Category talk:Candidates for renaming

Please discuss candidates for renaming here For old discussions, please see the Archive.

File:Muggle Lady Employee of Subirton.JPG
The name of the diner has been identified as Treats, and the article about her is currently named Waitress at Treats, so why not go with that? - Nick O'Demus 10:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * This file should be renamed in any case, as "Surbiton" is spelled wrongly. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:16, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Flying Ford Anglia
I suggest renaming this article "Ford Anglia 7990 TD". Apart from being its actual registration name, as confirmed in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film), it makes the article look neater and more professional, as it is opposed to the quasi-speculative and descriptive current name. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:43, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that this article will be found with the new name? "Flying Ford Anglia" everyone knows, but a name with number? When you will use the new name then there should be a redirect to the old name, otherwise no one is able to find it. Harry granger 21:04, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

A "quasi-speculative" name? If that isn't trying to sound stuck-up, I don't know what is. Sorry, but this is a Wiki on Harry Potter - articles are allowed to not have a scientific or professional name if it helps people find them, and the name of the vehicle page is absolutely fine as it is. 91.125.159.6 22:05, July 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * So sorry to disagree with you, but this wiki has always chosen the most encyclopedic way to present facts and, yes, that includes calling things by their proper names, when backed-up by solid canonical fact. That's the reason why the article on Ron Weasley is called Ronald Weasley and the article on Ginny is called Ginevra Weasley. The only reason there are articles with conjectural titles is that there are characters/objects that are sometimes not named, and as this is not the case, I don't know why we should keep this title that, in-universely, would be deemed descriptive and unfounded. (A side note: name-calling, unlike my "stuck-upness", will not help you make a point). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:36, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

The film is not entirely canonical; the books always come first, but since there is no information is given on the registration of the car is given in the book, the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case. People will find it easier to search flying Ford Anglia, most people would type; 'Flying Car', 'Ford Anglia' or 'Flying Ford Anglia', not 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; so there would have to be a redirection anyway. The title 'Ford Anglia' is too general, so 'Flying Ford Anglia' is the next most logical, as I don't think there are any other flying Ford Anglias.So, I think the title should stay the same.


 * According to our canon definition the car's registration name as seen in the film is a valid canon information, so why not to take it into account? You said it yourself, and very correctly, that "the movie is the only source that can be taken as canon in this particular case". Of course, people searching for 'Flying Ford Anglia' would be redirected to 'Ford Anglia 7990 TD'; pretty much like searching for Hogwarts Express food trolley redirects you to Honeydukes Express. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:17, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

But does this wiki choose "the most encyclopedic way" over "the most user-friendly way?" The purpose of this wiki is to easily help fans find information they need. People will always search "Flying Ford Anglia" before they search "Ford Anglia 7990 TD," perhaps because the fact the car flies is more distinguishable than its license number. Also, I argue that it's not a simpler, cleaner, neater title. "Flying Ford Anglia" are three simple, easily pronounceable words, not "Ford Anglia" and then a bundle of numbers that had absolutely no plot significance. Harrypotterfan7 03:51, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

People will still be able to find the article via a redirect, so there's no actual harm in renaming it. As for whether or not it should be renamed, well, my opinion is that we should call it by its most canonical name; if its called "flying ford anglia" in the books, then keep it. If not, use the registration number. We could even include its nickname in the description i.e. the article could go something like "the Ford Anglia 7990 TD (a.k.a. the Flying Ford Anglia) was..." &mdash;Green Zubat (owl me!). 04:34, August 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rename, but maybe you can rename it to " Flying Ford Anglia 7990 TD"
 * --12:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Riddler14 (talk) 23:38, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

We should keep it as flying ford anglia. Because it'll be harder for people to find if we change the name to something like that.

The old one will also be available in searches, particularly if they set up a redirection.

By the way, in regard to the license plate number, Moment 2 in Chapter 3 of Chamber of Secrets on Pottermore gives the license plate number as COS 207; hopefully this information has helped. 99.252.196.61 04:11, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea since when you search for that link, some different links come up so people will still recognize it. Just add flying Ford Anglia so people won't mix it up with the car in general.minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:22, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls


 * ==Lily Potter II==

I disagree on renaming Lily because she is made by J.K. Rowling and you should  NOT rename things made by another person.


 * I think it should be named "Flying Ford Anglia 7990 TD". --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:21, March 30, 2013 (UTC)



1 January
I think it would be nice if the page in question could be renamed to "1st of January", as it is would be even closer to British, nowhere close to American. If this change would end up being accepted, can ALL dates change from "Day Month" to "Day(st, nd, rd, th) of Month"? RandomYoshi 09:59, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

You're right 1st of January does sound better but we will have to let the Admins see if this is acceptable.minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:28, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls


 * If it is standard British practise, then I believe per policy it should be at that. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 03:05, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Category:Users who support the Durmstrang Institute
Why should there be the word "the" in the title? In the category of Beauxbatons there is none. I think because of the consistency it would be better to rename to: Category:Users who support Durmstrang Institute. 19:33, November 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Bumping.  Harry granger   Talk    contribs  19:42, May 29, 2014 (UTC)

Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune)
I suggest that Fountain (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) is renamed Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's not only the story but the fountain itself that is called so. 94.191.187.26 19:35, July 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually think the two pages should be titled Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the object) and The Fountain of Fair Fortune (for the tale), with appropriate "youmay" tags on each article. Thoughts? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the object Fountain of Fair Fortune (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) (remember, we should add the (The Fountain of Fair Fortune) because the fountain is actually fictional. The story name can be kept in its own state, but "Point Me!" tags should be added to both pages. This is only my suggestion. -- RLB01 (talk) 12:05, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Seth. There's no reason to have the parenthetical notation on all the Beedle the Bard articles. I remember a bunch of those were removed at one point, and I think they should be removed from any articles they still remain on as well, except those that may need it for disambig purposes. As for the actual page name, the very first sentence of the story calls it "the Fountain of Fair Fortune", so it seems like a cut and dry move to me. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:41, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Treacle fudge to Treacle toffee
According to this here, this was changed from treacle fudge to treacle toffee, but I can't recall ever seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Can anyone verify "treacle toffee"? ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * In the books, it is always refered to as treacle fudge. Treacle toffee wasn't metioned once.24.23.51.129 23:18, March 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the renaming is suspect. Fudge is similar in composition and taste to toffee, but it isn't the same; fudge is crumbly, toffee is chewy. The illustration for "treacle fudge" shows slabs of a very light brown; treacle toffee is much darker, almost black.


 * And by the way, the Trio once used some of Hagrids's toffee to stick Fang's jaws together to stop him barking; I think this was treacle toffee, though as it has been a few months since I last read this passage, and I can't remember which book it's in, I'm not certain. — RobertATfm (talk) 19:43, April 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just checked the Lexicon reference, and the corresponding passage of CoS, and it seems that not only the name of the article needs to be changed (fudge wouldn't have stuck Harry's jaws together), but the associated picture (which is definitely of fudge, not toffee) needs to be changed as well. Not only is treacle toffee much darker in hue than shown, but it is usually glossy or semi-glossy (like all toffee), whilst fudge is always matt. — RobertATfm (talk) 18:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked up the difference betweent the two, and fudge is made with sugar, milk, and butter, while toffee is made with sugar and butter. And besides, I never remember seeing "treacle toffee" anywhere. Dr. Galenos (talk) 19:08, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Fudge is unquestionably in both the CoS video game and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and therefore the current page stands as is. If the novel changed the wording to toffee, then a separate "treacle toffee" page should be made. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:27, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

King's Cross Station -> King's Cross station
This capitalization is the standard one used the books, on Pottermore ("The Hogwarts Express departs from King's Cross station in London..."), and in real life. King's Cross is a proper noun, station is not. Besides, the current name is inconsistent with Hogsmeade station. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 04:54, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Lily Evans/Lily Potter -> Lily Potter/Lily Potter II
A decision was made on this a long time ago, however, this decision was made on false pretenses and needs to be overturned, as it violates policy. Our naming policy states that the last name used in the books for a married character should be the one used for the title. Lily Potter is last called such a scant few pages after she is called Lily Evans, true, but by current policy, the articles need to be renamed regardless. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that 'Lily Potter' would be a better name, but I wonder if there is a way of distinguishing, if it is moved, which pages have been adjusted to link to 'Potter' instead of 'Evans'. Pretty much every page on the wiki links to Lily, and it'd be a pain trying to remember which ones we have and haven't adjusted.--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:57, October 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be renamed, but you do bring up a good point Hunnie Bunn. I think that, failing any method of finding all the 'Evans' links (worst-case senario) that we could get all the users to go through and change them manually. Slow, but, it may be the only way... Dr. Galenos (talk) 18:40, November 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a way to find out: With the tool Special:Whatlinkshere. And perhaps a bot can do instead of manual changings.  Harry granger   Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 21:39, November 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest to rename to Lily Evans Potter or Lily Potter I. Andre G. Dias (talk) 09:33, January 14, 2014 (Brazil)


 * I, too, agree with the rename. -- Saxon 15:00, February 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * 4+ for, 1 against; though I would like to point out, no offence, that she isn't called "Lily Evans Potter" or "Lily Potter I" in canon. Lily Potter I is understandable by the precedent set by "James Potter I" and "James Potter II". But personally I think Lily Potter is what it should be at. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:14, February 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm the only person, but I kind of like Lily being called Lily Evans. I feel that it is the easiest way to distinguish between Lily Potter nee Evans and Lily Luna Potter. I might be the only one, and if that is the case then you can ignore me, but if there are others who like the page being titled "Lily Evans", should we really bother to go through all the trouble of rewriting source codes on other pages? I don't know. I guess it is the decision of whoever owns the web site in the end.
 * Eliza272 (talk) 04:50, March 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the title of texts of all married female characters should be standardized and about this discussion, I think the title could be just Lily Potter (without nº 1) and the title of Harry Potter's daughter could be Lily Potter II. Andre G. Dias (talk) 02:56, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)


 * I think Lily Evans is okay. If we rename it to Lily Potter, it will be confused with Harry's daughter, Lily Luna Potter. Anne B. Ng 08:50, May 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see the appeal of both sides of the argument. "Lily Evans" is easily distinguishable from her daughter and she is called such in the fifth book, but "Lily Potter" and "Lily Potter II" (or "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II" as we have with the James Potters) would just as easily differentiate between the two, and Lily is called "Lily Potter", "Mrs Potter" or referred to in "the Potters" far more often through the series; indeed, correct me if I am wrong, but her last appearance seems to call her "Potter", thus supporting the canon end of the argument. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:15, May 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * If you move this to Lily Potter, there are disavantages:
 * She will be mixed up with Lily Potter, Harry's daughter


 * We may have change EVERY woman's title name to their married names.
 * If we don't change every woman's title to their married names, it will really cause a big, big fuss. For example, when you typed harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Potter when you're trying to go to Harry's daughter's page, you ended up in Lily Potter née Evans's page, you don't know what to type to get to the page you want.
 * I assum you finally figured out to type harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lily_Luna_Potter (or whatever you change it into), you may thought that EVERY article is in their full name, which Lily Evans don't have a middle name, so the article name is simply Lily Potter (or whatever).
 * I prefer Lily EVANS.
 * What if we change every woman's article to their maiden names? Then this problem is easily fixed.  Anne B. Ng Talk 13:30, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * "Evans" wasn't introduced, if I recall correctly, until Order of the Phoenix; Lily was almost always called either "Lily" or "Lily Potter" in canon. It would thus make most sense for her to be called "Lily Potter I" because of her granddaughter, "Lily Potter II". This is a precedent set by the James Potters. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:53, May 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer Lily Evans. Hunnie Bunn once we start getting the most information about her, she is referred to as Lily Evans, and after all she wasn't married very long before she died. If we do change it, I think she should be marked as Lily Potter, because that is what her name is on her grave. Lily Luna Potter, could just be, Lily Luna Potter.Allsevenbooks (talk) 15:01, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Ollivander's Wand Shop employees to Ollivanders Wand Shop Employees
Will there ever be a decision? It's lasting already so long. <font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 14:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I think the name of the Category Ollivander's Wand Shop employees is incorrect because its contents is about the supposed employees of the shop in the The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, so the name should be "Ollivander's Wand Shop employees (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)" to distinguish of the shop that appears in the book series. Andre G. Dias (talk) 02:39, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)


 * Bumping! <font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 21:29, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rum
I suggest to change the text's title to "Turning water into rum spell" or "Turning Water into Rum spell". Andre G. Dias (talk) 06:27, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)

I'd call it Water to Rum. wateryrecruit8 (talk) 02:08, December 22, 2014 (UTC)wateryrecruit8

Standardization of married female characters name
I suggest to create a policy to standardize the names of female characters, if this is done, we could eliminate similar discussions which could appear to each characters. About the names, my opinion is that the married female characters should have either one of these options: 1) the name of her husband family, example: Lily Evans would be named to Lily Potter or...; 2) a combination of single and married name of female character, example: Lily Evans would be named to Lily Evans Potter. An exception could be done to female characters who have a well/better known single name (usually are that characters who married during or after of book/film series' period of time (1991 to 1998)), for example: Hermione Granger, Ginny Weasley. If the option 2 (combination of names) is adopted, the exception which I wrote above wouldn't exists. Andre G. Dias (talk) 18:37, April 4, 2014 (Brazil)


 * Except that that could only be done if they were called such in canon (i.e. if the books called them Lily Evans Potter or Nymphadora Tonks Lupin. Since there isn't any standardisation in the books, there can't be here, as canon takes the highest place. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:59, April 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand what you say, but can't we do this with the purpose of letting the wikia more organized? Because we would not be creating something out the canon sources, we woud be just organizing the wikia's content. Andre G. Dias (talk) 01:17, April 6, 2014 (Brazil)


 * Such a policy already exists and is in use. See this portion of our general policy. Particularly the second bullet point. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 15:20, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. Andre G. Dias (talk) 14:12, April 8, 2014 (Brazil)

Standardization of non real characters/things name
I suggest to create a policy to standardize the names of non real characters/things to distinguish from the real ones. For elucidation, what I mean when I say: 1) " non real characters ", are those characters/things who either appear in a book which is cited in the series, or in some franchise work like The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, or in some work created based in the Harry Potter series like the Wizard rock bands and other works, for example: Elder Tree, Peasant woman, Wizard, Dragon Challenge, Tonks and the Aurors, etc.; 2) " real characters ", are those characters/things who don't appear only in a cited book (like The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, etc.) but in the 7 books and/or 8 films, for example: Harry Potter, Sirius Black, Ministry of Magic,  etc.

Examples of " non real characters " which could be renamed: 1) "Dragon Challenge" to "Dragon Challenge (The Wizarding World of Harry Potter)"; 2) "Babbitty Rabbitty" to "Babbitty Rabbitty (Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump)"; 3) "The Hopping Pot" to "The Hopping Pot (The Wizard and the Hopping Pot)"; "Tonks and the Aurors" to "Tonks and the Aurors (Wrock band)" etc.

To shorten, I'm suggesting to add a reference in the title, about where does the text appear.

Andre G. Dias (talk) 14:24, April 8, 2014 (Brazil)

Lily Potter and Evens
I disagree with the rename because if you rename Lily Evens Lily Potter we might get confused with Harry Potter's daughter Lily Luna Potter and think something bad about this website. Also I am sorta fond of both Lilys so you really shoudn't. Also They were not made by you so you also should not.

Ashygirl15 (talk) 16:31, June 1, 2014 (UTC)Ashygirl15Ashygirl15 (talk) 16:31, June 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * But Rowling herself called the elder of the Lilies "Lily Potter" numerous times throughout all the books; Lily is introduced such throughout the first four books, and only in the fifth is her maiden name, Evans, given. Thus it would make more sense, and be truer to Rowling, to call the pages "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II". --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:26, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Call the pages "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II". That works better. However, this also brings up a problem; as Lily (Evans) was only a Potter by marriage, the I should not be there; she'd be "Lily Potter Nee Evans" and her granddaughter would actually be "Lily Potter I". It only works like I and II if they are BORN into the family (e.g. James Potter I is the grandfather of James Potter II). This leads me into my next renaming too.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:44, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

I think that it should be called "Lily Evans" as that is her birth name. Quantumparticle (talk) 14:18, June 6, 2014 (UTC)Quantumparticle

I think Lily Evans is the way to go, because it is her maiden name, and all the other female characters are titled with their birth names, not their married names, excepting Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange. Plus, some could get confused and think there is yet another generation descended from the Potters, another Lily Luna, if you will.Lilymoth (talk) 23:06, August 5, 2014 (UTC)Lilymoth


 * You can't say "all other characters are called by married names except this, this, this and this one". The characters who go by maiden names are called such because they are never named by married names throughout the narration whereas Molly Weasley, Bellatrix Lestrange and Lily Potter are much more frequently called by their married names. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:13, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Molly Prewett and Molly Weasley II
As Molly Prewett was not born into the Weasley family she would not, in all actuality, be referred to as Molly Weasley I - Her granddaughter, born into the Weasley family, would be referred to as Molly Weasley I - and would actually be Molly Weasley nee Prewett. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:44, June 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * But she is still called Molly Weasley, and she thus is the first one. I completely understand what you're trying to say but completely disagree. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:13, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I prefer Molly Weasley I (née Prewett) and Molly Weasley II.

wateryrecruit8 (talk) 02:06, December 22, 2014 (UTC)wateryrecruit8

Fake wand and Trick wand
In the book the Trick wand is called Fake wand. The article Fake wand is called Wand dummy in the Daily Prophet newsletters.

So I suggest to use Fake wand with the text of the now called "Trick wand" and rename Trick wand to "Wand dummy"!

<font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 20:59, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Isobel McGonagall's wand
The name of the main character is Isobel Ross, so I think her wand article should also have the name Isobel Ross's wand. <font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 16:24, November 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 19:21, November 4, 2014 (UTC)