Jump to content

Talk:Hogwarts staff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Why don't the last three tables show up?

What do you mean? They are working fine for myself. -Hoekenheef 00:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First name of Professor Binns (Fredrick)?

I would like to know who have found out the first name of Binns. where does he/she (201.145.181.106) get the information? -Kkkc 15:09, 5 Nov 2005


individual pages discussion

Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Harry Potter#Breaking apart articles of characters regarding having individual pages for characters rather than group pages. --billlund 21:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Name of Prof. Binns

It very unlikely that Prof. Binns's name is derived from "bin". His lessons might be boring but there is no evidence that what he says is garbage. I think his name is a pun on "(to have) been", in the sense that he is dead. What's your opinion?

I'll add this interpretation unless there are any objections. --Jacopo Belbo 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Should the reference to Dumbledore as "former" headmaster be somehow shielded?

Yes, it should! The same applies to "headmistress" McGonagall, and perhaps for "Moody (Barty Crouch jr.)" as well. --Jacopo Belbo 16:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Give Professor Sinistra her own page

The article on Professor Sinistra is of long-enough length to have its own page and not be considered a stub. Should I go ahead and give her her own page?

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Professor Grubbly-Plank]] is changed to [[Minor Hogwarts teachers#Professor Grubbly-Plank|Professor Grubbly-Plank]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 27 August 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 18:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

==

First name of Professor Binns (Fredrick)?

I would like to know who have found out the first name of ==

where does he/she (201.145.181.106) get the information?

Ogg

Ogg, the former Hogwarts Gamekeeper, has his own article. Because he is a Hogwarts employee, but not a teacher, I have second thoughts about putting him here.

Lee S. Svoboda 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kettleburn

I'm removing Prof. Kettleburn's first name, because I cannot find any mention of his first name in the books. Does anybody have any cannon proof for his forename being "James?" --¿WhyBeNormal? 06:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have added the link to the respective Norwegian articles at the bottom of the article, in <>. If this article is to be breaken up, please add the corresponding link. Does anyone also have an idea of how to link to the articles now? - Helga76 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Binn's first name

is it a spolier?

Re: Professor Binns

It's been three-and-a-half months since "Professor Binns' first name" was added. I'm suprised that it wasn't removed quickly as "Professor Kettleburn's first name" was. I checked the Harry Potter Lexicon (www.hplexicon.org) and didn't find it on there, so I'm going to assume it's not canon and remove it. 69.138.229.246 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Binns first name

Could someone give me a link to the Harry Potter Lexicon page? Grassland | T | C 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see it above. Grassland | T | C 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing that saying anything about Binns first name not being Cuthbert. Grassland | T | C 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone could provide a link straight to it that would be wonderful. Grassland | T | C 22:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-trans-jottings1.html

This is the link to a transcript of the list where Binns' first name appeared. It cannot be considered canon because a few things on the list were different when they actually appeared in the book (Prisoner of Azkaban). The name of the Hippogriff, "Buckbeak", is not listed in the Hippogriff name list, and Professor Trelawney is not listed under "Divination Professor" (what is listed is a character called "Mopsus" who was apparently replaced by Trelawney). AgentPeppermint 22:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Though I take there link as though the fact is true, not wrong. I do not understand why Mopsus replaced Trelwaney or they have an Acient Runes teacher. I'll look it up on one other website first. Grassland | T | C 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ancient Runes is a subject that Harry doesn't take, though Hermione does and she mentions it a couple times in the books. Nobody except J.K. Rowling knows why Mopsus was replaced by Trelawney, although I believe she mentions somewhere on her website that she got rid of Mopsus because Mopsus was "too good" a Seer or something along those lines; she never likes to reveal stuff earlier than she has to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgentPeppermint (talk • contribs) .

Further discussion on Binns, et. al.

I see the reason why we cannot include Cuthbert as Binns' first name because the rest of the page is not verifiable. That is, you wouldn't cite the divination teacher from that source because it is unreliable; so you likewise wouldn't cite Binns' first name from here. Also, we unofficially adopted our similarly unofficial canon rules from the Lexicon, which can't accept this information until she officially enters it in canon by saying "Binns' first name is…" or mentioning it in the books, or releasing a draft with all correct information. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And other information on the page is reflected in canon. Some information has been changed, but other information hasn't; the policy would therefore be to tentatively accept it, but make clear that it may have been outdated (but Rowling didn't specify that the data had changed or was no longer accurate, so to say that is OR). But to say "his name is not Cuthbert" is your opinion that some changes makes the rest unreliable. What matters is that she has said that his name is Cuthbert, etc, and until she specifies otherwise, that's how it is. Michaelsanders 02:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems we're actually kind of in the middle. His name is not Cuthbert, but his name is not not Cuthbert. Thus, it would be wrong to put that into the section name and the infobox and the lead, etc. However, it of course needs to be said that at one time his name was Cuthbert, which I don't deny. However, consider a case outside of the fictional world: You come across a source that says, "Columbus sailed to the Americas for the first time in 1501. He died only three years later, in 1506 in Valladolid, Spain." One statement, the year he first sailed to the Americas, is clearly wrong (parallel here to the 'Mopsus' in the draft), so even though part about his death is correct, you wouldn't cite this as your source because it is clearly unreliable and unverifiable. In our case, something in the source is clearly outdated, and thus Cuthbert stands the possibility of being outdated. So I propose the section name and lead and infobox to omit the word "Cuthbert" and the second paragraph to read as thus:
(and cite with the Lexicon source as her site is impossible to cite, no wordplay intended). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you that the attitude of historians towards documents is profoundly eccentric. For example, Edward II is assumed to have been murdered with a poker in 1327 based on sources which are biased, obviously unreliable, and containing plain wrong facts. 'Proof' that he was alive many years later is generally ignored, despite the strength of said 'proof', because most older historians are unwilling to make such a profound change to English history. You would find, in fact, that most historians use 'evidence' as poor as your suggested example - and if such a historical document occurred, you'd get historians arguing either that Columbus took 9 years to get any recognition, or (straying into Holy Grail territory here) that he didn't go to the Americas until 1501, and that a big conspiracy was masterminded to stop Amerigo Vespucci getting the credit ("Why else would they call it America? But Vespucci discovered Viking Settlers who possessed the Holy Grail, and the Pope couldn't allow that...").
As for here: if we're arguing from the basis of historical sources, it would be a shoe-in - a previously undiscovered piece of primary evidence giving what was unknown information about historical figures? Historians would do back-flips to make it fit, and would retain it, regardless of other complaints. And from a literary perspective, under normal circumstances, I think it would also be regarded as canonical - apparently, fans of Wuthering Heights always want to know what happened to Heathcliff during his absence, so if a proven authorial draft of that turned up, I suspect they would take it for granted, and ignore any contradictory information.
None of that is a great deal useful here, however. What I suggest is that, for Binns and the other teachers (which you have not, for some reason, yet complained about), we leave the names in the headings and infoboxes as the definitive canon, bracket the uncertain forename in the first sentence, and place your suggested paragraph at the end. Alright? Michaelsanders 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually didn't bring up the others because my attention was not drawn to them, but this goes for Binns as well as Sinistra, Vector, and the "other teachers" section. I actually see it as misleading to put the first name in the section name. How about this: we take out all first names from the section names, just to be uniform, so that it reads "Professor" (or Madam) for each (except for Twycross, as he's never called Professor). That way, the sections would use the name that is traditionally used when addressing the teacher, but would include the first name in the body of the section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine, on condition that the lead sentence was "Professor Cuthbert Binns" or "Professor (Cuthbert?) Binns". Michaelsanders 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooch

"Quirrell's first name is not mentioned in the novels. The official Harry Potter Trading Card Game lists "Quirinus" as his first name. However, the Chocolate Frog cards give "Slatero" as his first name. The trading card game was written by Rowling, so it can be taken as canon." If this is so, why isn't Rolanda accepted as Hooch's forename? Can we have some consistency? If Quirinus and Rolanda are definitely from Rowling, both should be taken as official. If they aren't, they shouldn't be. Michaelsanders 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's because there's been no other evidence besides the trading cards. This is one part of the fandom I've never crept too much into, so I couldn't really say about whether the trading cards are canon or not. I'd have to do some research into that one. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet about Hooch's name

Despite Madam Hooch's clear affinity and love for flying and Quidditch, neither of her supposed names reflect this, giving weight to the speculation that J.K. Rowling did not use either name for the character.

Supposing that "Rolanda" is official, it may have some relation with Hooch's affinities. Rolanda comes from Rolar, a Latin verb that signifies to move in circles, to go foward or to move over wheels (Houaiss), and this comes from the French Rouelle (XII century), which was a kind of wheel for chariots. We might say, then, that her name is related to movement at least. --Tonyjeff 14:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Professor Everard

The article on Portraits in the Harry Potter universe says that his name is Everard Proudfoot. However, this article says that Everard is his last name. Personally, I think that Everard is his first name, as Dumbledore calls other portraits by their first names, e.g. Phineas Nigellus is Phineas. Does anybody have any idea about this? The Lexicon doesn't mention it. 222.152.163.128 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Everard's his first name. Why would he be the only portrait refered to by his last name? In the List of characters in Harry Potter article it says that his last name is Proudfoot. (Where did that come from?)Everyoneandeveryone 10:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The HPL considers Everard as his first name, though it does not give him a last name, nor does it give any implication that "Proudfoot" is his last name or any other name, unlike Vector, Binns and Sinistra. Unless anyone can find veritable information, I'm binning all references of "Proudfoot" (Note: this might've been done as a joke by a LotR kid who thinks that HP sucks). Therequiembellishere 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Runes' teacher's name

The scan of Rowling's handwritten list of teachers (found on her website as an Easter egg) indicates the name "Prof. Bathsheda Babbling". Some seem to read the first name as "Bathsheba", but the second-to-last character is clearly NOT the same as the repeated B's in "Babbling", nor the B in "Rubeus" elsewhere on the list. Rather, the contested letter is much more similar to the D in "Hagrid" on the same page.

Aside from an inability to visually distinguish between a B and a D, the only reason to insist that it is "Bathsheba" rather than "Bathsheda" is to ignore the above evidence, and assume that Rowling must have intended the latter and merely misspelled upon writing the name down. That would be original research and, hence, inappropriate on Wikipedia.

The HP Lexicon currently gives the name as "Bathsheba", but that is just that site's interpretation. Many other HP-devoted sites and wikis (do a Google search for "Bathsheda Babbling") have listed it as "Bathsheda". In the end, I think we should trust the verifiable direct evidence of the published notes. (Instructions on how to view the Easter egg are here, courtesy of HP Lexicon.) --Mercurio 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Professor Vector

I removed ", though the subject she teaches has little to do with mathematics," because from what it appears Arithmancy has everything to do with mathematics and magic combined. It is described on Wiki as "A branch of magic that is concerned with the magical properties of numbers." I haven't found in the books where Arithmancy is actually explained, but if it is the magical properties of numbers, I don't see how saying that Arithmancy has little to do with mathematics is something accurate, or even if it is, verifiable. Kirobaito 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dexter Fortescue

Where has he gone? I'm sure I saw him here the other day. What grounds were there for deleting him? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts

How many of these teachers do you think played a part in the battle?

  1. Sign your posts with four tidle
  2. Erm, all of them?! Or do you think they were just, like, "Oh, Death Eaters".
  3. This is a discussion page of an article, not a discussion forum. Y'see, they both have the word "discussion" but they're pretty different.

Therequiembellishere 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Other teachers section

In my view: it's not needed. Frankly, these minor lists are turning into dumping grounds for everything very minor and not suitable for other articles (and it needs to stop). Wikipedia isn't a completeness guide. JK Rowling's original plans aren't very relevant in these list articles. This isn't a "history of Hogwarts teachers" article. RobJ1981 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a history at all is it? It's just information of characters she planned on making canon, yet never truly confirmed that they weren't. Most notably (you're big on this), her original plans for Pettigrew and Bathsheda Babbling. When she creates her encyclopedia, we shall see if she incorporated these characters into canon or not, but for now, leave them in as a possibility. Therequiembellishere 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a speculation guide. Them "possibly" being notable, isn't enough to list it here. RobJ1981 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Them being covered in official press conference, then reported by BBC, is good enough to list it here. PeaceNT 12:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
These minor lists shouldn't be dumping grounds for every character that doesn't fit elsewhere. RobJ1981 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom: Filius Flitwick

I'm suggesting that Professor Flitwick have his information trimmed and merged into the Minor Hogwarts teachers article. He is a character in a notable series of books, but notability is not inherited. In order to merit a separate article, the good Professor would need to have credible third-party sources from outside of the universe written about him. This would allow some of the information about him to continue to exist in a more appropriate place. Thank you. I'm cross-posting this notice from the Minor Hogwarts teachers article, please see that article's talk page for more discussion about this. bwowen talk•contribs 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the merge of Flitwick's into this article, and I also suggested the same for Pomona Sprout, Gilderoy Lockhart, Firenze and Argus Filch. Lord Opeth 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge, should be added in here. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all except Gilderoy Lockhart, I think he's enough of a character to get his own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.219.159 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I finally merged Flitwick, Sprout, Lockhart and Filch into this article. I removed some stuff from each article. From Flitwick's, I removed the stuff about "Loyalty", that described almost the same from "Other services" (for example, defeating Dolohov, or the Weasley Twins' swamp. Also removed the section about film portrayal: in the end, Davis is still credited as Flitwick, with only different appearance. From Sprout's article, I removed the section of the name and the alligeration, because those are speculations and non important stuff for encyclopedic purposes. From Lockhart's, I removed the From Filch's, I removed the stuff about the character being a comic relief in the film adaptations: that is personal appreciation. I am still looking for some review from all of you in order to improve the new sections or revert my edits. Lord Opeth 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I also merged Lockhart's article into this one because both the article and his role in the series are not large enough, and also there were no reliable third-party sources for the article itself. (See WP:WAF for further doubts). I removed the "Character" section, because it contained stuff such as his favorite color, and also removed the initial list of books "he wrote". Lord Opeth 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the discussion only lasted three days, and only two people commented. That is hardly enough to form consensus. i said 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Since a few of you have taken it upon yourselves to merge all these characters together, shouldn't the article be renamed Hogwarts teachers? faithless (speak) 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should, which is why there is now a {{db-move}} tag on Hogwarts staff. Comments have been made previously about Filch, Pince, Hooch etc not being "teachers", so staff seems more appropriate. Happy‑melon 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. faithless (speak) 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Ye gods what a mess!! I think that this is the worst spaghetti bowl I've yet come across on Wikipedia. Can we have a concerted effort, when fixing these links (including a number of double, triple and even quadruple redirects!) to make sure they point to the correct section by using #REDIRECT [[Hogwarts staff#Character]]?? Sign me up on the list of people who will be spending a lot of time fixing redirects now! Happy‑melon 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect with anchor links don't work, I'm pretty sure. For example, Alastor Moody redirects to Hogwarts staff#Alastor Moody now, but when I typed his name into Search, I was redirected to the top of this article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It works for me. Perhaps your .css settings are off. Happy‑melon 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

At least consider...

If you absolutley must abide by the "in universe style" rule, and put important characters like Moody and the others in this flimsy article, at least please consider putting a link to the harry potter wikia bio on them. I really dont want to offend the writer of the article, but i really think these characters deserve some background, if not on wikipedia, then give the reader a chance to look at the proper wikia. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The current in-universe style is entirely a result of insufficient work being done on this article, not intent. The WP:HP is just too busy! Happy‑melon 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This article is essentially a list. It is necessary for lists to have well-defined inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTV). At first sight it appears that the criterion for this topic is self-evident: the character must have been a teacher at Hogwarts. However, the reversion of Lord Opeth's edits flags up an imporant point: we cannot treat every Hogwarts teacher equally. Some are of sufficient notability, both real-world and fictional, that they only just fail to deserve their own articles. Minerva McGonnagal is still under debate. On the other hand, we know exactly three verifiable things about Septimus Vector: his last name is Vector, he teaches Arithmancy, and his set homework is generally hugely complicated. For almost all the former teachers, we know nothing verifiable (avoiding synthesis) other than their subject. We cannot treat these teachers equally while remaining verifiable, staying in an out-universe perspective and without including trivial details. We need to decide, therefore, which teachers merit their own sections in this article and which must be lumped in the "other" heading. I applaud Lord Opeth's boldness in attempting to correct this issue, and the explanation above is partly in response to Keyblade Mage's questioning edit summary. I agree with all of Opeth's suggested truncations, with Cutherbert Binns being the sole questionable exception. I would not object to him retaining his own section. For the majority of the other teachers, however, the text contained in Lord Opeth's revision represents the sum total of verifiable information on the characters. Happy‑melon 18:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Minerva McGonagall is a very notable character in Harry Potter and absolutely needs an article of her own. It's absurd to have McGonagall in some list of characters when her own article is translated onto over 30 different Wikipedias, with the main English Wikipedia not having an article. Therefore I have reverted the redirect. I'm also shocked to see Delores Umbridge on this list without her own article, and to think she was a temporary headteacher at Hogwarts and a well-known character. Eagle Owl 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more: "Minerva McGonagall is a very notable character in Harry Potter[my emphasis]". Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (held at WP:N and WP:FICT are subtly, but crucially, different: a topic must be notable not within its work, but in the real world. None of the articles which are currently merged into this list provides any, let alone "significant" real-world information or coverage which is necessary for a topic to justify its own article. I don't like it, I am doing my best to get it changed, but for as long as WP:FICT is Wikipedia policy, that's the way it is. McGonnagal's article as it currently stands is borderline, although I do not expect it would survive an AfD if one were to be called. I also take a certain pride in the fact that, despite the English Wikipedia being the largest by a considerable margin, it is also the Wikipedia with the highest standards for inclusion. Happy‑melon 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My view is: the person should be important to the series to be listed. If they appeared briefly: they shouldn't be on the list, period. As for McGonagall, I don't see the harm in an article for her. I've seen people go by the "let's be complete and list everyone in all the books" attitude too much on Wikipedia. Harry Potter is a popular series, but it's not notable to list everyone on a certain article and/or list article. There is a Harry Potter wiki for completeness, Wikipedia isn't a 100 percent guide to everything in a book series. RobJ1981 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much [Happy-melon] for explaining carefully the reasoning behind the proposed merge. It is very much appreciated. I'm glad people can see my argument, but if the consensus proves that the article is to be merged, then that is what must be done. Eagle Owl 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Happy-melon for the support on my edit. I still think that we cannot treat every character the same. I even think that some of them (like Kettleburn or Everard) do not need any mention at all in Wiki. Some others like Pince, Hooch, Sinistra, etc. have larger sections in this Wiki article than their mentions in the series (just look at Hooch's section, half of the information is not even related to the character). Anyway, I think that the length of each character section may give an indication of the importance of the character in the series. Lord Opeth 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Peeves

Why is Peeves included in the article? He isn't exactly a staff. -Lemonflash(O_o) 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. There's not really anywhere else to put him. We could try Minor Harry Potter characters or Ghosts (Harry Potter)... but he's not really a ghost, and definately not notable enough for his own article. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
He ought to be put in Ghosts (Harry Potter). No, he isn't a ghost, but rather a spirit. This can be explained in his entry, and that is the most appropriate place for him. faithless (speak) 09:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Madame Pince

I adde a picture of Madame Pince to her article when she had her own article, but now whoever merged her into the article took out the picture. Do we still need this picture or should we just go without it? ~ Bella Swan 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

?

What's wrong with this? the fact that the Remus Lupin article is stuffed halfway through it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.100 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Lupin has proven important enough to the series to merit his own article. Having all of his information crammed into this page just looks disorganized and very much interrupts the flow of the article. Lore aura 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not whether he's important to the series, it's whether he's important in a real-world context. But yes, it does look messy. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Last Appearance?

There is a First Appearance why not a more informative LAST Appearance on the character's table? LOTRrules 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hogwarts_staff/Archive_1&oldid=1088662350"