Talk:Minerva McGonagall/Archive 1

Untitled

Is there any evidence that she's a half-blood? neatnate 03:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

It says at the bottom that Slughorn said he was only staying for a year, but wasn't this just a theory by someone else (Harry, Ron or Hermione)? ElrosTiwele 12:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tranfiguration Disambiguation

At the risk of re-igniting the "Harry Potter is evil/Satanic" issue, could the introductory wikilink for "Transfiguration" be redirected away from Transfiguration of Jesus? Is there an article on Transfiguration in the Potterverse that could work?

Sources for last name

I would love to see a reference for the explanation behind Minerva's last name. Arbor 15:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Done and done. It took me a while, but I found a little reference to it in an interview. NymphadoraTonks | Talk 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast. (I cleaned up the footnote syntax a bit.) Arbor 28 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Hat sorting

Slight problem with one line:

McGonagall is the member of staff who performs the Sorting Ceremony at Hogwarts.

Technically, she just calls out the names, it's the hat that actually does the sorting. User:24.254.121.106

The 'ceremony' aspect of the Sorting Ceremony is the reading of the names, so she does perform the ceremony.PantherFoxie 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Who did McGonagall succeed as Head of Gryffindor and Deputy Head?

This is isn't know - and its unlikely that she followed Dumbledore, as its doubtful she'd get both this positions upon entry. That's why I removed Dumbledore from the succession boxes and replaced it with '?' (along with the dates). Trevor Andersen 06:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Peeves

Peeves is referred to as a "Ghost of mischief" which I will change, as he is a poultergeist, and does not exist in the same way as a ghost. Andrew Graham 17.52, 4 August 2005 (GMT)

Headmistress

Isn't saying Headmistress Minerva McGonagall a spoiler?

Yes, it certainly is. whats more, it is not true. For 99.99% of the books, she is deputy headmistress, and for the remainder she is only acting headmaster, due to the post being vacant. So she is not headmistress at all. Saying so, and changing the article is guessing what will be the case in book 7 when we have only just had book 6. This article applies to her whole career, and it is not appropriate to change this information in anticipation of what JKR will do next.

I have changed the introduction to describe her as deputy headmistress, which is entirely correct throughout all the books. At the end, it mentions the circumstances of her becoming acting headmaster. Sandpiper 18:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Same age as Augusta "Gran" Longbottom?

In "Half-Blood Prince, she tells Neville about his grandmother failing her Charms O.W.L.. Professor McGonagall may have been at school at the same time as Augusta. --Jake 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

or she was teaching at the time and remembers gran as a student? Sandpiper 17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlikely, she started teching in 1956, now I don't know about you, but most of the people I know, have grandmothers aged 60-70, now if McGonagall is 70, that make it hard for her to teach Augusta 71.99.124.115 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Succeeded by Hagrid?

I'd have to vote no on this -- as we see Hagrid knitting in Hufflepuff colors in Book 1 (I think?), I don't think he'd succeed to Gryffindor.--SarekOfVulcan 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

But he is the only major known Gryffindor. 71.99.124.115 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Quidditch

Did anyone notice that in the first movie her name is on the trophy where Harry discovers that his father played Quidditch. I can't seem to remember if that was in the book.... just wondering, Ive searched the Quidditch page for a mention of it and found nothing.--TheTarmanCometh 7:14pm EST, 1 January 2006.

J.K. says that it's not cannon. 71.99.124.115 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is something worthy of note here, if only to specify that while an M McGonagall can be seen as playing on the Gryffindor Quidditch team with James Potter, JK Rowling has stated that it is not canon that Minverva McGonagall played in the same year as James, if she played at all. Several references to McGonagall's age in the book (such as her answer to Umbridge's question of 'how long have you taught at Hogwarts?') also indicate that it would be impossible for her to have been a student at the same time as James. On the other hand, descriptives of the character in the books (or at least in the first book) would at the very least indicate that Minverva doesn't LOOK as old as she is portrayed in the movies, as her hair is black, not grey. 204.69.40.7 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eye colour

The fact-file box on this page lists Minerva's eyes as blue. We've never been given any canonical indication that this is the case, nor has it been mentioned in interview as far as I can ascertain.

Translations

As someone desided to revert my changes, then ill say agian. The Translations part needs to be just removed. Its redundant because there is the exact same list on the side bar where they list the pages in different languages. Anyone can see this. Also, I havent seen any other Translations sections on other prominant Harry Potter charater's pages, including Harry Potter, Dumbledore, or Hermione's. Since they told me it was important, it clearly doesnt seem so if its not on other pages. Just delete the Translations section. Kamiawolf 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But there aren't any 'links on the sidebar to', say, Macedonian or Bulgarian Wikipedias! What about those, are those coutries less important than France or Spain? Why do ones deserve a translation and not others? I know I shouldn't bite the newcomers, but still... Belard 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the other Harry Potter pages have any sort of translations. Its just not needed at all. If those other countries are so important, why dont you go make pages for them. The list on the page is long and redundant. Dumbledore's page doesnt have translations so i dont see why Minerva should either. Kamiawolf 09:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Translations

There is a list of translations of her name at the end of the article; User:Kamiawolf deleted it and I reverted his edits, but now we disagree. I think the list should stay, but he thinks it is redundant, as there are already interwikis that, obviously, lead to Minerva McGonagall's name in other languages. Even so, this list is more comprehensive, and I still think it should stay... What do you guys think? Belard 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make a second section instead of just sticking to the original section? you have a thing for redundancy? For your information, im female, thanks Kamiawolf 09:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make a second section; exactly what are you referring to? There is a list of languages at the end of most pages; this is not a "Translations" section, it's a list of interwikis, or links to that same page in different Wikipedias. And why are you being rude? Was I rude to you? Does this small disagreement justify being rude? As you are new to Wikipedia (and I was also new once), be so kind to visit Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Etiquette Belard 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention this: Wikipedia is all about adding information, and not deleting it. So, the fact that the page for Dumbledore doesn't have a list of languages is not a valid argument. Belard 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean on this talk page, i already made a subsection for this translations discussion and i dont see why you made a section section for the exact same talk. And yes, you were rude to me. Not only implying that i dont care about other countries but treating me inferior just because i havent been editing as long as you. And if wikipedia was totally about adding information, then there would be so much crap here its not even funny. Wikipedia is also about being encyclepedic and keeping information relevant and orderly. Kamiawolf 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

After all, it turns out that the list is redundant; not for your reasons, but because there is already an extensive list of translations on this page: List_of_characters_in_translations_of_Harry_Potter. I'm going to merge the list on Minerva McGonagall into that page, if there is no one against it. Belard 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

People are constantly changing the table at the bottem of the page. Wikipedia is not for predictions. If you have any hard evidence supporting the Hagrid and Flitwick successions (as in page numbers in the book) then post that here. Otherwise, no more specualtions. Everything should be at "T.B.D" unless you can prove for sure you are right. Stop the edit war! Kamiawolf 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ForestH2 not logged in though. The reason why I keep reverting simply is in Book 3 when Harry and Hermione go to McGonnagall's office, they return and Flitwick is there doing the Sorting Cermony. I would guess the Deptuy Headmaster or Headmissteress would do it. In Book 6, McGonnagal is refered by Hagrid as the next Headmaster. About, Hagrid and Griffindor, McGonagall calles him in at the end of Book 6. Why would she call him in just to talk to him? She didn't call Filch or any other teacher in. That's why Hagrid would become the new Head of Griffindor. Think about what I said. ForestH2

This is still just all guessing and speculations. Its not a proven fact. Not until we know for sure (as in, when the last book comes out) can it be on wikipedia. Its still just a prediction to say that Hagrid or Flitwick are next in line because they havent been officially named as such. Kamiawolf 08:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything not specifically spelled out in the books should be excluded, especially from the infobox. This includes whether or not McGonagall succeeds Dumbledore and who succeeds McGonagall. Speculation should be confined to a specific area meant for it.Rhindle The Red 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What about having {{citationneeded}}? on all of them? It is all speculation though. I guess ethier will wait or will add citationneeded on the infobox. ForestH2

I agree with Rhindle, things that are just guesses should be excluded. A citationneeded might be good on the Dumbledore bits, but leave the T.B.D. bits clear until the last book comes out next year. Kamiawolf 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason the "Headmistress" thing got put back in? I thought we all agreed to leave speculation like that out of the article. Unless someone has a good reason for keeping it (since it is unconfirmed), I'll remove it again. Rhindle The Red 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "Headmistress" title to "Headmistress (Acting)", because we do see her act in this capacity at the end of Half-Blood Prince, and she is in fact incumbent in this role. It seems to me that as of the end of the sixth book, she is really incumbent in all those roles. Except perhaps Slughorn or Flitwick may be Acting Deputy Headmaster. But to say that she has vacated her other posts seems to go too far into those "thickets of wildest guesswork." --karogyaswamy 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quidditch

Kamiawolf, the information about her being a quidditch player is not canon, it was just in the film. Belard 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting problem. Technically the films are "canon" as well, in the absence of direct contradictions from the books - since Rowling carefully oversaw all aspects the screenplay production, editing, and storylines. Rowling has stated that she reviewed the screenplays, and was frequently consulted by the directors, to make sure that the film story lines did not contradict or spoil the future book plot lines.

Some fans point out the the films storylines are "different" from the books, and therefore cannot be used to prove a point - such as Minerva's possible participation in Quidditch. Many HP fans point to substituted lines, swapping character actions, changing seasons, etc. as "proof" of the "lack of authority" of the movies. However, Rowling would have undoubtedly instructed the director to drop an issue or change the screen play if it was contradictory to her intents, but would have given the green light for small changes that were mostly for pragmatic or creative purposes, or perhaps even improved on a story line or some point that she "forgot" to mention. Therefore the movies are, in fact, extensions of the original story lines, and should be treated as canon, and any specific differences pointed out as needed where appropriate. For example - if the books had Minerva saying "Goodness no, I would never have gotten on a broom to chase balls around - I never played Quidditch" but then in the movie she said "Oh yes I was the Seeker for Griffindor...", then we would have a clear contradiction. But in this case, just because Rowling has not (yet) mentioned in the books that Minerva played Quidditch does not mean that she didn't, and there is some clear and convincing evidence in the books and movies that she "probably" did, due to her non-stop interest in the Gryffindor team, and in Harry's participation (eg: knowing what it takes to find a new Seeker), and in the badges.

That said, it is understood that some superfan purists will consider the "original" books as the ONLY canon - and the movies to be heresy - with the same tenacity as some folks who say that the King James is the ONLY authorized Bible. You cannot even discuss issues with those close-minded fans. It has been alleged that JK said "it's not cannon (sic)" referring to Minerva and Quidditch - but I have seen no such authoritative quote referenced. --T-dot 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that "purist", I do believe that the films are canon whenever they don't contradict the books. That's not what I meant; that information is not on the screenplay, it's just a prop that has "M.G.McGonagall" written on it or whatever; that person could even be a cousin or a parent, we can't be sure. If it a character said "Oh, McGonagall was a Quidditch player" I'd believe it. But this was just a prop, I don't think J.K. personally oversaw all the things that the prop artists threw in front of the cameras. Belard 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While McGonagall may have, and most likely did play Quidditch in her day, it is fairly impossible that the M. G. McGonagall on the trophy is our Transfiguration Professor. She was certainly too old for one thing. And she does claim, in Prisoner of Azkaban, to have taught the Marauders, hence her name should not be appearing on a trophy as a player. --karogyaswamy 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Audio"-Section

I am at a complete loss to understand, why that section is there. Normally I would have just removed it, encouraging a discussion in case of disagreement, but because there has obviously gone *some* work into it and because I don't understand why it is there at all, I suspect I am overlooking something. So please explain to me: Why does this article, of all the, I dare say more important, other articles of famous characters that have appeared in films, etc ... need audio snippets from different languages? I have no Idea how that is interesting or informative in the context of McGonagall's character. Also, I am not at all sure, if those audio grabs are not copyright violations. — Mütze 13:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also wondered what the purpose of that section was. What does her voice have to do with her character? :-/ Kamiawolf 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has come up with a comprehensible reason for their staying in two weeks, I have removed the audio samples from the article. — Mütze 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)