Talk:Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lupin's Murderer

Do we have confirmation that Dolohov killed Lupin? Yes, Aberforth mentions that he hadn't seen him since his duel with Dolohov, but he might've easily lost track of him during the confusion of the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.233.9 (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Name of article

i changed ise to ize. At the time it looked strange to me, but apparently ise is how the British spell it. I never knew that

I'm sure you meant "ize" to "ise" :P.

At any rate, it seems this title has bounced between ize/ise so often.

The correct way to spell it is Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hades Destroyer (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on your country. as per wp:engvar, organisation is correct. As is colour, instalment and all the other spellings that you yankees have corrupted from Her Majesty's the Queens English over the years. a_man_alone (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin mind move-locking this thingy? all bounce and no park make wikipedia a skittish server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Member Lists

I think the lists of members should include only names and not descriptions. The other information is redundant, as it is already included in the character's own articles, and it clutters up the page. (Changed and edited by me 9/29/07) --Gyrcompass 21:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Missions and Operations

• I added a missons and operations section to the page. and i will be contributing to the section in the near future. Ko2007 17:16, 10 August 2007

Though this section makes some sense, I think it should be incorporated into the main article and deleted. There's too much original research involved in splitting up the order's work into specific missions, and the only mission actually given a name in the books is The Advance Guard, and even that's a chapter title.--Gyrcompass 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Labeling of Order Members

I find the current labeling of Order Members confusing. I think it should be made clearer when the people died. For example, during the first war, or during the second. Anyone think the system should be revised? --Drak2

Right now there's little need; it all depends on what happens in the sixth book. And now that I'm talking I'd like to go on record saying that putting "excessively deceased" into the list was so worth it. :) --Kizor 16:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Creatures Loyal to the Order

I deleted the "Creatures Loyal to the Order" section. Just because the creatures listed helped fight Voldemort does not make them loyal to the Order. Grawp was loyal to Hagrid, Dobby was loyal to Harry, Kreacher was loyal to RAB and Harry, and the centaurs never showed any loyalty to the order. This is not a "Second War" page, not everyone and everything that oppossed Voldemort (may his name be forgotten) should be listed. (Plus, the whole section was unsourced).

Well please sign your comments, and i will get sources and relable the section then re add **Ko2007** 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have found a source and am going to re add the page, later on i have also changed the title of the page and hopefully it will be better! **Ko2007** 23:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't sign the above comment. Maybe the section could be replaced with a more accurate name.--152.23.100.89 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it...

Anyone else bothered that the original Order of the Phoenix gets disambiguated, and this kiddie book gets top billing? Maybe we should move Medal of Honor (computer game) to Medal of Honor and move that spot's current occupant to Medal of Honor (American medal)? --Jpbrenna 6 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Nope, not bothered at all. I suspect far more people will come to this page looking, if anything, for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, incidentally, is the book itself — this is only an organisation within the book), instead for some Greek medal, no offense to the Greeks. Also, I haven't ever heard of Medal of Honor (computer game), but I doubt it would have as many people looking for it as for this article here. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

There is a Greek Wikipedia at [1]. I hope that they have the medal listed ahead of the Harry Potter book. --MrBawn 02:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jpbrenna on this; even though Harry Potter book is more popular than the medal, the book's name isn't "The Order of The Phoenix", and the medal's name is. --MaxW

Dumbledore's Army

It should be noted that Dumbledore's Army has assisted the Order in the Second War. --MrBawn 02:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC) Actually , thw only thing they had done is trying to fight in the Hogwart battle , all the other thing they do is just messing around with the head og hogwart . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.3.170 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of the name

I wonder if the article has space for an analysis of the name of the Order. There is only one line: that it might be related to Fawkes in some way. There are perhaps other more probable possibilities, like the original Order knowing that Voldemort will come back some day, like a phoenix, or that the Order will reform when that happens, again like a phoenix. Or something? Saksham 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore: original OotP survivor?

I restored Dumbledore as a survivor of the original Order of the Phoenix because I feel he survived the original war that the Order had to fight, but I see that an anon as removed him and a few others. Should this list include those who survived when they were members of the original Order, but killed when they were in the new Order, or removed entirely from both lists? I feel they should still be in the first list because while they were killed later, they certainly were among the survivors in the original Order. --Deathphoenix 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

a little cleanup

The third paragraph under Creation and Purpose - "Due to the ministry also forcing...Voldemort had indeed risen again." - needs to be cleaned up as there is clearly something missing. I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself.--65.113.254.215 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a very jumbled and fragmented sentence. I'll do what I can to clean it up. Agent0042 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mrs Figg and Olympe Maxime

Why are they listed as "Known members of the reconstituted Order of the Phoenix"? I have never seen any mention of them being OotP members. Can anyone provide book and pages numbers? If not, I'm going to remove. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure about Arabella Figg, she certainly works with the OotP but whether she can be labelled a member or not i'm not sure, maybe needs discussing? Olympe Maxime however should not be there and I think is safe to delete. Death Eater Dan 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Arabella Figg is canonically a member of the Order. At the end of Book 4, Dumbledore has Sirius gather up "the old crowd", of which Arabella Figg is one. Every other name mentioned is an Order member, so it would be safe to assume that the old crowd is a reference to the Order. Maxime is never stated as an order member, but did go on the giant mission on behalf of the Order. If we're including the Weasley twins, for whose membership there is absolutely no evidence, Maxime definitely deserves a similar qualified mention. scharferimage 1:58, 19 December 2006

Loyalists and sympathizers

I just rewrote this section. "Loyalist" and "sympathizer" aren't official terms in the Potterverse, so artificially delineating them as precisely as done here makes little sense. Additionally, the language "do the Order's bidding" seems a little crude—these are people that are helping the Order because they agree with it, not because they're commanded to. I removed the reference to the Diggorys—nothing makes them special in this regard: Why isn't Susan Bones a sympathizer? Or Amelia Bones a member? —Ryan McDaniel 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Link at the bottom

I removed the link at the bottom, because I consider it simple self-linking. JohanTenge 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) - If anyone has anything to say about this, please do so also on my talk page.

Sturgis Podmore

Should it be noted that Podmore, while surviving, is in jail, or at least was in jail and was never mentioned as having been released? scharferimage 1:54, 19 December 2006

The Prewett Brothers

Have we been told that Fabian was in the Order? Michaelsanders 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He was in Moody's photo of the first Order. Secondsilk 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In universe warning

As there is no discussion here about the {{in-universe}} warning, and I have altered the intro paragraph, I am removing the warning from the article page. --zandperl 05:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't alter the lead; you just added an italicized note disclaiming the fictional nature of this article. That doesn't solve the problem; the problem is that this article is written as though the Harry Potter novels were histories instead of stories. This article doesn't place any of this in a real-world context, uses past tense liberally to describe fictional events, and just plain reads like a fanpage. WP:WAF has more on this, and how to avoid it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template messages

Should something be done about the excess of template messages on the article? Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I recommend rewriting this article from a real-world perspective, based on reliable sources that aren't personal observation of the novels and films. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership lists

These different lists need to be completely reworked so that it's not such an in-your-face spoiler, the first bit is more than just a list of names, and the "former members" table isn't written from the perspective of the seventh book. 24.4.253.249 05:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above comment, why does everything have to be with respect to the last book? It's not like the books are going on in "real-time." Olin 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There would be some value in splitting the list into members who joined the Order when it was first formed, before the main events of the series, and those who joined during Books 5-7. But as it stands, the "current" and "former" lists really just mean "survived Book 7" and "died during or before Book 7". This also means the "status" column is largely redundant, as everyone listed as a "current member" was alive as of the end of the series.

I'm going to attempt to rearrange things into a more sensible order, but I'll need help getting all the characters into their correct place. CKarnstein 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for my work to be undone. I've given my reasoning above, and would appreciate hearing why it was reverted so quickly. I'd like to add that all this "current" and "former" member business is in-universe. In the real world it doesn't make sense to say that Dumbledore for instance is a "former" Order member. A reader can pick up Book 5 anytime and read all about him as a "current" member. He's only "former" from the in-universe perspective of characters in Book 7. CKarnstein 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I did revert your work because it can be organized better and I had planned to do so but I wasn't able to so I apologize, I had other things that I had to do. I will be instead doing a little clean up on it so please if you see anything wrong with it or see anything that you believe shouldn't be there please change it and tell here why you did so. Thanks **Ko2007** 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Organis/zation

This is a fictional organisation in a book by a British author set in Britain. Therefore it makes sense to use the British spelling of the word. Discuss instead of wheel warring? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 11:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - from the Manual of Style: "it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa". There should be no discussion here, honestly. British spelling wins in articles on British topics. Forteblast 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No discussion. MOS explicitly says British spelling. Will ^(talk) 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually its not a british topic, the book was published in the US as well, just because she is a British author dosent mean that its a british topic, it is set in britain yes, but ur wrong. ko2007 08:14, 10 August 2007

Actually, that's exactly what it means. It was written in Britain, by a British author, for a British publisher, about a British character in a fictional British school. As they have pointed out, the Manual of Style specifically instructs on this sort of situation. So, technically, you're wrong. But it's okay - it happens to all of us. Except me, of course - I'm perfect.

(Of course I'm joking.) Anyway, let us know if you come up with any other reasons. See you in the funny pages! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any distinction between the article's content per se and the title that refers to it.

I'm of the opinion that the title itself comprises metadata, especially since the word in dispute is suffixed and in parenthesis. IMHO, metadata like titles should follow general wikipedia practice, and I've noticed that the vast majority of article titles where an s vs z situation occurs use a z.

Of course, the article's content itself should follow british conventions. But not necessarily the title, that's wikipedia's metadata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Surviving Characters that "may" be Order members

There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that these people are in the Order, except that they and the Order may have fought on the same side. Suggesting that Horace Slughorn is an Order member is absurd. Harry, Ron, etc. are never said to join the Order. The Order is a distinct group of people, not just anyone who fought Voldemort. This section should be deleted. If I don't see a response to this in a day, I'll do it. Scharferimage 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I thought it was pretty clear in Half-Blood Prince that Slughorn was not actually a member of the Order. He refused to join because it would put him in danger.

220.253.109.74 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because they fought against Voldemort does not make them Order members. I'll get rid of the "May be Order Members" section.

Ron and Hermione did at least one mission for the Order, namely helping Harry escape from Privet Drive in book 7. But all the others are just speculation, and they are somewhat inconsequently chosen. Why are Slughorn, Flitwick, Sprout and Pomfrey mentioned, but not Sybill Trelawney, who fought as well? Why are Neville and Ginny mentioned, but not Luna? IMO, Ron, Hermione and Madame Maxime should be mentioned, because we know that each one of them did at least one mission for the Order, and the others should be deleted. Neville Longbottom 11:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neville and Ginny are mentioned because they fought, this section is not stupid amd if you delete it i will just put it back. Neville destroyed a Horcrux, so just leave it alone 04:49 PM CENTRAL ( 4 August 2007)

Neville destorying a Horcrux does not make him an Order member. And Luna fought as well, so did Dean Thomas, Seamus Finnigan, Lavender Brown, Ernie Macmillan... As you can see from my user name, I love Neville. But he's not an Order member. Neville Longbottom 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of May be members, to are associated with order/may be members. I hope this helps a little. Ko2007--05:00 PM US CMT-- 4 August 2007

Slughorn isn't. But Dumbledore's Army is pretty much Order of the Phoenix - youth organisation. The order will hardly keep official membership cards; leastways the protagonist trio could be said, for the entirety of Book 7, to be on an Order mission (outside DA school settings) and thus Order members. I agree that Slughorn is absurd, though, and I also don't think there's evidence for Flitwick, Sprout and Pomfrey.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:7C2F:DA18:C4C3:C612 (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rework and Revision

I've gone through and removed all the OR; only what is in the novels is now on the page. I also eliminated the 'in-universe' style. User Ko2007 seems to disagree, but until he/she comes to this page and gives a valid reason for going against guidlines, I will monitor and RV any non-Wiki content he/she inserts.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I put things in there that can be easily deduced from the books, and from interviews with JK Rowling, please explain what is wrong with what i am including and i will be happy to revise what i include, but the things that i put i believe they are true. Or as i said easily deduced from writing. Ko2007---04:54 US CMT August 4, 2007.

Deductions, however "easily" made, are original research, which is not permissible in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, they do not belong in the article unless they bear a citation from a good source. As for things J.K. Rowling says, they should include a citation and be introduced by saying "according to an interview," or something to that effect. I am overall inclined to agree with DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC regarding the style on this page. In-universe style is rampant in HP articles (there are about 25 that are currently flagged as in-universe), and it is good to see someone doing something about it. -Phi*n!x 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I changed the title to Surviving characters that are associated with Order/may be members

I think that should suffice Kris 10:55, 4 August 2007, (USCMT)

Ko2007, I am somewhat glad to see that you've decided to make your views known on the Talk page. Having said that, however, Original Research, even if it is something that everyone who has read the book can infer from simply reading the book, CANNOT BE USED ON WIKIPEDIA. Only things that are stated verbatim by the author/creator can be used; by Wikipedia's rules we cannot draw our own conclusions and fold them into the article. I have again reverted the page to my edit, and as I said before, will continue to do so. This is not a vendetta on my part; I am only trying to keep the article inside Wikipedia guidelines. In-Universe style is also frowned upon here, so I've removed all of that. These are fictional storylines and characters, not real-world news, and to treat it as such goes against Wikipedia guidelines.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 08:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC, I will leave it how you have it, however would adding a section with characters that are assoiated with Order, and having missions that they worked with the Order, be with in the guidlines. Ko2007 12:00 PM (USCMT) 5 August 2007

My apologies, folks, if I've caused a problem here. The entry for Nymphadora Tonks in "Reconstituted" did not seem to make sense to have her killed, then "later married". It seems I missed that these two sentences have been switched around a great deal. (They now say Later married to Remus Lupin and mother of Teddy Lupin. Killed by Bellatrix Lestrange during the Battle of Hogwarts.). Could we have a consensus on which order these two lines ought to be in, and I will be happy to stick by the majority vote. Reynardo 3:30am AEST, 22 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Former Members

I have removed Ameila Bones from the former members section, as she was never a proven member to my knowledge, please prove me wrong. As that would be OR i removed it. Ko2007 12:05 PM (USCMT) 5 August 2007

....Wow...I can't believe I did all that editing, went through and checked off the members, but still somehow missed that. *shakes head at self*DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

it may have been added after you checked you never know, unless you check history. Oh well its fixed. Ko2007 14:47, 5 August 2007 (USCMT)

Major Characters That Have Assisted Order

Expanded this. Ko2007, this was a well-thought out and relevant addition to the article, and one I'm rather embarrassed to realize I didn't come up with. See, I can get stuff wrong too.p)DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 18:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I added Percy to the list and will be adding more in the future, when I have time. I also removed "Major" from the title. Due to the fact that every character that has helped them should be listed, cause they may have and probably did play an important part in Voldemort's downfall. Even if they didnt why not list them(i.e. Olympe Maxime,) she didnt play an "important" part but never the less why not list her. Ko2007 14:46, 5 August 2007 (USCMT)

Surviving Members

Someone moved former members and survivng members together. I changed them back. Ko2007 16:48, 5 August 2007 (USCMT)

How is it "in universe"????

Oh wait i no cuz its umm nott User:Ko2007

Actually, it appears that it is. I'll take a look at it in a little bit. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please...we don't want to see you violate the three-revert rule. Why do you believe it isn't in in-universe style? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG im sorry i thought you were saying it had origional research sorry, User:Ko2007

Don't worry about it! It's all good. Make sure you're familiar with the three-revert rule, though - it's an important part of Wikipedia, and you got dangerously close to it today. We're glad to have you, though; hope to see more edits soon! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Advance Guard

I know "The Advance Guard" is a chapter title (OOTP 3), but the phrase is never used in the main text, and thus I don't believe it is the official name of an organisation and should not be given initial capitals. Also, if it's necessary to note exactly who was in the advance guard, shouldn't at least some space be given to explaining what the advance guard was? (And it's "advance", not "advanced".) 91.105.55.179 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Point but still it is something that they did or participated in with the order, and it was the name of the group that came and got harry. User:Ko2007

Tag Removal on 08-09

I've read most of the HP Wiki articles, and this isn't really any more in-universe than any of them, so I've removed a bit, edited a bit of syntax, and removed the tag. I also shortened the plot summary somewhat and therefore removed that tag. And though all information in the article is 100% from the books, if specific page and quote references are needed, I will do my best to supply them in the future.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the tags in the first place, but I think you did a pretty good job and support your removal of the tags. High five! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It lacks any meaningful out-of-universe content, i.e. development of the OOtP by Rowling, any kind of analysis by third parties, etc. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a really good argument. hbdragon88 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly far, far too in-universe. We should restore that particular tag. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, all it is is plot summary sourced to personal observation of the books. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also a lack of real-world content to show that it is notable enough to warrant an article, and an in-universe perspective that detaches it from the rest of Wikipedia. I'm sure there's real-world content out there, though; Rowling does a TON of interviews and many newspaper articles are out there. The trick is doing the research to find it. — Deckiller 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pomona Sprout and Ernie Macmillan

I think Pomona Sprout shoudl be added to the "Assisted Order" section, since she assisted in the Second War and she was one of McGonagall's and Harry's strongest supporters.

Likewise I think Ernie shoudl be taken out, because he may have assisted with the dmeentors, but so did Seamus, and he was there because he was a member of the DA Small5th 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Battle" and "war"

References to "Battle of ..." and "... War" should be removed from this article. See here for centralized discussion and links to the relevant pages. Savidan 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Head

there is no proof of whom the head of the order is, nor is the re proof that it is still operational. So do not name a "head" because we dont even know if the order is still operational ko2007 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Creatures Loyal

Umm I dont see any reason for why whom ever deleted the creatures section! So please give one here! **Ko2007** 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Look near the top. Its up there.--Gyrcompass 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit taking away nomination for deletion

That edit by 82.152.251.93 taking away the notice that this article is nominated for deletion was done by me but I forgot to log in. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  09:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Harry Potter Articles have gone Down Hill

Ever since the articles were condensed I have had to go other places to find articles on Harry Potter. What was wrong with the way it was before? Narcissa & Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew and even Bellatrix Lestrange reduced to "Dark wizards in Harry Potter," Tonks, Cornelius Fudge, and Kingsley Shacklebolt reduced to "Ministry officials in Harry Potter," Filch, Flitwick, Lockhart, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Quirrell, Slughorn, Sprout, Trelawney, and Umbridge all listed at "Hogwarts staff" - it's all chaotic. I understand the need to reduce the articles, but you are doing so at the detriment to vital data. Before when one would read about Elphias Doge who was part of the "Minor members of the Order of the Phoenix" article it was mentioned that Dumbledore and he attended the same years at Hogwarts and that he was part of the advanced guard that rescued Harry at the beginning of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. But now if one were to click on Elphias Doge a paragraph is reduced to two sentences which barely covers his contribution to the story. This is crap - go back to the way it was. It was not broken so why was it fixed. In reality is was not fixed. What was done was to break something that was not broken in the first place. I say we use the history link to set everything back and then work from scratch again. Maybe combine the Malfoy Parents into one article, go back to Minor members of the Order of the Phoenix article, separate the major bad guys from those mentioned in passing. I mean Bellatrix, the woman who killed Sirius Black, a minor dark wizard? And Dolores Umbridge, a major antagonist of the fifth book, the one who Steven King declared one of the all time greatest villains, deserves her own article as well. That is BS! I believe in an effort to condense more problems were created that need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsrauch (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend visiting the Harry Potter Lexicon? I swear by it, as does J.K. Rowling herself. The trouble is, this is a general purpose encyclopedia, it's never going to be the best source for any specific subject. You're best off going to a site dedicated solely to HP, and the lexicon is the best one out there. faithless (^speak) 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do use the Harry Potter Lexicon. However half the time it is down when I go there ~ and I have no set time for going there.

Horace Slughorn

Should old Slughorn be added to the list of characters that assited the order? Without any doubt, he took a considerable part in Voldemort's defeat by leading the reinforcements to the Battle and by duelling Voldemort himself. Lord Opeth 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the other professors (Sprout, Flitwick, Maxime) are listed, I'd say yes. faithless (^speak) 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deceased/Alive

The tables shouldn't list the characters as deceased or alive, as this is in-universe format. Agree? faithless (^speak) 21:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also support this because some of the characters that are listed as "deceased" were "alive" during most of the series (Dumbledore, Snape, Fred, Lupin, Mad-Eye, etc.) Lord Opeth 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistants and Allies section

Is the Assistants and Allies section really useful for this article? In the end, all of those Assistants and Allies are not Order members, which is the topic of this article. --Lord Opeth (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if in three days there is no opposition, I will go ahead and delete that section, as all those characters are not Order members, and all that information already appears in each character's article or section. --Lord Opeth (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Is that image of the logo an official one? It seems fan made. --Lord Opeth (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking through the fair use summary, it looks relatively convincing. But if you have doubts, please go ahead and do some research. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Order of the Phoenix logo.png

Image:Order of the Phoenix logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

McGonagall

Is it actually confirmed anywhere that McGonagall was in the original Order? I don't remember her ever being mentioned when the characters talk about it (for example, she isn't mentioned in the old photograph Moody shows Harry in book 5). Metathesiophobia (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea I was wondering that as well, I don't think she was. It's just the feeling I get from book 1 chapter 1, she and Dumbledore almost don't seem to know eachother (though I think this is more of Rowling introducing us to both of them). I at least can't ever remember it being mentioned that she was in the first order, so either move directly or {{fact}} ? — chandler — 04:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit

The Sirius Black section was vandalized, which is a shame, because before being merged it was a very good article. Anyway, I had to edit it. Also, this part doesn't seem plausible enough to me:

Sirius acts as a brother figure to Harry throughout the book but, according to Rowling, "what Harry craves is a father."[4].

Follow the link ([4]): the information doesn't really match the quote...

--Wikiexplorer7 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rowling has indicated that Sirius was more like a mate/brother to Harry instead of a father, the quote reads: "He kind of wants a mate from Harry, and what Harry craves is a father." He wasn't acting like a real father figure, i.e. while encouraging to create the D.A. --Lord Opeth (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

^ That's why I think it would be better if the quote was related in full! There is a significance in "He kind of wants a mate from Harry". It reflects what Hermione says in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

"Suit yourselves. But I sometimes think Ron's mum's right, and Sirius gets confused about whether you're you or your father, Harry."

Wikiexplorer7 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to edit it and re-structure it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Severus Snape

Last I checked he was in then Order before he died, why is he not listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.204.111 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because he has his own article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fleur Delacour Section

User(s) 24.71.165.252 and Sushimie and I disagree on his/her/their additions to the Fleur Delacour section. I believe that the additions are too close to a plot synopsis for the purposes of this article. What do you guys think? --Mad Pierrot (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is far too much. LadyofShalott 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that my edit to Fleur says "There's actual seducement in the series", whereas is should say "There's NO actual seducement in the series". a_man_alone (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Weasley was nearly killed off

Hi; I'm new to wikipedia and not good with computers, so I'm sorry if this isn't the right way to do things. But near the bottom of the "Arthur Weasley" section, "Rowling has revealed that in the original draft for Deathly Hallows she planned on killing Arthur". It then links to this article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-25-harry-potter-spoilers_N.htm Now, those comments are taken from this interview, about a third of the way down: Link removed. Source is on the blacklist. I was under the impression that in both articles, Rowling is referring ONLY to having considered killing Arthur in book five - not again in book seven. I'm quite content to be wrong, but what does everyone else think? If I'm right, that quote should read "in the original draft for Order of the Phoenix", not Deathly Hallows. 86.17.144.29 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, someone must have changed it. I'll fix it. Have you considered creating an account? Best, faithless (^speak) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

James Potter Head Boy/Fictional Consistency

In the first book, it is indeed mentioned that James Potter was Head Boy, but in the latter books, it is shown that James was a rebellious young man, not only was he never made a prefect; he set the record for punishments and detentions. Apparently, the James of the latter books was not a Head Boy - this extraordinary achievement is never mentioned, even though there are extensive recapitulations of James' time at Hogwarts,from a number of sources - and what we are looking at is an inconsistency in the "Harry Potter Universe". The very idea that such a universe exists - and is foolproof - is a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis. It would in reality have meant that J.K. Rowling had either written the entire series in one session (which she didn't), or that her writing technique was so perfect that she did not once contradict herself throughout a series of seven children's books. Few if any authors work that way. Are there any references for the assumption that Rowling's characters cannot be described in contradictive manners? Wikipedia is not a fan fiction page intended to create a canon of how Rowling's characters should be interpreted.

The truth is quite probably that James Potter - whose character traits are not at all mentioned in the first book - was later given character traits that contradict the first book. James was briefly referred to as a model student in book 1; later he was a rebel who was punished frequently. I would suggest that James' accomplishment in book 1 is presented separately. Sponsianus (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First, who has ever said that there aren't contradictions in HP? Rowling would be the first to admit that, especially when it comes to dates and sums, as she is notoriously bad at math. Second, your assumption makes no sense: James being Head Boy is a very, very, exceedingly minor detail - why should Rowling go on and on about it? And for that matter, who says he was never a prefect? The series is about Harry Potter, not James Potter. We can't expect to have every little detail of James's life given. faithless (^speak) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently not a matter of dates or sums. James Potter's character is not a minor detail at all: the menage-a-trois between him, Lily and Snape is on the contrary a crucial sub-intrigue. It is explicitly stated in book 5 that Remus Lupin, not James, became the Gryffindor boy prefect in grade 5 (prefects were apparently appointed in grade 5, even though this doesn't make sense as there would be three sets of prefects simultaneously and there are no indications to this), and Remus himself says that he failed dismally at controlling James, who was always in detention (HP&TOOTP, p.155). Such a statement would be nonsense if James Potter had also become a prefect or even a head boy. And it is as mentioned often stated that James Potter was a notorious rule-breaker, which makes it quite impossible that he was promoted to a position where he would control other students.

What I am opposing is Wikipedia's tendency to describe characters in the HP books as if they were described consistently throughout the books. There are seven books, written at different times. I don't advocate seven identical phrases for for instance Lord Voldemort: "In book one, LV is described as evil" etc; but this fanlike tendency to create a canon for the character's traits is not unproblematic, either.Sponsianus (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd think the natural thing to do is while taking actual logical contradictions as what they are, otherwise we should have an assumption of consistency.

In this sense:

• James Potter is described (consistently) as a student of excellent ability, Quiddich caption, and Head Boy in year 7. Non of which is contradicted by a tendency to rule-breaking.
• Remus Lupin, not James Potter becomes prefect in year 5 (and btw there is no reason not to assume a total of 24 prefects for the school, minus the ones usually drawn to be headboys). That a non-Prefect is drawn to be Head Boy is an anomaly (presumably by reason of James Potter's excellency as a student, and natural leading charisma, "coolness" etc., all of which are mentioned). A series of boyish pranks plus a previous history of bullying one admittedly unpleasant fellow-student, which has ceased by the time (note that he is by the time together with Lily) does not speak against this possibility. The more serious offences such as trespassing with an otherwise unguarded werewolf through the area at night in an unregistered animagus form are unknown at the time; as for Sirius Black risking Snape's life, James Potter without pause saw that this, other than pranks, was not what he was all about doing.--2001:A60:150D:FF01:B0F8:890A:D054:C088 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sirius Black

IMHO Sirius Black needs his own article, there is plently of stuff for him that can be added, and I'd be happy to help with that. Also there is a handy Black family tree on the dutch wikipedia Sirius Black article (which has its own article) which could be used if anyone speaks dutch. LordLoss Lord loss210 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a Sirius Black article. He is notable enough to have his own article. 92.29.181.178 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a split. It is not about info from the books, but outside the books/films/etc. that establishes notability. The information about the Black family is just in-universe cruft. If you manage to get deep coverage by reliable secondary sources discussing Sirius Black independently from the Harry Potter series, and get impact in popular culture, then notability would be established. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was already moved by another.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation ) → Order of the Phoenix (Organisation) — 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC) A users took it upon themselves to move the article without discussing it, adding the needless 'fictional' to the title. They messed up the move and now I can't revert it back to the original due to the reversal fuctionality failing. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my fixing the parenthesis messed it up. I didn't want it to sit there with the excess space, but I didn't realize that would make it harder to revert. I hope it gets fixed quickly. Princess Lirin (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be Order of the Phoenix (organisation) ("organisation" in lowercase)? — AjaxSmack 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right Mr. Smack. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Order of the Phoenix (organisation) per nomination and WP:PRECISION - there is no nonfictional organisation by this name so we do not need to say that it's fictional to disambiguate.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter)? Wouldn't that be more precise or informing? With it in parentheses I don't think people will confuse this article with the article on the book. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That could still cause confusion amongst some readers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support having this material at Order of the Phoenix (organisation). Per proper capitalization, disambiguation from the book, and the shortest title that accomplishes both of these. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lupin

Lupin was half-blood (see Link removed. Source is on the blacklist. Is this worth mentioning? --Glimmer721 ^talk 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Kingsley Shacklebolt

Shacklebolt is the only character whose race in included in this article. Is his race relevant given the lack of racial descriptors for other characters? Hillthekhore (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned especially in the books, unlike the others. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It stands to reason, then, that an appropriate quotation should be marked as providing his physical descriptors, no? I concede, though, that the lack of citation is a problem in this entire article, not just in this specific case. Hillthekhore (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, within the books, (and to a certain extent other wikipedia articles) race is mentioned frequently - Maxime & Hargrid are commonly described as a half-giants, Firenze is a Centaur, Kreacher & Dobby are house-elves, etc. a_man_alone (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment was based solely on this wikipedia article and not on the descriptions in the books. I agree with A man alone that the books do, in fact, directly describe skin color in some detail. If Rowling describes a character as black on one occasion and describes another as "exceptionally pale", which is essentially a euphemism for "very white," then does it stand to reason that any description of Luna Lovegood should include a description of her skin tone just as should any description of Kingsley Shacklebolt? That is the issue at hand, not whether Rowling described Shacklebolt (or anyone else) as black or not. Hillthekhore (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of black (human) characters that are specifically described as 'black', Kingsley and Angelina Johnson. Rowling doesn't describe other characters as 'white' when they are introduced; this could be Rowling's way of saying look my books are diverse! If this fact is worth noting is another matter. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Luna Lovegood described as being "exceptionally pale" - or something similar. That's about as close to being described as white as I think Rowling gets. I'm also aware after re-reading it, that my initial comment may be unclear - I see no reason to exclude Kingsley as being described as "black", just as I see no reason to exclude Seamus Finnigan as being described as Irish. a_man_alone (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to describe the race, describe the race. But calling a British wizard "African American" puts him in an impossible sociocultural group. I've changed the article. 97.85.86.145 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record - African American is not an impossible sociocultural group. a_man_alone (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

African American Briton almost is. Rowling, however, did not describe his ethnicity but his skin color: she described him as black. So if ya'all decide that is notable, that's how it should be presented in the article. Mbarbier (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when I read that about Angelina Johnson in the book, I thought as a matter of course that it meant "black-haired". (In German, it is possible to refer to black-haired girls as "black" girls.)--2001:A61:260D:6E01:7C2F:DA18:C4C3:C612 (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Something I noticed about the current picture

Anyone else realize that they're all members of the order who have been killed by Death Eaters? --68.81.203.246 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been trolling

Apparently somebody thought it would be funny to change 2nd paragraph of the Synopsis to -> "Voldemort's first religion of sandwiches ended after the murders of Cheese and Tuna Salad, and the unsuccessful attempt to murder Amy Winehouse at the beginning of the luncheon. The mustard rebounded on to him, and severely diminished Voldemort's hunger and as a result the Order was temporarily disbanded due to the lack of sufficient nourishment."

Can somebody correct this to the correct details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.102.59 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Princess Lirin (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A new article

I propose we write a new article about Sirius Black by himself, as he is an important character in the Harry Potter series. Though not introduced until book 3, after that he was a secondary character in both the 4th and 5th book. I have reliable sources and am planning to start an article on my sandbox page. If anyone wants to help, or has any suggestions, feel free to message me or correct the article. Thank you --In Harry Potter We Trust (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SiriusBlack.jpg

Sirius Black

A standalone Sirius Black article was merged into this page some years back. The current organisation of Potter-related stuff results from years of arguments on the project pages, and is not likely to be reverted. I can't actually find the relevant discussion as I did not take part in it but it must be somewhere out there... Mezigue (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Order of the Phoenix (fiction) → Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter) – I think the proposed title, which already redirects here, is a better descriptor of the subject. We commonly have the name of fictional franchises as disambiguators (e.g., Toad (Mario)), and Order of the Phoenix (fiction) might be thought to be about a work of fiction by that name. Now really, either the (fiction) or (Harry Potter) title could logically refer to the Harry Potter book and its derivatives, but there's at least one other fictional use of this name, as shown on the disambiguation page. Either way, the article needs a hatnote. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think "Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter)" is better title. As far as the hatnote, per WP:NAMB one is only needed if title is ambiguous and otherwise discouraged. So for "Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter)" a hatnote may useful to point toward Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix but not the disambiguation page. Perhaps, the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix page should have a hatnote to point toward the film, videogame, and soundtrack or it can be argued that it's what the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Adaptations section is for ... - Kirin13 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support and top marks to nom. GregKaye 08:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per above. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• With all due respect to BDD, Kirin13, Gregkaye, and Davey2010, I have to strongly oppose the proposed title as far too ambiguous. I would have bet anything that this title would have been a redirect to the book, and was stunned to find it talking about the organization described by the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I agree with the idea of a move but strongly disagree with this disambiguator. I counterpropose Order of the Phoenix (group from Harry Potter). I know it isn't very concise, but this is clearly not the primary topic for the proposed title. Red Slash 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Instead, I support Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) Red Slash 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but that's such a clunky title. The (hor)crux of the matter is that while several things related to Harry Potter could be referred to as "Order of the Phoenix", this is the only one of those actually called "Order of the Phoenix". --BDD (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I likewise see where you're coming from, as always! But I think we run too much of a risk of astonishing readers with what we've got. Please, I would love to get better suggestions. I think (fictional organization) is fine (okay, sigh... "organisation"), though. The band of rebels from the 60's book? No way. The book doesn't even have an article. Red Slash 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Surprised - I (wrongly) assumed "Order of the Phoenix (fiction)" was the wikipedia page name for the book. (My kids are now adults - it's a long time since I read any Harry Potter.) Like User:Red Slash, I suggest that NEITHER "Order of the Phoenix (fiction)", nor "Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter)", are completely useful names for this page. So, I guess that means I support moving the page, but oppose moving it to "Order of the Phoenix (Harry Potter)". Pdfpdf (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question - BTW: What is it that is wrong with the names "Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)" and "Order of the Phoenix (organisation)"? It's not that I particularly like those names, it's just that the above discussions don't mention why they are not the name of the page. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I could live with (fictional organisation). There's a disambiguation page at Order of the Phoenix that mentions another fictional organization of this name, though as Red Slash mentions, it's never realistically going to have an article. (organisation) may be possible; I was assuming Order of the Phoenix (Tonga) was an organization, but I guess it's more of an award. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (Harry Potter), support (fictional organisation) with redirect from the American English (fictional organization). The current location of (fiction) is too ambiguous. ONR (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (Harry Potter), support (fictional organisation) - Formalising what I've said above. (Thanks ONR) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment until new media is produced that presents the Hogwarts/Harry Potter world with notable contents that do not include Harry Potter, I still think that "Harry Potter" remains the primary associative reference for the subject.
  • "Order of the Phoenix" "Harry Potter" gets "About 1,800,000 results"
  • "Order of the Phoenix" "fictional organisation" gets "About 831 results"

Note that these results may be skewed by the title "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" but perhaps this also serves to demonstrate the association.

The short opening para that constitutes the lead ends with the text: "the Order lends its name to the fifth book of the series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". Further clarification can be added with the use of a appropriate hatnote GregKaye 09:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not about to make a big deal about it, but you seem to have missed the point that several editors are trying to communicate, that being: "Order of the Phoenix" "Harry Potter" doesn't convey any useful information about the topic - it just classifies the topic. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pdfpdf "Harry Potter" needs no qualification as most people realise he is fictional and the reference to "order" informs of an organisation. There is no missing information here. GregKaye 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you continue to miss the point.

OK. This time I will make a big deal about it.

I have absolutely no doubt you know exactly what you're talking about, and you know exactly what you mean. However, I'll point out to you that you are a member of a minority. (i.e. You are a member of the group who know exactly what you're talking about, and what you mean.) The rest of us don't have a crystal ball that will tell us what you think and mean, so we are dependent upon you telling us. And you're not.

Your statement '"Harry Potter" needs no qualification as most people realise he is fictional and the reference to "order" informs of an organisation.' is a COMPLETE non-sequitur. If the proposals included "Harry Potter organisation", your response might make some sense. But, ... they do not.

Hence, I will repeat - (please pay attention this time): "Harry Potter" doesn't convey any useful information about the topic - it just classifies the topic.

You say: "Harry Potter" needs no qualification as most people realise he is fictional. True or otherwise, that comment is irrelevant to a discussion about "Order of the Phoenix".

What we are talking about here is "Order of the Phoenix" - not Harry Potter. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Next, you say: There is no missing information here. - Is that so? Then perhaps you can explain why there are three editors saying that there is missing information?

Don't you think it just might be vaguely possible that, if three editors are saying there is missing information, there just might be missing information? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If you respond, can you first please spend just a little bit of time, and please put just a tiny bit of thought, into what other people are saying and asking, BEFORE you start typing your response? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is a consensus for rename to "Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)". Does anyone disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is a consensus for rename to "Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)".
Can someone knowledgeable please advise how to close the discussion AND get an admin to action the move? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, I will see about getting the page moved. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"in addition to the close connection between his father and Remus Lupin, and himself to Remus Lupin and Tonks and her cousin Sirius" I thought that this phrase was making the sentence awkward so I deleted it 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect regarding "Serious Black"

I vote to remove the redirect from "Serious Black" and add a disambiguation page, because now there's a band called "Serious Black" (http://www.serious-black.com/). 189.6.240.95 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The band doesn't currently have a page on Wikipedia thus creating a disambiguation page for the topic doesn't seem appropriate at the current moment since all it would have would be a redirect and a red link about a (non-notable?) band. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 01:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hw.libsyn.com/p/9/4/a/94a4e4074668fb42/235_MuggleCast_235__Exclusive_interviews_with_David_Yates_and_Oliver_Phelps.mp3?sid=ba7165472f999e77d92f776b5bc3e319&l_sid=19748&l_eid=&l_mid=2667900
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114055013/http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/navigate.do?pPageID=200000681 to http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/navigate.do?pPageID=200000681

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)