Talk:Ginny Weasley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is it enough to mention that Harry love her, and not to mention how beautiful she is (by Harry eyes a least)?

This is not cynical or rhetorical question...

But before everything I must say, this is such a great artical... But... don't you think we should mention how beauti she is? Well, of course it is mentioned she is popular... But, I don't know... What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.174 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eye color

Her eye color is brown, but Ron's is blue (mentioned by J K Rowling in an interview). And where in Deathly Hallows is written that her eyes are the same color as Lily's? Lily's eyes are green, not brown. --Midasminus 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget it,my bad. --Midasminus —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Move from Ginny Weasley to Ginny Potter

Seems a bit unnecessary to me. Counter-intuitive and most likely unhelpful to people looking for the character. There are at present no direct links to the new name, suggesting that the many existing references are all quite happily referring to this character by her unmarried name.

Moreover the name "Ginny Potter" is relevant only to a very brief epilog to a series of novels in which she appears as Ginny Weasley. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus was to stay with Ginny Weasley long ago. I assume the only reason it hasn't been reverted is because it's so much of a royal pain to revert a complex move. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this has been done. Quite apart from the fact that there's no cannonical evidence that Ginny took Harry's surname - this was debated after the release of DH and firm consensus was to not do this. I think it's time to find an admin. Aula^TPN 10:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually never mind, I've done it myself. Aula^TPN 10:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

When it had Ginny's name at the begginning shouldn'y something be mentioned about her last name being Potter (for the record no I'm not advocating or even attempting to advocate a move to Ginny Potter because whoever said earlier that a. there's no proof she changed her name and b. she was only called that for a short time, but also she probably did change her name so something should be mentioned)--UESPArules (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not (and haven't you seen the ENORMOUS amount of discussion there's already been on this?) She only exists as a character in a series, and for more than 99% of the length of that series she is called Ginny Weasley. 91.105.51.103 (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's all this about Ginny and Neville?

What's all this about Ginny and Neville?? Ginny went to the Yule Ball (HP4) with Neville, but in her own words it was because she couldn't go to the ball otherwise, not being in the fourth year or above at the time. And- I'm sorry, but there is nothing in HP5 about Ginny "tries sectual contact with Neville." And Ginny was never bashful in Neville's presence- she was bashful in Harry's presence. (Remember her hiding in her room when Harry was at her house in HP2?) The stuff about Ginny and Neville at the beginning of the article should be deleted, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taernath (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) deffo! Ginny+Neville=nevagonnahappenppl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinkleworkorelse (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

hi you have to eat carrots because they are good by vitamins wll thats it cuz i gotta go byebebeyeb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.144.130 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

well she wanted to go to the yull ball but she had to go with a fourth year to go so nevile was the only one but its not like she likes him--Greeknoitall234 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I come with this new proposal to merge Ginny into Dumbledore's Army for several reasons. First of all, because the article is entirely written in an in-universe style, almost the whole article is devoted to plot appearances and in-universe descriptions which is a violation of WP:WAF. This comes along with the fact that this article lacks of real world content, as there are no sections showing a deep coverage of "Ginny Weasley" as an individual subject by a vast amount of reliable secondary sources, and has not demonstrated impact in popular culture. Because of this, the article has not meet Notability. As Notability is not inherited, being Harry's girlfriend does not make Ginny automatically notable. Furthermore, several sections in this article are entirely focused on the Harry/Ginny relation, rather than giving Ginny a treatment as an individual/encyclopedic subject. For example the Character development section does not establish a real character development but only gathers some statements by Rowling regarding the H/G relation.

With this I do not mean that Ginny is not important within the story, but even if compared to characters like the trio, Snape or Dumbledore, Ginny is not such a major character, but more a supporting one, as demonstrated by the fact that she didn't have a direct influence on the main plot and the resolution of the series, and that she played a very minor role in books 1, 3 and 4, and a Chekhov's gun in book 2.

This is, from my point of view, the last merger of an individual character article that has to be made. The rest of the articles have proven clear notability, while this one has not. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

More than a week has passed and there are no comments, especially no opposition, and silence equals consensus, then the merger is being performed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it too late to oppose the merger? I appreciate your points, but Ginny Weasley is a significant enough character to warrent her own article. Any other thoughts? --drak2 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, and my rationale is the same as it was with Neville Longbottom: just because we can have an article on a subject doesn't necessarily mean we should. Stronger articles are created when minor characters are combined than when they stand alone. faithless (^speak) 20:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Ginny has a major role overall. Although not as big a part as Snape or Dumbledore, she still consists as a major character through book 2, 6 and 7. Especially since she marries Harry in the Ep. of DH. I believe Ginny deserves her own page. © Conay_White_Star_Line (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says Ginny is not important in the series, but importance in the series is not enough to prove Notability. Take a look at Snape, Voldemort or Dumbledore's articles to see what is a notable character: all of them have received coverage by reliable secondary sources, and have impact in popular culture. Take also Jabba the Hutt as an example: Jabba is not a main character in Star Wars; however, he is notable outside Star Wars and that's why he has his own article. Unfortunately, Ginny, as well as other relevant characters like Sirius, Neville or McGonagall have not managed to prove that. Notability says that characters without such must be placed in character lists. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

there isn't too much about Ginny to devote an entire article about her. besides, the content at Ginny Weasley (character) is... well... "beyond editable". harrypotter.wikia has a page devoted to her and a whole wiki dedicated to HP alone should be enough for even the most hardcore HP fans anyway. i support the merger. Krishvanth (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Lord Opeth) I still see no reason to delete Ginny's character page, or at that "Merge it" all the article needs is few edits here and there. But there is nothing WRONG in Ginny having her own page, their should be a page for all major characters, Minerva, Luna, Sirius and Neville. Conay (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

pardon me for intruding, but do you define them as 'major'..? they're jus recurring characters who play some important/key roles now and then... jus because they've been a bit 'cool' here and there doesn't mean they should all have their own pages... e.g. Sirius is cool, rash, watever, yes, but not much stuff abt him there to have a page of his own... he died too soon for that anyway... why isn't there a full page for Dudley Dursley? technically isn't all that abuse an integral part of how Harry's character came to be? why doesn't it have its own article? and what about Crabbe and Goyle? they've been pretty important for Malfoy, one has to admit!! i'm not being discouraging of course -- if you think the article can be made better, go ahead, but try to fix it asap before someone deletes it... and then post here on the talk page, someone will review it and get back to you... maybe it'll get approved, maybe not... don't quote directly from the books and keep it as sane as possible... i expect this will sound acceptable to the other editors... it really has to be good and not some haphazard shabby work - happy editing... and btw, Sirius might get his own page after Rowling writes her 'prequel to harry potter' book - depends on what she mentions... Krishvanth (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ginny Weasley is back...

So this article is back. I don't really think this is a good idea. It actually sucks. People that voted to keep Ginny Weasley (character) apparently didn't consider that the version in that article was entirely copied from the in-universe Harry Potter wikia and that violated all guidelines regarding fiction. Apparently they voted to keep because "she played a large part in the series" and think that being Harry's main love interest is a good reason for a character to get an article. Apparently they haven't read yet Wikipedia:Notability and don't know that Notability is not inherited (which means that being a notable character's girlfriend doesn't prove any notability at all).

Fortunately User:Ccrashh reverted the article to a more suitable version prior to the merger, but it still is a version with no real world content at all. There is still no coverage by a vast amount of reliable sources independent of Harry Potter that prove that Ginny is individually notable. There is no reception section with reviews on the character. There is no impact in popular culture. Nothing at all. Those who voted "Keep" have the Burden of evidence to prove that Ginny is Notable and must add reliable real world content. Some (including the closing admin) stated that "it has been demonstrated that independent reliable coverage", but I can't see in which way this has been proven.

If this article doesn't show any improvement within a month, I will re-nominate it for merger into Dumbledore's Army, per Notability and per WP:CCC. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Opeth, I wouldn't even wait for that. As far as I can tell whoever recreated the article made no effort whatsoever to gauge the opinions of the HP Project. There hasn't been a single legitimate "keep" argument given. Until someone can at least come up with one, they really don't have a leg to stand on. faithless (^speak) 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that version back, but would prefer to see it merged with Dumbledore's Army. I welcomed the original move, and saw no real reason to put this article back as a stand-alone. If we do, then we should put Neville back as well. He's at least got a large role in the books than Ginny. Ccrashh (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ccrashh: Then what's stopping you? I said all along more characters should have their own pages. Conay (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it: because neither is notable. Ccrashh (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Conay, why don't you try the Harry Potter Wikia? Every single character and element in the Harry Potter universe has an article there. The wikia is more suitable for fans like you. Wikipedia is for people interested in encyclopedic content. If I see another article of a non-notable character or element re-created, I will merge it immediately. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the argument that Harry Potter characters are not notable. There are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of reference works about the world of Harry Potter. I'd assume that most to all of these discuss Ginny. Here's GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. It seems to me highly, highly likely that most of the secondary characters in the Harry Potter novels satisfy this criterion. This is not to say that the secondary characters of all novels warrant their own articles. But Harry Potter is a thing apart, and I don't see what is particularly gained by huddling all the characters together into a single article. As a comparable example, pretty much all Tolkien characters of any note have their own article. john k (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What we gain by merging these articles are a few decent articles instead of many, many poor-quality, fan-ish articles. Just because we can have an article about something doesn't mean we should. All of these articles (Ginny, Neville, etc.) consist of a few sentences of real-world analysis fleshed out by several paragraphs of plot synopsis. That doesn't make a good article. Wikipedia is better served by merging the small amount of decent material in these articles while jettisoning the fluff, resulting in stronger articles. faithless (^speak) 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that we will disagree on this, which is reasonable. What I do not think is reasonable is the claim that secondary characters in Harry Potter are not notable. john k (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ah but to even compare Tolkien's immense work with Harry Potter is just short of 'blasphemy'... his style of writing was such that there were only a few characters you could call 'minor'... and those minor characters performed important tasks too... anyway its one heckuva extensive series with a huge ancient history, expansive worlds and all that sorta thing, and obviously Harry Potter isn't completely all that! And by the way, would anyone mind telling me why "Harry Potter is a thing apart"..? hmmm... nothin else here.. carry on people.. this issue's turning out to be an interesting read... the result will determine whether all such characters will have their own article page.... or will be merged until new books are written by Rowling where these characters are made really important, like our Mr.Potter or Mr.Dumbledore etc. .... so discuss well ... Krishvanth (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the Tolkien comparison rather intriguing, actually. I'm all for the crusade against stupid, fannish articles, but I think this project goes about it in completely the wrong way. Merging characters like Neville and Ginny into the "Dumbledore's Army" article makes it seem like they are only notable as members of the DA. This is of course incorrect, and I think the implication is part of the problem. But alas, I'm off my point. The point is, compare to Tolkien. There is an article about someone named "Celebrimbor." Apparently, Krishvanth thinks ol' Sliver Fist deserves his article because... well, I don't really know. He doesn't give a very good argument. I don't come around these parts much, but here's my opinion for the Merger crowd: Your problem is that you think the way to solve bad articles is to merge them. IMO, the way to solve bad articles is to improve them. And if you want to continue merging recurring (not major, not minor) characters, you need to find some better way to group them than under Dumbledore's Army. Perhaps "Weasley Family" for the Weasley Family? "Dumbledore's Army" as it stands as an article is a rather blunt instrument, IMO. Skywalkert65b (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The Tolkien argument isn't much of an argument. And Celebrimbor is hardly the most obscure Tolkien articles get. At least he actually appears in the main text of Lord of the Rings. We have articles on figures mentioned solely in the appendices like Rómendacil I or very minor characters in the Silmarillion like Amrod. Personally, I much prefer Tolkien to Rowling, and I enjoy articles on minor characters in Tolkien, but I'm hard-pressed to express any clear basis on which Amrod, who probably has a dozen or so one sentence mentions in the Silmarillion along with some discussion by Christopher Tolkien in the HOME series, should get his own article, but Neville or Ginny, who are relatively major characters in the most popular series of books published in recent times, should not. I also agree that if you want to merge, "Weasley family" for Ginny and her other family members makes a lot more sense than "Dumbledore's Army." Neville could go in an article about Harry's minor Gryffindor classmates, with Dean Thomas and Seamus Finnegan and Lavender Brown, and such. john k (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to redirect attempts

I've twice now reverted attempts to redirect this article to Dumbledore's Army#Ginny Weasley. There was an AFD for this article very recently (within the last month) in which there were calls for deleting and merging, and the result was keep. To merge the article less than a month later contradicts that decision and the presumed consensus that was established there. (You might see that I personally voted for the redirect, but I've reverted the redirect anyway because I don't feel ignoring the AFD results are the best way to go about this.) The most recent redirect attempt cited WP:CCC, but as far as I can tell, there has been no discussion that has established a consensus change. We can discuss it here, or someone can nominate it for AFD again, but in the meantime please stop redirecting the article. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't ignore the keep vote. If a seperate process is held and it is decided to merge it is completely within procedure.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. So where's the process? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe I am missing something, but there are more Redirects/Deletes than there are Keeps/Strong Keeps. So, what AFD results are you seeing? By my count there are 8 votes for Redirect/Delete and only 5 for Keep. Now, there is one Keep and one Delete that are crossed out. So...where was the consensus to keep? So...if I am right, given your assertion that we shouldn't ignore the AFD results, this should be redirected. Again, I might be missing something, so please explain. Ccrashh (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the final result from the administrator that closes the AFD. That's the actual result of the AFD. It's right on the top: "The result was keep. Concerns from importing an offsite article are appreciated, but the article is quite extensive, reasonable well cited to primary sources, and it has been demonstrated that independent reliable coverage which can be used to expand and verify the article exists." — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then the administrator made a mistake, or there is some weird way of counting of which I am unaware. But whatever. If people think a character with about 20 lines in the whole series deserves her own page, so be it. We should probably name this "fanipedia" though - or the Harry Wiki? Ccrashh (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a straw poll. The administrator makes the call based on the arguments and discussion, not the number of votes. Further, I'm guessing you haven't read the books, but Ginny has a much larger role than what you are describing. That being said, I don't think the article is entirely sufficient how it is. Right now it's heavy on the in-universe stuff, and I think more out-of-universe information (conception, behind the scenes, real world impact, that kind of stuff) from third-party, reliable sources should be added and the article should be reworked some what to be more in line with Wikipedia, as opposed to the Harry Potter wiki. But I think (like the AFD administrator said) those sources are out there, and the article should be improved that way rather than simply done away with altogether... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said...whatever. However, I have read the books several times. In Book 1, she barely appears, in book 2, you see her a couple of times, and doesn't really say much. In book 3 - do we see her much at all? Same question with book 4. She starts to make a larger appearance in book 5 (OotP) but even then, no more than, say, Luna, for example. Luna doesn't have her own page. Neither does Neville. Both appear in more books and in more scenes than Ginny. But again, if you want to keep an article around that is so poorly written, being in-universe and all, I think it is your responsibility, or someone like-minded, to clean it up. Else it should be flagged for deletion entirely since it so bad. Ccrashh (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the full-length Ginny Weasley article was brought back. Quite frankly, it's not needed, because when you think about it, she really isn't that important of a character in the series to have one in the first place, especially considering that Neville played a larger role than her in the story and his was ultimately redirected to Dumbledore's Army. Plus, as someone mentioned, she's virtually invisible in the series until OoTP, and I agree that the article consists mainly of useless filler. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, did anyone even read what I said up there? I contributed it for the sake of discussion, you know, not just because I like seeing my own words out here. Again, I will say *bad articles cannot be solved by merging, they can be solved by improvement.* Also, if you really want to merge this with something, using "Dumbledore's Army" as the catchall is flawed from the beginning. As few lines as you say Ginny had, "Dumbledore's Army" had even fewer, and meant something in exactly *one* of the seven books. All of these characters are being defined by Dumbledore's Army, when they should be defined by something more constant and meaningful. Nobody thinks of "Dumledore's Army" when they read the words "Luna Lovegood," same with "Neville Longbottom" and especially with "Fred (or George) Weasley."

To summarize: The keepers, you guys need to make the article better. The mergers, you guys need to come up with some intelligent way of categorizing "minor" Harry Potter characters that doesn't group a whole bunch of disparate elements under a banner they held for *part* of one novel out of seven. Skywalkert65b (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We read what you wrote. I don't care where it's merged, it just shouldn't have it's own article. I think you are correct: Dumbledore's Army is a poor place to merge any of the character articles. I never once said it should be merged with that article, just that it shouldn't have its own. Perhaps merging Ginny, Neville, et al with Supporting Harry Potter characters would be better. Ccrashh (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2.0

I come with this proposal for several reasons:

1. The procedure of recreation was all wrong. An user came, created a "Ginny Weasley (character)" article instead of discussing the recreation of the "Ginny Weasley" article. Even wronger was the action of taking it to AfD instead of just redirecting it to "Dumbledore's Army#Ginny Weasley" to avoid repetition.

2. Most of the people that voted "Keep" in the AfD, and also the closing admin., claimed that there are "plenty of sources", but there has been no single addition proving Ginny's notability outside the Harry Potter universe. A mention in a character guide or a line in a review about Harry Potter is not enough. The subject of the article needs vast coverage by reliable secondary sources, as well as appearances in other media and impact in popular culture.

3. Ginny is an important character within Harry Potter, but it is not enough to fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. A subject (not only fictional characters) needs to be Notable to deserve its own article.

4. The article is almost exactly as it was prior to the merger: almost entirely plot overview with no analysis and none of the requirements mentioned above.

Per all these reason and per Consensus Can Change, I propose to merge this into the Dumbledore's Army article. Once there, we can debate whether the article is appropiate for characters like her, Neville, the twins, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem to have a few reliable sources, not just references within the Harry Potter universe, but interviews, etc. However, I do agree that the article fails notability, per WP:N. SpideyFan09 14:11, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all above. Merge it to Dumbledore's Army, and then we can discuss whether we should create a new article for significant secondary characters for Neville, Luna, Ginny, Fred and George, etc. Ccrashh (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this isn't just one last attempt by the Harmonians to belittle Ginny Weasley. Could the ship wars have reached Wikipedia?--Count Westwest (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny and completely wrong. First of all, I don't know what is "Harmonian, and I expect it is not a personal attack. Second and more important, I don't have time for shipping and teen-ish stuff. Just to make it clear, I like the character of Ginny, but I'm basing my proposal on the content of the article and the lack of real-world content outside the HP universe, not only interviews to Rowling in which the author reviews her own character. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Westwest. faithless (^speak) 05:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no stated opposition to the merger and no improvement of the article by adding coverage of the character by reliable secondary sources, independent from the HP universe, as well as several appearances in other media to prove impact in popular culture, the article is being merged into Dumbledore's Army#Ginny Weasley, which already covers most of this article's content. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

She should have her own page

Ginny weasley is a main character in both the novels and films and appears in every one of each, she's also Harry's love interest in the 6th film, she should qualify for her own page.

--Baby Boomsticks (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Own Page

There is no reason why Ginny shouldn't have her own page. She is after all, Harry's future wife and a pivitol member of both the Weasley family and Dumbledore's Army. It's also pertinent to note that Chamber of Secrets was her book. I can understand characters like Luna and Neville not getting their own page, but I do not feel the same way for Ginny. I have already startedto draft a page that I hope will win your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDime89 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably will NOT get approval, for the simple reason is she is not notable outside of the HP universe. Wikipedia is not a fan page, nor should it be. As well, in terms of overall presence in the books, Ginny is a minor character. She barely appears, even in her "own" book as you put it (Chamber of Secrets). Regardless of who she is within the series, she still does not have that large a part. Ccrashh (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Weasley family is well known outside of the Harry Potter fanbase and that includes Ginny. In the film world, her character has also gained major promience. Those people who don't read the books are getting aquainted with her and therefore will be more familiar with her character by the time (Deathly Hallows). I just don't think it's right or fair to mention Ginny as a mere blurb in Harry's article. Yes, she might not be in the books as much as the trio, but she serves as Harry's prime motive to defeat Voldemort. She is also in the final scene of the series. That has to upgrade her significance. If we decide to wait until the final movie comes out, then that's fine. By then, the general population of people should be familar with her character. I mean years from now in trivia questions and in film history, people are going to remember that Harry is married to Ginny. That's significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDime89 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the movie. Nor is her significance outside of the books more then trivial - movie or not. It is irrelevent that she is Harry's love interest. That is in-universe. Ccrashh (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree that Ginny Weasley deserves her own page; in fact, I am making one. Surely an important character in a series as influential as Harry Potter deserves her own page. Surely she is notable in the real world; after all, she is Harry Potter's wife. See Category talk:Harry Potter characters for why Ginny deserves her own page.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Last Appearance

Although I agree the last aperance should be "Cursed Child" the Trio's page's all say their last appereances were Deathly Hallows. On this front there must be a consistansy accross all the HP Characters' wiki pages. Also see discussions on Harry, Ron and Hermione's pages for greater overview on this matter. Jordan8396.ja (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I am awfully glad that there is finally a dedicated article on Ginny! For years, i strongly felt that the number of Harry Potter characters with dedicated articles (as opposed to lists, e.g. Order of the Phoenix (fictional organization), Hogwarts staff) was way too small at only eight: Harry, Ron, Hermi, Draco, Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid, and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named; this did not do justice to the vast popularity and influence of Harry Potter. Please develop this article further. I suggest the general format of the article be similar to that of Harry Potter (character), Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger, and Draco Malfoy.

Also, i suggest getting a picture of Ginny onto this article.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Many years ago, most of the characters were merged into pages because they do not meet Wikipedia:Notability; which means deep coverage and impact in popular culture outside the Harry Potter series. You restored articles on Ginny and the Weasley twins but have not added sections about Reception and Impact in popular culture, which should be supported by reliable secondary sources. If you fail to provide this, I will merge this articles again. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reception or impact sections are completely neccesary for an article to be included on Wikipedia. It simply needs to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, or similar. Remember, the subject is the only thing that needs to be notable, and not the article on the subject. To that end, I've added a few articles about Ginny, such as by The Metro and Screen Rant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Surname

Yes in the books its Ginny Weasly, however from the epilogue in dearhly hallows onwards she is Ginny Potter.

Suggested first line: Ginevra Molly "Ginny" Potter (née: Weasley). Just suggesting that because there is still ongoing information and stories ect. being released in other books and via Pottermore, then the article should refelct her current surname used in these publications. Jordan8396.ja (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"DO NOT add her birthdate (violation of WP:WAF, and DO NOT change to "Ginny Potter" or "Ginny Potter nee Weasley" (violation of WP:HPP/SG). That is in-universe format" is what had been decided, and written into the article. This is the correct style for writing about fictional characters. Otherwise you would have Hermione Weasley, etc.

As these aren't real people, there's also the point to WP:COMMONNAME, as Ginny Weasley would be the correct search term. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree, the article title should stay as is; everyone in the real world knows her as Ginny "Weasley" (not "Potter"); given that almost everything in HP1 to HP7 takes place before Ginny marries Harry. Btw, i am awfully glad they now hav a real article on Ginny, not just a redirect.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ginevra

When does J.K. reveal Ginny is abridged from Ginevra? MBG02 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Many fans believed that "Ginny" was short for "Virginia." It was later established that Ginny's given name is "Ginevra", as her Great Aunt Muriel referred to her as such during Bill and Fleur's wedding in Deathly Hallows. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Ginevra_Weasley

But I don’t know if that passes the reference test.

MBG02 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that the last known appearance of ginny Weasley should be "Harry Potter and the cursed child" so if you say it's "Harry Potter and the deathly hollows", your article is probably out of date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.214.114 (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relatives

What About Audrey Weasley, Fleur Delacour, Angelina Johnson, Lucy Weasley, Victoire Weasley, Dominique Weasley, Louis Weasley, Fred Weasley II, Roxanne Weasley DSOFOreverTYU (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox? El Millo (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Name

I'm not sure what to put as her name... Isn't her real name Ginevra "Ginny" Molly Potter (née Weasley)?

But that would be a bit long, if you get what I mean... Moonlit Stargazer (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly common name is Ginny Weasley. There's no need for the full name to be the name of the article, if that's what you're asking about. —El Millo (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

i wan’t to add her gender and sexuality:) 2804:14C:B0:98B7:A4C0:FFEF:DCF:7643 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not Bonnie Wright

That's not Bonnie Wright File:Ginny Weasley poster.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.170.104 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Change "Ginny is introduced..." to "Ginny, short for Ginevra, is introduced..." in the second line of the article. Diyawaghmare (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Common shortnames aren't generally explained. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, could the shortening of "Ginevra" to "Ginny" be regional? It was unfamiliar to me, so the lead in its present state looks confusing to me as well. ("canvassing" notice: this edit request was left as part of T300454) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The character is barely known by that name during the series, and is stated in both the lede and infobox what the full name is. It's not relevant when talking about the character Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Change "Ginevra" to "Ginerva" 37.111.200.6 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done the character's full name is Ginevra. —El Millo (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)