|
Identity[]
There is a large amount of confusion as to who Cosme Acajor is since the wizard in The Archive of Magic: The Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was confirmed to be Cosme, but The Wizarding World of Harry Potter depicts her as a woman. Should Cosme be changed to a female (WWHP) or consider the woman to be a relative of his with the same name such as a daughter, niece, granddaughter and etc. or would that be too speculative since it's unconfirmed? Andrewh7 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Andrewh7
- Can you provide a source confirming your statement that "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter depicts her as a woman"? - Peregino (talk)
09:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/shorts/cIBO2EB6yZ0 She repeatedly introduces herself as Cosme Acajor. Andrewh7 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Andrewh7
- I suggest creating a new page titled "Cosme Acajor (witch)" and renaming the current one to "Cosme Acajor (wizard)". In the Behind the scenes section, note that two sources list different genders for Cosme Acajor. It’s unclear if they are separate individuals with the same name and role or the same person misgendered in one source.
- I recall a similar case with a Quidditch player, though I don’t remember which article. If you do, the BTS section there could serve as a good reference. - Peregino (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of changing the article to be female — not creating two separate articles. Both sources are Tier Two, so there is theoretically no question of canon here, just preference. In this case, WWHP is much more popular than this companion book is, so I would say that is more ‘accurate.’ Castlemore (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I’m fine with keeping just one article without splitting it. Since they exist within the same canon tier and there’s no question about canon, that makes sense. Also, the Quidditch player article I mentioned doesn’t split either. However, I don’t think it should be changed to female. Acajor is mentioned in three sources, and two of them (the majority) (one of which, COG, produced by Rowling herself) refer to him as male. The BTS section already notes the misgendering, so that covers it. - Peregino (talk)
12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I’m fine with keeping just one article without splitting it. Since they exist within the same canon tier and there’s no question about canon, that makes sense. Also, the Quidditch player article I mentioned doesn’t split either. However, I don’t think it should be changed to female. Acajor is mentioned in three sources, and two of them (the majority) (one of which, COG, produced by Rowling herself) refer to him as male. The BTS section already notes the misgendering, so that covers it. - Peregino (talk)
- Just to add to this, I think the article should stay as it is since although both The Archive of Magic: The Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter are in the same canon tier, The Archive of Magic: The Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was made first which makes it, in my opinion, more authoritative. It's worth noting, as well, that Cosme is a masculine name, per Wikipedia. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 15:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Even if The Archive of Magic: The Film Wizardry of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter are in the same canon tier, he appeared in the film which is a way higher canon tier than either of them. Andrewh7 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC) Andrewh7
Unfinished education[]
On the source video provided above (and here) the actress mentions hosting fashion shows using the school Abraxans, being told that was a violation and leaving Beauxbatons and opening her wand shop. Is this video canonicity the same as the text at the article that says he finished school? Silver Discusión 20:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Acajor being portrayed as female in WWHP contradicts canon, so that aspect is non-canonical. However, her storyline in WWHP doesn’t conflict with established canon or any other sources, so I’d say the story itself can be considered canon. - Peregino (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think stating she went to Beauxbatons is enough. I don’t want to set a precedent of thinking every single comment by one of these actors is canon. They are really just people making the park more interesting and alive, not fountains of canonical knowledge. Castlemore (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- How about leaving that information out of the article for now, and instead you can open a forum discussion on how we should handle situations where theme park actors, while in character, provide new information? We can decide whether such content should be considered valid or not. It's the best approach, especially if people have differing opinions, which I'm positive they do. - Peregino (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- How about leaving that information out of the article for now, and instead you can open a forum discussion on how we should handle situations where theme park actors, while in character, provide new information? We can decide whether such content should be considered valid or not. It's the best approach, especially if people have differing opinions, which I'm positive they do. - Peregino (talk)