Harry Potter Wiki
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Wiki.png

This is the talk page for the article "Neville Longbottom".

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, 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.

Awesome

i think neville is awesome

Agreed Dumblydoor 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only awesome, but really handsome ;) 186.147.101.182 19:42, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

"Relationships" section

In the mention that Neville remained in contact with Harry and Ginny, is "... his wife" necessary? I think it's a given that they're married, and it just seems repetitive. - Cubs Fan2007 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ginny's boyfriend?

Neville was recently categorized as one of Ginny's boyfriends, but he never was one. They attended the Yule Ball together, yes, but: (1) after Hermione turned him down because she was attending with Krum, (2) partly because Ginny couldn't have gone to the ball otherwise as she was too young (recall her disappointment to learn that she might have been able to go with Harry had she not already accepted Neville), and (3) Ginny met Michael Corner, who she subsequently begins to date, at the ball. There is no indication that there was a romance between Neville and Ginny; they went as friends, much as Harry and Luna went to Slughorn's Christmas party together as friends. 24.141.219.104 19:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll uncategorize it. --Freakatone 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Potions

I'm thinking of adding some info to Neville's section in the Greasy Git project page working draft, but I can't remember if it's actually in the book. When he sat his OWL in OOTP, was it ever mentioned that he was more at ease without Snape hanging around, or was that only Harry? --Cubs Fan2007 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Long time for an answer, but I found this, if it can help : "Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class" in OotP, chapter 31, O.W.L.S. Don Silk (talk) 13:35, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday Neville Longbottom!!!--HallieryElizabeth 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Neville married who?

Where does the book said that Neville Married? --Lupin & Kingsley 01:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the book. It was provided by JKR during a DH book tour. --Cubs Fan2007 (Talk) 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
actually jk rolling claimed that though not in the book he marries hannah abbott


89.243.49.232 13:12, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
-yeah but in the film neville claims to love luna? :S - unknown user
Neville's actor said, in his opinion, Neville and Luna later broke up. 92.15.151.141 15:03, August 5, 2012 (UTC)
In one of my fan fictions I said that Neville married Luna, as in the Deathley Hallows Part Two he says: "I figure I better tell Luna how I feel about her, since we'll both be dead by dawn!" Seeing how much he wants Luna to know, I say he most likely marries her. And as for kids, in my fan fic I just made up that they had 4 kids. Someone email Jo Rowling though! But why would he email Hannah Abbott? He never has ANY connection with her and if they were going to get married then Hannah would have been a bit more important in the books. The only time she's ever mentioned is at the Sorting Cerimonie (how do you spell cerymonie? Brain fart.)

Hair Color

Didn't JK Rowling say Neville had blonde hair, not light brown? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

If you think so, you can edit that info. --ÈnŔîčöHallows.svg(Send me an Owl) 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Where in the books is this mentioned? A source should be listed for something like that. Flicky1991 13:01, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
JK Rowling said it herself during one of her interviews: "Now, to me, Neville's short and plump and blond..." (click to see the complete interview). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:09, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Animagus - Fish?

Is that true or is it vandalism? Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember in the books nor in the movies discussing Neville is an Animagi or he has the ability to transform himself as a fish. So, it's possibly strong that the information in the infobox is false and put only by someone else just to perform vandalism. --ÈnŔîčö Ravenclawcrest.jpg(Send me an Owl!) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
He most definatelly does not transform into a fish. I have removed it. Solar Dragon 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Eye Color

Is there any source for Neville having hazel eyes? --SilverDrama 08:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this information was based on Matthew Lewis's physical appearance. Character descriptions shouldn't be based on the physical appearance of an actor who plays them, because more than one person can portray the same character, and these people will sometimes look quite different from one another (e.g., Jennifer Smith and Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown). Starstuff (Owl me!) 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

On Eye color it now stands "Green", Is there any source of that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.166.7.8 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 23 July 2009.

I WONDER IF NEVIL WILL EVER GET A GIRLFRIEND?

WHAT IF NEVIL WENT OUT WITH GINNY........NO GINNY IS IN LOVE WITH HARRY!?katarina 17:01, January 8, 2010 (UTC)DITTYMO

He is married to Hannah.--Rodolphus 17:03, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

a) this is for EYE COLOR b) duh ginny loves harry and c) neville MARRIES hannah, this is to katarina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.79.53.133 (talkcontribs).

Dementors

How would he do against dementors? Would he be forced to relive his parents' torture as Harry was forced to relive their deaths? 75.27.36.231 03:46, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

As far as we know he did not see his parents' torture, but he definitely had some bad memories. --JKochRavenclawcrest.jpg(Owl Me!) 04:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Plus, you would think if Neville had been there when his parents were attacked that threatening to hurt Neville would have been far better leverage for information then just using the cruciatus curse on the parents. As evil as Bellatrix is, I doubt she would have had a problem hurting a child. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest.jpg(Accio!) 13:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Kids

Did Neville and Hannah have any kids? 75.27.36.231 15:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

As far as we know, no. JKR hasn't mentioned anything. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me)



It is a very popular assumption that Neville and Hannah had two kids named Alice and Frank. Unfortunately, it's not cannon so we don't really know. DeathlyHallowsSonya (talk) 03:43, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Abbott?

After reading on here that Neville married Hannah Abbott I searched through the books to find proof of that, but found nothing suggesting that Neville was even married. I just wanted to know where the creators of this page found evidence of a marriage between Neville and Hannah. 76.113.246.80 19:28, December 11, 2010 (UTC) Andrea Greenberg

This comes from an interview with JKR at Carnegie Hall following the release of Deathly Hallows. [1] Thanks, --JKochRavenclawcrest.jpg(Owl Me!) 19:42, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
It says on JKR's website that Neville marries Hannah look up if you don't believe me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.79.53.133 (talkcontribs).


In one of my fan fictions I said that Neville married Luna, as in the Deathley Hallows Part Two he says: "I figure I better tell Luna how I feel about her, since we'll both be dead by dawn!" Seeing how much he wants Luna to know, I say he most likely marries her. And as for kids, in my fan fic I just made up that they had 4 kids. Someone email Jo Rowling though! But why would he email Hannah Abbott? He never has ANY connection with her and if they were going to get married then Hannah would have been a bit more important in the books. The only time she's ever mentioned is at the Sorting Cerimonie (how do you spell cerymonie? Brain fart.)

Picture

I didn't like this picture. There is blood and his face doesn't look good. I think we must put another picture emphasizing his physical appearance and personality.

This is the most rescent and I think it fits the book description (the one in book 7) well. Aside from the dark hair of course.--Rodolphus 17:42, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I know but isn't there a picture that shows his body and his face better detailed?

Middle Name?

Does anyone know what Neville's middle name was? Is it Frank or is that just fan-fiction? TheMeaningOfLife 10:03, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

  • -- It's isn't mentioned in the books and JKR has yet to issue any statement. Frank/Franklin is purely a result of Fanon, but it is logical, considering most of the HP characters have a relative's name as their middle. ( 3:05, December 04, 2011 )

Neville using expelliarmus

Did anyone notice on the OOTP when Neville uses expeliarmus on the manakin they are practicing on before he can actually do it?

yeah but the patil twins were helping him when he did it, remember? also stop talking about the movies, they left out peeves after all, am i right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.79.53.133 (talkcontribs).

Snape

One could say that Snape didn't merely dislike or despise Neville; this seemed even an attentive dislike, one he fought to keep going. Granted he wasn't the best student--almost exactly the opposite. But he really had it in for him at times. My article question : I speculate that this dislike was intensified by how Neville could have been the prophecy child, and that if V-Mort had chosen to kill him, Lily might have survived. Problem is, I know of no way to place that in the article, since no statement of his or anyone's directly backs that up. Gojirob 15:02, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Lewis is about 22 years old, but in the Harry Potter movies he is in the same age as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley... How does that work?

Most of the actors and actresses in the films (Matt, Emma, Dan, Rupert, Bonnie, Evanna, etc.) are older than their characters. They might have started out the same age at the beginning, but it took 10 years to film, not 7, so of course they're older than their characters.

Oops sry just realized I forgot to sign I wrote the above comment Alumeng 14:34, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image vote

Forum:Post-DH2 infobox images#Neville Longbottom

Follow the link. Nominations are still open. Voting starts in 3 days. - Nick O'Demus 15:04, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hatstall

Could someone add the stuff from pottermore?


Favorite quote

shouldn't we add a quote article? because I really love it when Neville said " Oh my God! I've killed Harry Potterplus,nthis is for everyone's article. #LOL ~~SandyOwl89~~

Having a list of character quotes isn't in the principles of fair use. The quotes currently in the article are (in theory, anyway) for example purposes, provide insight into the article's subject that a simple paraphrased description cannot, and are supported by a substantial quantity of original text. Having just a list of quotes, like having a gallery of images with no article text as commentary, is stretching into outright copyright violation. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:32, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Not an Auror

In the article, and in the references linked to it, it is mentionned that Neville became an Auror after the 2nd War, this being supported by the transcript of a discussion with J.K. Rowling. (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html )

However, after reading this element, I'm not quite sure he ever was, and I'm quite sure there's been a misuderstanding of it. There's only one element speaking of Neville and Aurors, here's what she said :

"[...] JKR : I love Neville. I love NEville so much. Always loved Neville. And I always had big plans for Neville, you know? And he really was The Boy It Could've Been, because as you know, as I made clear, he was born hours before Harry, he was born on the 30th of July, Voldemort singled him out as the other possibility. But the great thing about Neville's story for me, the over-arching story about Neville, is that he proves himself to be a boy who could've done it too. Yeah, Harry had the scar and arguably, Harry had an edge more talent because Harry-- he has an extraordinary instinct for the right thing to do. He's just got the right instinct, and that's what would make him, in due course, a phenomenal Auror. But Neville was, I think, amazing in the final battle, and proved himself a hundred times over worthy of being a Griffyndor, his parents' son, despite the very difficultchildhood he had in the hands of his very pushy grandmother, and I know, she loves him and he loves her, but she's not an easy person to be raised by. [...]"

From what I read, it is not said that Neville became an Auror, only that in comparison with him, Harry had more instinct, which made Harry an Auror.

Please, let me know if I missed anything, and feel free to discuss the matter!

Don Silk (talk) 13:58, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Head of Gryffindor?

There is some debate as to whether Neville has become Head of Gryffindor House by the time of Harry Potter: Magic Awakened given how the Sorting Ceremony is portrayed. As seen in gameplay videos such as this one, the camera pans across only 4 people seated at the head table while the Sorting Hat sings about how it "will tell where you're supposed to be" - Neville, Sprout, Flitwick, & Slughorn. As we know the other three were Head of their respective houses, and that McGonagall is now Headmistress of Hogwarts, does this mean Neville is now Head of Gryffindor House? Is this notion just implied and should be part of the "Behind the scenes" section or do people think the visual arrangement is strong enough to confirm this as a canon fact? Anyone seen other MA gameplay that would support or refute this conclusion? Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the close-ups are just implying it, not confirming it, although it is indeed very natural for players to think he is the Head. I played through one of MA's beta tests to the point where I saw another appearance of Neville, he (spoiler) wears Herbology suits and talks to several students about some spellwork, but the conversation still doesn't confirm he is the Head of Gryffindor, so I don't think there's strong enough evidence yet. MalchonC (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I know Red and MalchonC at least seem to think there is "zero evidence", or, as the latter said; "just implied." I don't get it, though. As seen in this clip, which while indeed a demo was released only two months ago, where the camera not only zooms in on the four professors at the High Table as the Sorting Hat sings about the placement on the new first years, but each of the four teachers are all associated with a different House and appears in the exact same order as McGonagall listed the four Houses in the Philosopher's Stone while introducing the four Houses. During the Sorting Ceremony in HM, there's the same trend. We get a close up on McGonagall, (Gryffindor), Sprout, (Hufflpeuff), Flitwick (Ravenclaw), and Snape, (Slytherin.) And it is blatantly obvious that the focus on them is meant to emphasize the fact that those four individuals are especially relevant to the students of the house being named, even if you had never opened a HP book or watched a movie before playing the game. In MA, the Sorting Hat sings about its job of sorting students, and four teachers affiliated with each of the four Houses receives special focus: Neville, (Gryffindor), Sprout, (Hufflepuff), Flitwick (Ravenclaw) and Slughorn, (Slytherin). This seems to obviously deliberate on the part of the game developers in both instances that I don't see the supposed ambiguity they refer to. Tfoc (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Your reasoning is all very good and I can totally understand why, following this trace of thoughts, anyone can come up with the idea that Neville is the Head of Gryffindor. But idea is an idea, not a confirmation. MalchonC (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, Malc, that's a blatant mischaracterization of the above. It's not some "idea" I've pulled out of my ear and then taken it upon myself to arbitrarily insert into an article, it's a recurring trend in visual storytelling of this franchise that I am pointing out. Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who are being introduced to the wizarding world through HM, and although they don't know anything about Hogwarts or what a Head of House even is, they still get visual confirmation about who the four Heads of Houses are before it being hammered down through dialogue later. Why is it true in HM that the focus given the four alma maters on the teaching staff denotes them as Head of Houses and not when the exact same visual confirmation is conveyed in MA? Tfoc (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Visual trend does not automatically constitute a confirmation either. Neville could very well be a deputy Head (it's been ten years, anything can happen) when the Head is away, just like McGonagall who sometimes gives the welcoming speech when Dumbledore is away. MalchonC (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I wasn't referring to a visual trend, like let's say how Alan Rickman portrays Snape as always wearing the same attire throughout seven school years in a row, as opposed to the book version, where he is always seen wearing black, billowing robes without anything to suggest they're not a selection of similar robes with small differences Harry doesn't notice or don't take the trouble to notice. What I was talking about, however, was a trend in visual storytelling specific to the HP universe. In this case, specifically dealing with the same visual conveyance of the same information in two different games. As for whether Neville might be Deputy Headmaster? If we see his name on the Hogwarts Acceptance Letter on the finished product, or carrying out duties we know McGonagall did as Deputy Headmistress, it might be fuel for discussion, but until then, I'm not sure if picturing made-up scenarios in our heads with no canon to back it up really adds anything or are otherwise relevant to this discussion. Tfoc (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant Deputy Head of Gryffindor. This probably isn't a thing in Harry's time but it's been ten years and maybe McGonagall feels the need the add the positions of Deputy Heads of House. This possibility also exists, along with Neville being the Head.
This is the Meteolojinx Recanto situation all over again. This is indeed a fictional universe, but we write in-universe articles (other than the BTS section) as if we're in it, and in that universe, there's no such thing as Harry Potter: Magic Awakened, so what game developers are (probably) thinking and what visual storytelling sequence the game displays shouldn't be taken into consideration as any sort of confirmation. There is one exception though and that is the authors or developers in the real universe giving outright statements of what happened in the fictional universe, then they're considered to be valid. I don't see anything beyond, if I may quote Sheldon Cooper, hunches and guesses with this Neville as Head of Gryffindor argument. MalchonC (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Deputy Head of House" - again, I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to leave your fanfiction out of the discussion, Malc. To point out that I can't prove that your made-up-on-the-spot scenario will not be included in canon one day if the people involved happens to get the same idea and therefore somehow magically negates whatever point I am making about existing canon specifically in the here and now, is not only fallacious, it is fallacious. You're basically saying that X is false because I cannot prove that Y will never become true.

As for what you said about how the "visual storytelling sequence displayed in the game shouldn't be taken into consideration as any sort of confirmation" because of how "there's no such thing as Harry Potter: Magic Awakened in-universe", that's not an entirely sound argument either. By the same token, I could say that since there's no such thing as a game called Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery in-universe, we shouldn't take Patricia Rakepick's depiction as a blue-eyed red-head in the game as confirmation that is a blue-eyed red-head, or a number of other details, as part of canon because they stem from a game. And yet, we do, because she's portrayed as such. Games and movies are visual narratives, so obviously, the visuals are - save for very rare exceptions, like when a camera man is visible in the background and similar mistakes - just as much part of the overarching story conveyed in the films as the written word is in the books; even if the wiki has to draw the line somewhere regarding what is used, etc, as a matter of practical necessity. Since there is nothing from Rowling to contradict the visual identification of Neville Longbottom as part of the Head of House lineup, I fail to see the problem? Tfoc (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"You're basically saying that X is false because I cannot prove that Y will never become true." - This is exactly what I'm saying and I stand by my argument. If X is indeed true, you should have the ability to prove Y is not true, when X and Y directly contradict each other.
The physical characteristics of Rakepick depicted in HM are acceptable because they're there in the fictional universe. Is there any camera which does the close-ups present in the fictional universe? No. MalchonC (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed because Y is false, even if it could hypothetical speaking become true one day. But the potential truth or falsity of Y is has no bearing on the truth or falsity of X, which is what we are actually talking about.

There's no camera doing close-ups in-universe, but the characters who are given special attention through the close-ups exist in-universe. As does the information conveyed through the close-up. This is what I meant by what I said on your talk page: You can't look at the close-up in isolation of the context in which the close-up took place, because there's a reason why the narrative put the teachers on display the way they did. The when and how of that display is also relevant. Tfoc (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

X and Y directly contradict each other, so if Y is potentially true, X is potentially false. If you're even questioning axiomatic logic, then I don't see the logic of your opinion at all. It's like saying you've successfully built a perpetual motion machine.
The core of your assumption is the close-ups, and if there's no camera, all Hogwarts students see on 1 September, 2008, is four professor sitting behind the staff table. There's no special visual effects done in the HP universe. MalchonC (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I do think that the visual strongly supports Tfoc's argument. We know the other three teachers shown while the Sorting Hat speaks are the Heads of the other Houses so it only stands to reason that they have shown Neville to be one too. Why would they leave one Head of House out? I understand that we don't (so far) have a comment that supports it too, but I think we have enough to say that it's very likely. If we put that we have based it on the visual (e.g. including (possibly) in the infobox), and use terminology including he was "likely Head of House", I wouldn't oppose saying it in the article. - Kates39 (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Likely yes, definitely no. I am in agreement with Malchon that it is not good enough to say for certain. The game isn't even out yet, is it? The real head of Gryffindor house could've been in the Hospital wing with Spattergroit for all we know.
If consensus agrees with Kates's suggestion of adding the info back with a '(possibly)' tag, then I would support doing that, but that is as far as I'd stretch. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The only place I believe this information should belong at the current time is the Behind the scenes. I don't believe the video qualifies as strong enough evidence, since it is of an unreleased game that is still in development, and the Head of Gryffindor could have been anyone, including Neville, but of course others as well. The video does not identify Neville as such, and I think this argument is really clutching at very loose threads. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that it should only belong to the BTS section because so far there isn't any kind of verbal clue that suggests who was the Head of Gryffindor in 2008. MalchonC (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment that there are other forms of verification than verbal, roughly a year ago, a series of demo clips was released from the game, and eventually deleted. Now, two months ago, a more recent version of the game is being promoted, and other than vastly better graphics, the Sorting Ceremony remains the same in both. I don't think the "this game is in development" argument from Red is very strong: If they were going to change that detail, they've had quite a bit of time to do it in. And while I am sure it won't surprise too many of you that I still think the visual confirmation is sufficient, I am perfectly happy to settle for (possibly), like Kates39 suggests. That idea has my vote. Tfoc (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding it but marking (possibly) is not unacceptable for me, but there has to be a note (reference) right after to clarify why this is believed to be potentially true. MalchonC (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to accept your "vote" does not override the concerns of other editors who find your analysis superfluous. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Red, do you EVER stop whining?!
Malc, to address your insinuation that I object to "axiomatic logic"... What you said further up on the page was a complete non sequitur, Malc. X represent something that is verifiably included in a canon source, i.e. Neville's appearance on the lineup of the Heads of Houses. Y represent some made-up scenario that isn't canon at all, i.e. "Deputy Head of House", and Y has no bearing on the validity of X. X is definitively canon, Y is definitively non-canon. The fact that hypothetically speaking, an Y and be retconned into an X in the future has no bearing on their respective states as X and Y in the here and now, and the existence of Y does not in any way, shape or form negate X. That's a bit like saying because that the original characters made by George Norman Lippert in the James Potter series (which is, btw, the single best fanfiction I've ever read and STRONGLY recommend. If you're not one for reading, then the three first can be found as audio books on YouTube), that is to say, a bunch of Y's, could have become a bunch of X's if Rowling suddenly decided to announce it canon tomorrow, then might current Y's cause some sort of ripple effect to affect the X's in let's say WU. Which they won't and can't do. They are what they are, and they aren't what they aren't, but there's no potentiality involved. Tfoc (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
No, X is not definitively canon. MalchonC (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, expressing concern/skepticism in a discussion does not really qualify as whining. On the other hand, making accusations towards others that state they are somehow deliberately refusing your argument and capitalising certain words for dramatic impact seems sort of like whining at others. The logic is really quite thin with this argument, since it can't be proven that he is the Head of Gryffindor from the video, which actually is itself a legitimate third-tier canon source. There is very little much to do it than that, unless such argument is to be explained and/or expanded upon maybe a little bit too much. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think X is not definitively canon, Malc, when obviously we've been talking past each other. Because X IS definitively canon, that's the whole point, and what separates it from Y. X in this case would be referring to Neville's inclusion on the lineup of Heads of Houses in MA that lends credence to the case I was making, not the case in and by itself.

Red: "expressing concern/skepticism in a discussion" - yeah, sorry, mate, but that's not what you did. What you did was whining. If I utter an opinion you disagree with, or that others disagree with, all I hear from you are "Weh, weh, weh! Your opinion don't overrule ours! Weh, weh, weh!"

As if the hammering home of my position during (admittedly overly long-winded on my part) exchanges I have with others about wiki content isn't exclusively with respect to my disagreement with individual interlocutors involved and completely separate from whatever consensus is reached. Which it is.

And now, when I agree with Kates39 to meet people half-way and settle for less than I would've liked without too much fuss, what is your reaction? "Weh, weh, weh! Your opinion don't overrule ours! Weh, weh, weh!"

Ironyak1 started a freaking discussion to we could VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, and when I throw in my ten cents and then vote, you seriously think I'm you can tell me to brown-nose people who disagree with me? Or that you are in any position to make my vote conditional until I "admit" something that isn't even a topic? Are you KIDDING me? Two questions, Red: Just who do you think you are, and... Are you NEVER happy?! Tfoc (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn't really give definitions for X and Y when you first brought them up, so my understanding was that X is the whole point you're trying to make, the one with Neville being the Head of Gryffindor. To clarify, I meant: the inclusion of Neville on the lineup of Heads of Houses, or in my words, Neville being seated among the Heads of Houses, is definitively canon, but the statement you derived from it that says Neville is a Head of House is not. MalchonC (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
When did me, or anyone said you couldn't discuss the topic or launch a potential vote on the subject? It is worth remembering this is only a topic of fandom discussion, not a matter of actually anything genuinely serious or life-changing. Why is there a need to capitalise words for dramatic effect? I see absolutely no need for it; no one else does it and it doesn't bolster an argument with emotional appeal. It makes it sound very bizarre and nonsensical instead. I think this kind of speech towards others is really poor, since none of us have been like this towards you and have focused on discussing the topic at hand, and why we don't agree with a certain point. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Malc: I gave examples of X and Y, I thought that was good enough. Obviously I should've explained it better, so that's on me. As for all the other, to me, that's just arguing semantics at this point, but agree to disagree.
I wasn't bolstering an argument through emotional appeal, Red, I was making a point. You were being petty and impertinent, and it's getting kind of old. That's the point. So please; save me the ineffectual grandstanding, and the apparent attempt to provoke me to lash out in annoyance and then look down on me from a high horse. It's childish. But you're right, this isn't the place for it, so unless your next post isn't specifically on topic, I will ignore it from hereon out. Tfoc (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
But accusing everyone of somehow being against you as an individual is not a good way to discuss things with others. It makes most of us really not enjoy discussing the topic and finding the whole situation unpleasant and tiring. This was merely supposed to be a discussion about a detail about Neville's character, but constantly capitalising words in your messages directed at individual does sound really confrontational.

In an attempt to cordially resolve this argument, I will add the information that Neville was possibly made the Head of Gryffindor house by 2008 to the BTS section (if it did not exist prior to this message being written), since it is a valid speculation in itself, but what me and others were trying to argue is that while we did not think it was undeserving of any mention, we did not believe it belonged it in the main article, as it possibly wasn't true. Mr Sirius Black said this very well above. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an assumption. It remains unconfirmed; as such it should not be mentioned as confirmed information (as usual). That much is clear to me. At any rate, it's something that in all likelihood will be eventually cleared up once the game is released, so I see no point to argue about it at length now. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The information has indeed been already mentioned in the BTS section so I removed your addition. It is above the "In films" sub-section there, because obviously, Harry Potter: Magic Awakened is not a film :) MalchonC (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my Behind the scenes statement which I failed to realise was duplicated. I also agree with what Seth says about the issue; it isn't confirmed, so it should not really be continually discussed at such gigantic length. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the rampant disregard for Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks and the inability for some to "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party" some users will be taking a couple days off. Apparently repeated warnings weren't enough to make this point clear.

As for the content, I agree with Kates39 & MSB on this one - there are plenty of other instances where we've tagged a piece of information with "likely" or "possibly" with an accompanying reference explaining the source and reasoning involved. The fact that the content isn't officially released yet hasn't stopped us from adding info from other unreleased sources (see Unreleased). Making the inference that Neville appears to be Head of Gryffindor from the arrangement of the MA Sorting scene doesn't appear to be a huge leap in logic and could be added as properly referenced strong possibility IMHO. If not, BTS is fine as well for now. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, Ironyak1. Tfoc (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement