Failed featured

Pomona Sprout was previously a failed featured article nomination. It has now been promoted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:57, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Scenes image

Can we get an image of the red-haired Sprout from the Stone game?--Rodolphus 18:26, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Yes check Done --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:41, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Main Image

Can we change the main image to one of her at the Feast at the end of the Chamber of Secrets film? Butterfly the rabbit 11:50, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

If you can find one of high enough quality, then sure, feel free to upload one. :) Patr0nus ( Expecto Patronum! ) 13:14, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Index for Professor Sprout

Sprout's index incorrectly has a "1.2.4" that does not link to anything. In addition, the 1.2 part of the index might be incorrectly numbered, I'm not sure. I am very highly unskilled in the way Wikis have their indexes and Wiki HTML, so I'm not going to even attempt to fix this, just point it out.

Rad1986 01:21, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I think that the actual image is a terrible for the main.The color is terrible and I think we can make a much better image for the article.¿Anyone some agrees with me?Pol 871 09:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping.Pol 871 17:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pomona Sprout in the game the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Will Professor Sprout in the game? There is information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirage 2 (talkcontribs).

As she is appearing in the film, it is possible, however I haven't come across any confirmation for it. -Smonocco 15:29, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
On the video game page, it says she is a playable character, is this true? It would be good if she was —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-Free-House-Elf (talkcontribs).

Pomona Sprout in the movie "Half-Blood Prince"?

1996 Start of Term feast speech
The right of the teacher Slughorn sitting with gray hair disheveled, on the approach to Professor Sprout. The more similar in appearance to the actress Miriam Margolyes. Is it possible that this teacher Pomona Sprout? The more so because it is mentioned in the film and appears in the book.


Sprout in Snape's memory?

Am I wrong, or is Sprout seen at Lily's Sorting Ceremony in Snape's memories? Rodolphus 13:10, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sprout would have been teaching at Hogwarts by the time the Maruaders arrived so i believe you Rodolphus101.115.134.230 11:26, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Is it confirmed she was teaching at Hogwarts while the Marauders were at school? As far as I know, Mcgonagall and Flitwick were the only teachers confirmed to have been working at Hogwarts at that time... Argulor (talk) 22:06, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

Tonks' head of house?

It is never stated clearly that Sprout was Tonks' head of house. It seems unlikely, but from what we know, she could have been appointed Head of House right before Harry started at school. Rodolphus 10:34, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

We should remove the statement and create a replacement article "Nymphadora Tonks' head of House".Rodolphus 13:14, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sprout could be Tonks' Head of House, because Pomona was so old to has been teaching aprox. forty years, and Nymphadore is young. I think that Pomona Sprout was her Head of House. Lestrange97 13:50, August 3, 2011 (UTC) ´

Yes, she could. But we don´t have canonical evidence on when she was appointed Head of Hufflepuff, haven´t we?Rodolphus 13:54, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Bumping--Rodolphus 19:10, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

As revealed in Pottermore, Pomona was the Hufflepuff Head of House during Gabriel Truman's third year at Hogwarts, which was sometime in or between 1987-1988 and 1989-1990. Tonks was on her fifth year in 1988-1989, which coincides with Gabriel Truman's early years. This definitely confirms Sprout was Tonks's Head of House. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Year of Sorting

On her article, it says she was born in 1930 or 1933, if she was born in either of these years, she couldnt of been sorted in 1939, she would be between 6 and 9 years old.

The-Free-House-Elf 17:21, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it; she was born in '33 and Sorted in '44. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:34, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't say that Sprout was older than McGonagall. It simply says that McGonagall's school career overlapped Sprout's by two years. That could also mean she was younger than McGonagall, with her first and second years coinciding with McGonagall's sixth and seventh years. So, if McGonagall was born in 1935, then Sprout was born in 1931 or 1941. Since Sprout had gray hair when McGonagall's was still black, she might be older though. Apwbd150 17:52, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

If the above is the case, shouldn't her birth year be changed to unknown? Since it is not confirmed whether she is older or younger than Minerva, and thus to present it as 1933 is misleading. Miraitrunks766 04:47, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth

Pottermore says: " Minerva’s school career overlapped by two years with that of Pomona Sprout". So Sprout must have been born either 1931 or 1941. Dolohov 18:17, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sprout in ootp?

While reading the fifth book i did not see sprout in the book. She is mentioned in only a few chapters but other than that no dialogue parts. Should her appearances be changed to putting (mentioned only) beside the orer of the phoenix? 22:53, June 25, 2012 (UTC)


Can anyone please provide a quote proving that Sprout's hair colour is given as grey in the books? I read the entire chapter listed for the source and found no mention of her having grey hair? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:33, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:45, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Birth year and age

Why is her year listed as "1931 or 1941"? McGonagall started at Hogwarts in September 1947 (she was born in October), and since Sprout started either two years before or two years after McGonagall, she began in either 1945 or 1951, and therefore was born in either 1934 or 1940.

I personally think 1934 is more likely, primarily, of course, because of her having flyaway grey hair, while Minerva's was still black. Of course Sprout could have prematurely greyed, McGonagall might have taken longer to get greys, or McGonagall might have Transfigured herself, but I think it more likely her hair was naturally black at that point. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 16:53, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Pottermore doesn't say that Sprout started two years before or after McGonagall -- it says "Minerva's school career overlapped by two years with that of Pomona Sprout", which means that when one of them was a first-year, the other was a sixth-year. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:03, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Mandrake Restorative Draught

I believe the text is clear that while Professor Sprout clearly grew the Mandrakes, it was in fact Professor Snape who actually brewed the Restorative Draught. Wva (talk) 03:15, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to where it says "at the End-of-Term Feast, Professor Dumbledore and the rest of the school applauded Sprout for her contribution in the brewing of the Mandrake Draught", right? This is merely noting that Sprout contributed to the brewing of the draught (that is, she provided the Mandrakes), not that she brewed it herself. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:29, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Professor Sprout in the fifth movie???

In the fifth book says that for the teachers table Harry saw professor Sprout reading the "The Quibbler" resting on his pumpkin juice. So maybe the witch sitting behind and marked with a red arrow on skinsite from the fifth film and there's professor Sprout? Because she obviously reads the newspaper and perhaps "The Quibbler".

Professor Sprout after Harry's interview in The Quibbler




Are we sure that Sprout retired? Sure, Neville was teaching at the time, but is it possible that he and Sprout split years between them? Madame Pomfrey was believe retired in 2014 but was still Matron in 2020, so it's possible.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:19, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

... *sigh*

"Having a source for uncommon info is more useful than a vague supposition" - actually, no, it isn't. And saying Sprout's ability to "even" use a spell so simple you wouldn't pass an O.W.L. exam without knowing how to use spells of that difficulty is just ridiculous. Can we at the very least rephrase it so it don't sounds as if we're patting Sprout on the head for being able to do something just about anyone with a wand and ability to use it can do. Also - none of those spells are really "Herbology-related", as neither of the ones have applications that unique for that subject. Ninclow (talk) 23:57, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

The sources both give clear examples of spells Spout knows and how she uses them in a Herbology context. The supposition that just about anyone that can use a wand knows all these spells is just that. Something that Fred and George made clear is that many wizards, even those that work for the Ministry, may not be able to perform some basic spells, like a Shield Charm - see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 6 (Draco's Detour). If you can find a way to rephrase the entry the neither removes information or sources, feel free to do so. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:42, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

First off, please stop using words like "supposition" when they're not needed. Had this been some grand debate of the sort we have had elsewhere on issues of more complexity, it'd be okay, but here, it only sounds like you're trying to take advantage of the fact that English is my second language to talk over my head and/or make me look like an idiot. Sometimes, less is more. Fancy words don't always help your case, and in this one, I just find it kind of insulting, since - although you probably don't mean to, but I still need to say it - it feels you are trying to talk down to me.

Secondly - so what if they are "clear examples"? The fact of the matter is that if she didn't or couldn't use basic spells like that, she would never have successfully gained employment, let alone become Head of Herbology. The only time Dumbledore ever employed someone incompetent, which we know Sprout isn't, was Lockhart, and he had ulterior motives. Unless you suggest there is reasons to believe Sprout were in the same boat at the start of her teaching career, your argument is invalid. It's basic spells that any resonably competent, let alone learned academican, would know without question. Also - the Shield Charm, while no Patronus Charm or Fidelius Charm, are certainly not basic. Not in the sense that the fire-making spell is basic, anyway. How many more witches and wizards around Great Britain lights their fireplaces with a wave with their wands compared to actively use them for dueling? If you are not an Auror, not a Hit Wizard, not a regular officer of the MLE Squad and not a Death Eater, what reason would the everyman have to ever have to take the time to fully master a Shield Charm? That's like expecting Mr. Martin over at the National Bank to know the basics of karate or be an excellent fencer just becasue it could be practical to be either of those two things in a potential/hypotetical combat situation. That comparison is so far out there it's almost laughable. 

Again, just because a fact and a source exist don't mean we have to add them to the article. The way it is represented now makes it look as if whoever wrote the passegae is belitteling both Sprout and her abilities because they didn't like Huflepuff or something. Ninclow (talk) 03:30, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

I use the word supposition because that is what it is - an uncertain belief. Where does it say how difficult any of these spells are or that anyone with a wand can cast them? It remains unclear what, if any, spells Sybill Trelawney knew or used regularly, or Hagrid, or Quirrell, or Lockhart, or Sprout for that matter, given what is said in the books, but they all were employed by Dumbledore. Clearly, not everyone knows every spell, or has an O.W.L. or N.E.W.T. in the subject, especially in areas which they may not teach. Any evidence that provides specific examples of spell usage is worth keeping to support the statement, instead of just assuming what an individual does or does not know. Again, if you can find better phrasing that doesn't remove information or sources, then edit away. --03:48, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

If "uncertain belief" is what you mean, then please, say "uncertain belief", then. Now one could almost be forgiven for thinking you just learned a new word and want to show off with it. (Not that I'm saying that's what you're doing, mind you.) That aside: It really isn't.

The moment you graduate from Hogwarts, you have sevens years woth of magical education under your belt, and you know and have been taught the same spells, the same potions, the same transgiurations - etc. How well you know these, however, depends on factors such as what kind of subjects you excel in and how much effort you put into maintaining and improving your abilities. In short, any spell Harry learn in the movies, in the games, in the books, while at Hogwarts, each and every teachher, being older and more experienced, will already have learned it and almost with a 100% likelihood of being able to use them better than most, if not all N.E.W.T.s-level students. Exactly because they are older and more experienced and have had more time to use and master the spells in question. This is true for the most part, lest your seventh year is Albus Dumbledore or you neglect your abilities like Lockhart. As such, as a rule of tumb, any Hogwarts teacher will be likely to be able to cast all spells taught to Hogwarts students better than they can, though not necessarily better than some of their fellow teachers or other adults using magic frequently in their job. To use Quirrel as an example: Quirrel is called a weak wizard - but that is by people like Voldemort and Snape, both of whom is magically superior, and not shy about it. So even if Quirrel were to be weak compared to Snape, doesn't make him a weak wizard overall. Underrated, like Wormtail. Qurriel could use nonverbal and wandless magic at the same time, and the idea that Voldemot's attachment to him made him capable of it is unconfrimed speculation. Overall, not a weak wizard.  

And - no, it isn't worth proving. Because we don't need "support of the statements", no one is or ever will be questioning Sprout's ability to use below O.W.L.-level spells in the first place. An to say adults who teach at Hogwarts know as much as the students they educate and then some, unless you¨re Lockhart, is not an assumption. that's stating the obvious. Mention one spell the trio can cast that is beyond any or all the Heads of the four houses, for example. Patronus don't count, for obvious reasons. Ninclow (talk) 06:19, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming how everything works, despite the obvious counter-examples. The task for a wiki is to list what is given in the sources, and to provide sources to back up any statements with references. Other than the Battle of Hogwarts, I don't think Sprout casts a single spell in the books, so to say Sprout has some skill in Charms (or any other subject), examples need to be given and as these examples extend across different sources, it's best to list them out. Please do not remove sourced information just because you feel it is obvious. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:31, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+