Talk: Antonia Creaseworthy

This is the talk page for the page "Antonia Creaseworthy".

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the page, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Biographical speculation[]

This wiki is for commentary which is directly confirmed in canon, not huge amounts of information found elsewhere and taken around and used in different articles to create biographies for characters that aren't proven. Discussing wizard/Muggle relations in her article is largely unnecessary and irrelevant, it's covered in the relevant pages, and we don't know in any how she received her title, in either the wizarding or Muggle world (the aforementioned is possible), so nothing is known about her relations with Muggles, if they existed. Admins have affirmed that articles should be concise and relevant, like Harry granger did in a recent talk page discussion about Gawain Robards. She isn't even mentioned anywhere in Tales of Beedle the Bard, so again, not sure why it was used as a source, when she's not even in it.

It should not become an accepted tradition to write articles like this on the wiki just so editors can tell their personal stories about how they imagine characters lived in the HP world, it should only be what canon says about how such characters lived. Sources should be used when relevant only, so readers don't misleadingly assume sources say things they don't. If this is going to become an accepted, unchallenged way of writing articles, then it can be discussed in full, in talk pages, and even possibly the wiki forum too. But there is no need to write articles like this, and the writing of her biography, which very little of it is canonically known as of current, before again it's restored just for the pure sake of it. RedWizard98 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What Harry granger actually said was that when we don't know things about a person, it makes no sense to say it could be, because if we don't know, we don't know. So we don't write about it. The problem we are facing here, however, is that you are completely disregarding the "if" of that reminder. You, and please note that I am saying this with every ounce of respect I can possibly muster, have the same problem that Snape pointed out that Harry had back in the fifth book. You have no subtlety, you just take these bits and bobs of the story, and then you look at them as though they are independent truthbearers in complete isolation from the rest of the tapestry of events known as canon.

This wiki is for commentary which is directly confirmed in canon, not huge amounts of information found elsewhere and taken around and used in different articles to create biographies for characters that aren't proven.

Well, I don't think a sentence or two is anyone's definition of "huge amounts". Nor is it "not proven", as the sources themselves testifies to.

Discussing wizard/Muggle relations in her article is largely unnecessary and irrelevant, it's covered in the relevant pages,

Yes, the concept of wizard/Muggle relations is covered by other pages, but her relations to Muggles is not. A brief, passing mention of how her association with Muggles at the time was uncommon by the standards of most other British wizards is not "irrelevant" to Antonia, it is a matter of biographical fact.

we don't know in any how she received her title, in either the wizarding or Muggle world (the aforementioned is possible)

"Dame" is an honorific title bestowed upon someone by the Muggle monarch through the tapping of the flat side of a knighting sword on the shoulders of the recipient. Headmaster or Headmistress is an appointed office that a witch or wizard gets if they are selected for it by the Hogwarts Board of Governors - what in the world do you mean by saying that we don't know? Do you know what a knighthood is? Have you read the books? I also didn't even say anything about how she got appointed as headmistress, I just said that she was appointed as headmistress, because... Well, she was, wasn't she? Isn't that why her portrait hangs in Dumbledore's office, maybe?

-so nothing is known about her relations with Muggles, if they existed.

Why you insist on treating things as simpler than they are, or seemingly indulge in self-deception in regards to what we know and don't know is something I will never understand RedWizard98. If you had actually read my edit, you might have noticed that I said nothing about the circumstances of how she became a Dame, all I wrote was that she became one, with the briefest reference to a truism to put what would otherwise have been an empty, four-word sentence in context.

It is a matter of fact that knighthood, which are not hereditary titles, they are granted individually, is bestowed on people by the Muggle monarchs, and in order for a witch or wizard to become either a Sir or a Dame, they need to have done something that the monarchy is aware of and felt was deserving of recognition. To say that Antonia was active in Muggle circles isn't speculation, it is a basic fact. It is a giventhat necessarily would have to be the case for her to become a Dame in the first place. The biography section exists to elaborate on what is known about life of the character, why won't you let me do that?

She isn't even mentioned anywhere in Tales of Beedle the Bard, so again, not sure why it was used as a source, when she's not even in it, so again, not sure why it was used as a source, when she's not even in it.

I thought that would have been obvious. Antonia's name does not appear in the book, but a description of the lives of witches and wizards in 17th century Britain does. And as a witch that lived in 17th century Britain, she would be one of the people that said situation applied to by default. If you want a barebone summary of a character's appearance or depiction in a given work of fiction, that is what we got the Harry Potter Lexicon for.

A biography, if I know my English, is an account of someone's life, and character articles are supposed to be written biographically and in-universe, correct? How you got the idea that it's "irrelevant" for the biography of a witch from the 17th century to mention that Antonia Creaseworthy would have had a first-hand, experiential knowledge of the witch-hunts because it was still ongoing during her lifetime, is just a little baffling to me.

It should not become an accepted tradition to write articles like this on the wiki just so editors can tell their personal stories about how they imagine characters lived in the HP world,

And should I ever actually write a personal story about how I imagine a character lived in the HP world on this wiki, I would love for you to stop me in my tracks. But you said it yourself, when writing articles, we should only include what canon says about how such characters lived, and that's all I did. The only difference is that whereas you think the passages in the books where Antonia's name is mentioned is the only place where we learn anything about her, I, on the other hand, like to go through the trouble of cross-examination and including information from different, collaborating sources within the HP universe to obtain every discernable detail that I possibly can.

If you actually looked at the sources I cited, and you looked at canon information as pieces of a whole rather than fragments existing in a vacuum, you'd see that there is nothing in my edit that was speculative, or misleading, or unsupported by canon. At all. You might not realize this, but you are actually inventing problems with my edits that doesn't actually exist, and its becoming just a tiny bit tiresome. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the general aim of a talk page discussion about a contentious is to form an agreed consensus with more than a few editors, not to then restore a contentious edit in which there has been zero agreement with others, just to force your view about the topic into the article so there are no questions asked. Sorry, not how talk page discussions and edit disagreements are conducted on this wiki, maybe on others, but not this one. If this kind of speculation continues I won't hesitate to report to an admin about unacceptable speculation on the wiki, as well as the edit warring. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to "report me" to an admin for adding uncontroversial truisms to a character article, then be my guest. I am certain that the staff have absolutely no life outside of the wiki, and that they will take absolutely no issue with you wasting their time. In the meantime, if you would be so kind as to stop mischaracterising my edits ad nauseam and pretend the content is or says something it isn't and doesn't, even post- a third or fourth correction, I would be much obliged. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Talking about this wiki's staff like that is not a very wise way of trying to get us on side. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 14:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't talked about this wiki's staff at all, I ran a commentary on the way RedWizard98 made claims on your time, and said he'd be wasting your time by "reporting me" for "speculation" when I make edits that are properly sourced and supported by canon. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol what?

I was quite obviously referring to the "absolutely no life" line. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 15:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Making those kinds of negative personal attacks towards this wiki's trusted volunteer team is not acceptable. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the entire post, or just those three words out of context? I didn't say the wiki's staff had absolutely no life, I was being facetious about RedWizard's announcement that he would be reporting me. What I actually said was that "you are wasting their time by reporting this, because what you are saying is false, and the admins probably do have better things to do." WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright fair enough, I misread it. It was still unnecessary though. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It was explicitly said that "I am certain that the staff have absolutely no life outside of the wiki". That is an insult against wiki staff, no other way of putting it. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

MrSiriusBlack In retrospect, yeah, I can agree that it was a bit short-sighted, maybe, but given RedWizard's history of blatantly mischaracterising my edits, and of misrepresenting what I say on talk pages, it's not like I'm not justified in getting defensive. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RedWizard98 Why is it MrSiriusBlack can see at a glance that I didn't make a personal attack on a second reading, and you can't? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When such rude comments are made towards wiki staff, such words can't be undone or re-worded. Perhaps it would be a good idea to not make such rude comments at all. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Red, it was sarcasm. Let it go. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Death, and return as a ghost[]

The wiki states that she must have died before 1986 because a portrait of her appears in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, however it also states that she might have been alive or returned as a ghost in 1993 because her name is on the Marauders' map. Surely this is positive confirmation that she's a ghost, right? AD Vortigern (talk to me) 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)