Talk:Ginny Weasley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ginny Weasley article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review Ginny Weasley has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Ginny Weasley was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 10, 2006
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. AulaTPN 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment

why cant I change this page? I would like to add something about Ginny. She is my favorite person from Harry Potter. I want to add some more info about her and Harry and their kids. Please tell me how I can add it!!

emily, [email removed]

ps thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.199.41 (talk)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Birthday

J.K. Rowling's offical website says her birthday is on Aug. 11, on wizard of the month

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. AulaTPN 10:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually never mind, I've done it myself. AulaTPN 10:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)