Hermione have two children named Rose and Hugo. Harry tells Albus Severus, who does not want to be sorted into Slytherin, that Severus Snape, his namesake, was probably the bravest man Harry ever met. Neville is now the Hogwarts Herbology professor and is close friends with Harry.

So basically the epilogue doesn't mention a marriage, and it certainly doesn't mention Teddy Tonks being taken in by Harry and Ginny. In fact, the evidence actually lends to us assuming they didn't. For one, it's mentioned that Teddy comes around for dinner a few nights a week. Two, Tonks herself mentions something about how his grandmother would care for him while she goes off to fight the Battle of Hogwarts. Third, are we to assume that Harry chose to take the infant in right after he defeated Voldemort? He's 17. Ginny is 16. They take in a child?

I actually think that a marriage should be mentioned, since I lean toward Rowling WANTING to imply that (what great love story wouldn't want to end with marriage?). However, I think this article should take into account exactly what the main article has decided: I just think that either this article should try to be consistent with the main page, or this discussion should be brought TO the main page (like I said, because I think that Rowling does imply marriage). Stanselmdoc 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the marriage should be mentioned as she most definitely is listed as one of 5 Potters. --Cdman882 17:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So Ginny is mentioned as one of the five potters in the epilogue. Why not search other articles on literary characters to decide whether the title should have her as the name she entered the series as, or the name she left the series as. Bloodycelt

Well...If no one objects, I'm going to remove the comment about Teddy Tonks, since that is pure speculation. I'll keep the bit about them being married for now, and ask about it on the HP7 talk page. Stanselmdoc 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not know that they are married, as I've argued on the HP7 talk page as well. It's certainly possible, even likely, but all we know is that Ginny and Harry have children, and that Ginny's last name has changed to Potter. Many unmarried couples "synchronize" their last names when they have children (I have examples of it in my circle of friends). So let's steer clear of the whole married / not married thing in the article, and mention that they have children and share the same name. Then people can decide for themselves what they think, which is after all the point of a book when it doesn't give decisive evidence. If eventually Rowling states in an interview that they are, indeed, married, we can change it then. Lilac Soul 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on now. I think JKR's intentions are clear. When writing you have to assume that your readers come in with knowledege of the subject, of life, and then some things can be left for them to know. Know your audience. Otherwise, you would be writing an encylopedia article. It would have been terrible story telling for JKR to come out and say, "Harry Potter and Ginny Weasely got married. She changed her name to Ginny Potter. They had 3 kids, all named Potter." You assume your readers, equipped with knowledge, are intelligent enough to figure out that much for themselves. Then you tell the story. After reading all the books, taking in all the characters, and JKR's writing (and Christian beliefs)... you tell me what is more likely, marriage or "synchronized" names? Throughout the series how many characters are married, how many have "synchronized" names? I think now were just beating a dead horse just for the sake of beating it. --Cdman882 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lilac Soul. Why not just say she changed her name to Potter? If it clearly implies marriage to readers of the book, then won't it clearly imply marriage to readers of the article? One might argue that in the far future, name changes will imply marriage less often than they do today, leading to a lack of historical context for future readers... but by then, literary critics writing about the Potter books will have pointed out the historical context themselves, so we'll have something to cite. (Yes, it's a minor issue and there's not a lot to lose if we declare them married. But the issue has come up, so we might as well resolve it in a way that's consistent with WP:NOR.) --Allen 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(...not that I'm prepared to argue against rspeer's comments above. Personally, I consider the epilogue's name change to be much more explicit than the marriage. But it still isn't perfectly explicit, so if there's a challenge, and there does seem to be, then we shouldn't even mention the name change.) --Allen 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Teddy Tonks, keep in mind that the reason he may not be permanently be living with the Potter's, is that by this age he would now be 19/20 years old, so more then likely living on his own. Harry, due to the promise he made Lupin, would still be considered his godfather, and therefore Ginny his godmother(?). I also don't see why there is such a fuss in regards to Ginny's name in the epilogue, just because you never see them get married, they are clearly married, and as many people have stated JKR calls them the "five potters", so I really don't think there is anything wrong with calling her Ginny Potter in the epilogue. 121.45.243.3 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As if Molly Weasley would consider it decent for her youngest child and only daughter to have children and be unmarried. They're married. You can be too pedantic and too "politically correct". Abbag1rl 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that more editors here believe that it should be mentioned that they are married. Unfortunately, though, the HP7 page has decided (pretty adamantly) that a marriage should not be mentioned; merely that the names have been changed. I think this is okay, because people will be able to draw their own conclusions from the information anyway. Whoever wants to believe they are married will see "oh they have kids, they're married." Whoever wants to believe they are not married will see "oh that's nice they got it on." Generally I think we'll probably have to wait until Rowling explicitly states that they're supposed to be married. I think, for the sake of consistency, we should keep the article from mentioning that they are married. Stanselmdoc 13:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is exactly what I was saying above, (this is from the MSNBC article) http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

The author was shooting for “nebulous,” something “poetic.” She wanted the readers to feel as if they were looking at Platform 9¾ through the mist, unable to make out exactly who was there and who was not.

“I do, of course, have that information for you, should you require it,” she told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira rather coyly in her first interview since fans got their hands on the final book. Ummm … yes, please!

Rowling said her original epilogue was “a lot more detailed,” including the name of every child born to the Weasley clan in the past 19 years. (Victoire, who was snogging Teddy — Lupin and Tonks’ son — is Bill and Fleur’s eldest.)

“But it didn’t work very well as a piece of writing,” Rowling said. “It felt very much that I had crowbarred in every bit of information I could … In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.” --Cdman882 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that Ginny married Harry

This article confirms that Ginny did indeed marry Harry, and also explains about the future of Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna. It's from MSNBC who conducted an interview with Jo after the release of the book. Hopefully this will solve all of the arguments as we know from the epilogue that Ginny changed her last name to "Potter", and we know from this interview that they are married. MelicansMatkin 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! This helps a bunch. Stanselmdoc 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the "five Potters" reference is enough for me. She is the mother of his children, they have the same last name now, but aren't married? That's preposterous.

However, it's now moot. That interview seals it, for Ron and Hermione as well. 198.185.18.207 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! We all knew it. --Cdman882 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry and Ginny are married, yes, but no explicit mention (from the interview) of Ginny's last name. Why does it matter so much whether Ginny's name is Potter or Weasley? Barring explicit info from JKR, the last name may well be in the eye of the beholder. And, pertinent to this discussion, what should I make of the fact that JKR does not use her husband's last name? Brumnoil 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the "Five Potters" Not the "Four Potters plus a Weasley who decided not to take her husband's name." Why hold out? It's not like she doesn't have five other brothers to carry on the family name... Her last name is Potter! Valley2city 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Ginny did end up with the last name Potter. However, I think that this is too much of a spoiler to put at the very beginning of the article. Od Mishehu 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The book has been out for awhile now. It's no more a spoiler than anything else in the article Showers 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the problem with calling her "Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (nee Weasley) because its a big honking spoiler, then someone needs to go and utterly remove all spoilers from all pages. I mean, Christ on a Cracker... what do you people consider a good time limit on information being a spoler? VERBAL KINT IS REALLY KEYSER SOZE. ROSEBUD IS A FREAKING SLED, AND DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

true?

After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!

Is this at all true? I can't find a reference anywhere. I'm going to remove it until the editor who placed it in can find a reference. Stanselmdoc 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is true; I found a source where Rowling is interviewed http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript. The One 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the reference. I couldn't find one anywhere...hmm...Stanselmdoc 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

the part about krum under deathly hallows is in the wrong chronological order and i think that the section should include when ginny and harry are alone in the kitchen and he slips up and tells her what hes really going to do and their subsequent reactions.

Is this claim accurate?

"Her family is portrayed as financially struggling but pure-blood, meaning that all family members in recent generations have possessed magical ability" Does pure-blood mean all those with said blood status will possess magical ability? Aren't there possible squibs in pureblood families? I don't think that this is an accurate claim to make. Anyone feel differently Valley2city 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying Voldemort's name

Someone keeps altering the line that says Ginny is the only Weasley who can say Voldemort's name without fear. Someone keeps adding "besides Bill," and I added "and Ron" to that. And someone keeps reverting the line to omit Bill and Ron. Personally, I think Rowling got careless about who was and wasn't saying the name. Ginny only said the name once, when she had always said "You-Know-Who." Bill said it twice on page 78 of HP7, and reverted to "You-Know-Who" on the next page, with no explanation. Ron said it on pages 95, 208, and 234. I haven't had a chance to search the whole book for more examples of Ron saying "Voldemort." But this tug of war needs to stop. Get it all out in the open, and hopefully a consensus can be reached. -BJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.152.218 (talk) 22:32, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Please put new sections at the bottom of the page. asyndeton 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited the article before I saw this discussion. I deleted Bill and Ron, and gave my reason in the edit summary. Personally, I think this entire sentence is superfluous and could be deleted. If it stays, there is absolutely no reason to mention who else isn't afraid of saying his name, it's irrelevant to Ginny's article. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. And you're right. I'll leave it as is. -BJ