Talk:Sirius Black

Middle Name

Sirius is never listed as having a middle name, let alone one that states his middle name is Orion, by anything I have ever seen on the internet. I am changing it; if you dispute this please include a citation next time this information is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.236.50 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 June 2007

Its confirmed in Deathly Hallows (his nameplate on his bedroom door). Don't have the book next to me, but will re-edit with a page number later.Yankee.doodle.666 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed under 'Escape'

The citation for the fact that Dementors cannot sense dog thoughts as well as human thoughts is on page 372 of 'The Prisoner of Azkaban. Thus, I will be removing the citation tag. t.z0n3

Recent continuous vandalism

It seems to be the same vandalism, over and over again. I noticed at for the first while, the IP addresses were similar, save for the last few numbers. I'm wondering if this is coming from an internet cafe or school computers? I hardly think its random, because the edits are the same. Disinclination 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people have very weird imaginations. Michaelsanders 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

or simply dont know much about internet :) 62.194.170.62 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted Tonks

Regarding a recent change and reversion: Ted Tonks was originally listed as a muggle-born wizard. An anon changed this to muggle. Reaves then reverted it (with a masterful summary: 'rvv'). He has, I suspect, done the user a bit of a disservice.

In OotP, Ted Tonks is referred to by Tonks as Muggle-born. On the Black Family Tree, however, he is referred to as Muggle Ted Tonks. Now, the obvious answer would be, "The Blacks consider Muggle-borns and Muggles to be the same", which would nicely allow us to keep both statements. However, that is OR. So, we have a choice.

Do we take the published canon statement as the fact, and ignore the more recent semi-canon data (and list Ted as Muggle-born)? Or do we take the more recent data as more representative of what Rowling thinks now, and ignore the OotP statement as no longer being what she thinks (i.e. list him as a Muggle)? Michaelsanders 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a lame comment about me, put it on my talk page, not here. (You don't want to get blocked again do you?) It's common usage to use "rvv", meaning revert vandalism. Maybe if you were more familiar with using edit summaries, you'd be able to comprehend. There's even a handy list of common abbreviations I use on my Userpage. John Reaves 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the real issue here, I don't think it'd hurt to just delete the any reference to his blood or status since the issue is disputed and he's fairly minor. John Reaves 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll apologise to the user you accused of vandalism then: apparently, the rules are strict about that sort of thing. Michaelsanders 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And the Tonks issue has to be decided. We can't just ignore it. Michaelsanders 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason, he removed content without an indication as to why. Maybe he should have inserted a personal attack as the summary, those seem clear things up nicely. Don't you think?

Anyway, it seems pretty trivial to me. John Reaves 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you accused another editor of vandalism without good cause - it was a content issue, rather than an incidence of vandalism. You should probably apologise. And the issue is hardly top importance, but it does need to be settled. Michaelsanders 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See {{test1a}} {{test2del}} {{test2a}} to prove yourself wrong. I see that being blocked has made you into a more righteous person; you thanked me and you are actually suggesting apologizing. How about that? I think it should be settled at a more relevant page, like wherever Ted Tonks is listed. John Reaves 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly muggle-born, it's stated in Deathly Hallows. Diana Prallon 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Diana (and for avoiding the passive-aggressive nonsense above). Could you cite a page number here,s o others can confirm it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Ted Tonks: "Refused to register as a Muggle-born on principle, see, so I knew it was a matter of time, knew I'd have to leave in the end" (HP7 295). Tsunomaru 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Proposed rewrite text beginnings are here. Proposed replacement

Is this a work in progress? Half the article is missing. John Reaves (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I put it up so that work could begin now - there's a lot still to do (half the article needs to be integrated into the other half). Michaelsanders 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you delete the last names to prevent redundancy? John Reaves (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the first mention of the Black Sisters, then yes: it's made clear that they are Blacks by birth (and I even made it more explicit), and their marriages are mentioned later. Michaelsanders 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking over the proposed rewrite, and I'll be working on it soon. PNW Raven 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the proposed text replace the article now, or should it wait until you have finished checking it over? Michaelsanders 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little more time (I'm almost finished). PNW Raven 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a question in the rewrite; where is it mentioned (in the books) that Sirius stopped trusting Remus? Disinclination 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

POA, P.273: "Wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?" "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter," said Lupin. "I assume that's why you didn't tell me, Sirius?"... "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. "Not at all...and will you, in turn, forgive me for believing you were the spy?" Michaelsanders 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd presume Remus was referring to thinking Black was the spy following the November Massacres. Though it's possible that he was referring to before that. Michaelsanders 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to be posted. PNW Raven 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right then, I'll do that now. Michaelsanders 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's done: thanks for your work, Raven. Great job! Michaelsanders 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!PNW Raven 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody considered nominating this article for GA status. It pretty good now. Also, when your done with the sandbox, you should tag it for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's good enough to be nominated, although I'm still doing some "tweaking" to it. Just minor changes to sentence syntax, not overall content, which although long, I found interesting.PNW Raven 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer I would fail this - external links need conversion to references, and a final prose copyedit by a non editor of HP articles would be a good idea. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm curious as to why we are adding fan links on Wikipedia. Arn't those considered linkspam? I see such links deleted all the time.. simply because they're just.. fan sites, links, etc. Disinclination 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps just one link to a fan site (if it's good) would be appropriate. John Reaves (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go through them a little bit later, seing as I really don't think 5 or 6 fan sites should belong on Wikipedia. Disinclination 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ga failed

Insufficently cited and referenced, but the main thing is that most of the article concerns itself not with the real world but with the fictional one of Harry Potter. Per WP:FICT this is not on. Some of the material in the article would appear to be OR and there are a few peacock terms floating around. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sirius's bike

It is possible that Hagrid allowed it to roam the Forbidden Forest, as he does some of his pets; alternately, it might have fallen into the possession of Arthur Weasley who has an obsession with enchanting Muggle artifacts and once owned a similarly capable car.

Removed this and the warning since its just taking up space. Since it has never been approached where it may be, anything else is really OR. Disinclination 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagrid is clearly shown riding Sirius's motorbike in DH, but I can still find no reference to where it could be/has been. Guess it's just one of life's great un-answered mysteries, although it is safe to say that it has been in Hagrids possesion since the Potters deaths Loopywelshemz 21:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

His bike is in the Weasley's tool shed, it was put there after the escape in the first part of Deathly Hallows. Mr. Weasley was talking to Harry and saying how he was really happy to have it, so he could finally figure out how brakes work. It is hidden from Mrs. Weasley due to her well known dislike of her husbands tinkering with Muggle artifacts.

Fandom section

Alot of it really seems to be OR. We can't give an accurate reference for anything. Most common relationships (just a note, RemusxSirius is the largest pairing for both on FF.N), whether or not people lament him dying, etc. I really think it should be removed. Disinclination 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo creo que en la sección fandom deberia haver una referencia a siriusxRemus ya que es una de las parejas más famosas. Lovegacha022 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Error

In books and movies comparison the 4th point is " The films do not mention or reveal anything about Sirius being an Animagus." I don't think that's true. In the 3rd movie, Sirius does turn into a dog in the Shrieking Shack scene and earlier as well.

You're right, it isn't true. In the third movie, in the Shrieking Shack, Ron points at Sirius and very distinctly says, "Harry's it's him! He's an Animagus." Xprivate eyex 11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture

Would it be possible to change the picture in the infobox to one of just sirius instead of a poster picture. --munkee_madness talk 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a candidate image in mind? Please understand that we are highly restricted from uploading copyrighted images you found somewhere - per the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, in particular images of actors and characters. Movie Posters are often allowed, but studio shots and screen shots are often not allowed without strong justification. Unfortunately, to illustrate how a character "looks" is not one of the permissible uses of a copyrighted image owned by the Studio (Warner Bros). Anyway get us a link to the image you had in mind for posting and we'll see if it can be allowed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using a picture already in the article, such as Image:Sirius black hppoa.jpg. I don't believe the poster belongs in the article at all, seeing as how it is not expressly mentioned. María (críticame) 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute/Debate section

I removed this section. It was unreferenced and total speculation. If someone has a valid reason, with references, for it being there, please put it back in. Ccrashh 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

On a similar note, I also removed the "Book Versus Film Portrayal" and "In fandom" sections as speculative WP:OR; if reliable sources for these assertions can be found, it may be re-added. Until then, neither sections add to the encyclopedic content of this article. María (críticame) 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Why are there solid dates listed in this article? Rowling has specifically kept timelines ambiguous. Putting in that things happen IN 1979 or 1981 is misleading and probably incorrect, anyway. This should be removed.

Is there an interview where she said that she was keeping the dates non-specific? I think I had heard that she was keeping it vague as well, but cannot recall where. If people are extrapolating form publication dates, then that's OR, and will be removed. I will wait a few days and then purge the dates as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The timeline has been confirmed in the text, most notably with the dates on James and Lily Potters Tombs (Deathly Hallows). They place Harrys birth in 1980. All other dates can be extrapolated from textual evidence based this knowledge.125.238.127.11 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling Harry "James"

As far as I know, it occurs in the film only. Can someone site where in the book this happens? (I'm looking at p.803 in Order of the Phoenix) Claw789 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm editing it out, unless someone can either site the reference that neither of us can see, or make a good case for it staying in (with a qualifier that it is in the movie only)Yankee.doodle.666 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited it back in; it happened in the film, and is notable in that it happened in one medium, and not another. Movies of this caliber and production scale don't make these sorts of mistakes that aren't edited out during post-production, so it wasn't a mistake. Maybe we need to address some of the differences between occurrences in the movie and the book. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, it needs to be pointed out that it is a change in the movie only. The movie is an adaptation, not the source material.Yankee.doodle.666 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit it out of this article and add it here Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix if its not there already, haven't looked. ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a good idea, as the crufty differences article is on the slate for deletion. I would be a lot more compfortable if more than one person were able to confirm with absolute assuredness that it did not appear in the book. I seem to recall something similar happening, but I am not sure if it occured in PoA, GoF or OthP. It shouldn't leave the article until we know for sure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that article is exactly where it needs to be. It absolutely did not happen in the books. The 'similar mention' may be Molly and Hermiones comments that Sirius may be unconsciously treating Harry like James, but this is the other characters opinions only. I am looking at the book right now. It should be out unless cited.Yankee.doodle.666 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If its okay with you, I would prefer to have a few more people weigh in before making that determination. I will change it back until we can confirm it with a number of others.

And as for the article being "axactly where it needs to be", thats a state for all of us to determine, not just yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. When you have a citation for it, put it in.Yankee.doodle.666 23:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. When we have the cite, I will put it in myself, unless someone beats me to the punch (wily minxes! :)) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, Yankee is right about the James comment. It can't be cited because its not in the book. Incorrect information shouldn't be left in just because it can't be cited. The sentence should be removed, especially as the entire article is written based on the primary medium (the book), not the secondary source (the movies).Snuffulufagus 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with your assignment of elevating the books over the films. Granted the books were published first, but that doesn't alter the nature of the article; otherwise, we wouldn't have a picture of Gary Oldman in the picturebox of the article - it would be the illustration, or nothing at all. Both the film and the books have equal weight.

As well, I propose a moratorium on the subject until this Saturday. this gives other folks (myself included) time to verify that the statement didn't appear in the book. Our recollections do not count, as they are primary sources of citation, but they can help to build consensus. I find it very difficult to believe such a departure in characterization would occur. Let's wait until Saturday, and see. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the moratorium, but the comment should be left out until then. It is uncited, and as the movies are based on the books, not the other way around, the article should be also. The reference in the movie is "Nice one, James!" However, the comment in the book is simply "...'Nice one!' Sirius shouted, forcing Harry's head down..."Now I want you to get out of -... Harry, take Neville and run!', dashing to meet Bellatrix." (UK childrens edition, pg 708). This is followed on page 710 by "...Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix's jet of red light: he was laughting at her. 'Come on, you can do better than that!' he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room.. The second jet of light hit him squarely in the chest..." At no point does the named James appear, either in the dialogue or the narrative of the chapter. Snuffulufagus 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. However, as it would appear that the comment appears in the movies and not the books, it becomes noteworthy simply through that. As it meets the criteria for noteworthiness, it should remain. Let me see if I cannot tweak the statements in question so as to make them more palatable. We could always bring this to the attention of the WikiProject Harry Potter group, and get their input... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can put it in the film article in that case, the books weight more than the films. Because the character is from the books and not the films... (I dont know if it there) It would be just as wrong (imo) to say in Cho Chang that she was the one who betrayed the DA. just because that was how the film shows it like that. Or for example the description of Hogwarts and the Hogwarts grounds are not the same in the books and the films... So you would probably choose the describe it after the book in its article here... right? ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it seems appropriate now that it has been qualified as occurring only in the movie in the article text Snuffulufagus 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If its going to be in, then yes it needs to be qualified as being exclusively included in the movie. I do think that it is somewhat in character, as in the book Sirius' ability to distinguish between Harry and James is sometimes called into question by other characters (Hermione and Molly especially), which I assume is why it was included in the movie.Snuffulufagus 00:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that with this edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect.::Applause::Snuffulufagus 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Taking a perfunctory bow) We aim to please. :) = Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatal Flaws

I noticed that comment needed a citation, and there is proof in the series. It was stated twice that Sirius' behavior lef to his downfall, once by Dumbledore (HP5) and a second time by Hermione (HP7).

Would this, in itself, however, constitute Sirius being labelled a tragic hero? Realisation of the flaw and destruction (rather than death) of the character are usually required. The flaws described contributed to, but did not directly cause his death, and neither was Sirius himself destroyed, merely killed in combat with his dignity intact. Also, there is no evidence that Sirius thought his behaviour to have been wrong. For example, "unhesitating self sacrifice" can hardly be considered a character flaw.

Now, take a moment and think about what you said there. While I think your reasoning is solid, you are making evaluations as to the characterizations of others. We don;t get to make those connections - we cite others (reliably sourced folks) who do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Name etymology

I think that the older version of Sirius' etymology. The parts with Sirius dealing with astronomy I find important, because most of the black family names deal with astronomy. Also the part with the Orion constellation. CSLoomis 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, its good that you think its important., Now, find citable references wherein book reviewers or Rowling or someone reliable, notable and citable has spoken out about this subject. We cannot include much in the way of inforamtion without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Veil

Is it ever explained what the veil is? I never really heard anything about it. 141.157.123.97 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Color, color everywhere

I am noticing a lot of html coloring occurring in the name box for the character. Is there some sort of standard that is being applied, or is this some amusing coloring event? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

She strikes him with a killing curse

As with the 'James' reference disputed above, this only occurs in the movie. In the book, Bellatrix strikes Sirius with an unknown spell. Harry does not immediately understand that Sirius is dead, implying that the veil and not the curse killed him (Harry expects Sirius to reappear and continue fighting). This sentence needs to be amended to reflect his death in the primary material, not secondary sources.Snuffulufagus 02:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, your interchangeable usage of of 'material' and 'sources' is kind of confusing. WP considers primary sources ('I saw this', or 'I thought this') and secondary sources ('he saw this' and 'he thought this', esp as a sourced, cited item) very differnt items. I think you meant to say the original material and the adapted material.

Now that that's out of the way, I think that both the primary and adapted material are equal in citability and therefore appropriate for use, so long as differences between the two are identified as to their source. Fans of the books rebelled at the weak writing of JKR as to the death of Sirius, and she had to deal with that fallout by specifically stating in more than one interview that he was, in fact, dead as a doornail. The elitist preference regarding the printed material is inappropriate, as JKR has signed off on every signle adaptation to the film.

Note in the article the differences between both, and be done with it, I say. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I don't care what the original format is. If it was the movie, then fine. However, the movie is, as you say, an adaption. It (as did the other four) made significant changes to many characters and plots in the interest of time and amalgamation. If the article is on Sirius Black, it should primarily be on the Sirius Black developed by the person who created the character. If differences are to be written as differences then fine, but at no point should the article be written in a style that suggests that the movie is the original material. Its not, thus the basic article should be written based on the original material, with notes on differences in the movie. Whether fans feel (rightly or wrongly) that the writing was weak is completely irrelevant.Snuffulufagus 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article should reflect equally the material from the books and the films. Initially state the material from the books, and then the films. Both are noteworthy (esp. differences), both are reliable (written and/or endorsed by JKR), and both have extensie outside commentary that doesn't require editors and fans to supply their own OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Needing citation

I was about to remove this section from the article completely, as it has been uncited for quite some time, despite the cn tags. However, I am going to bring it here instead, and allow for the statements therein to be cited. Once they are, they can be re-added to the article. Not before then.

Sirius is a tragic hero: a well-liked character (by both author and readers), who causes his own downfall through his fatal flaws – in the case of Sirius, his recklessness, his fanatical obsessions, and his unhesitating self-sacrifice being the most important.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The section is just character analysis, and while I haven't studied Wiki's exact rules, this doesn't seem like the place for it.Snuffulufagus 10:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Studying the exact rules isn't a waste of time, and it can only help your future edits (which aren't really bad, imho). It cannot be in the article, as it is something called synthesis. More on that can be found at WP:OR and WP:RS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think we both agree on its removal :) Snuffulufagus 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As for tragic hero, http://iheartbacon1376.tripod.com/id12.html one readers opinion. heres one from mugglenet. http://fanfiction.mugglenet.com/viewstory.php?action=printable&textsize=0&sid=33385&chapter=1 there are things everywhere saying hes a tragic hero. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Storyteller - you know full well that fan speculation and opinion get zero rhythm here in Wikipedia. Cite a reliable news article, or JKR calling him that, and you got the makings of a citation. Without it, the connotation cannot return, as it is fan-inspired, speculative cruft. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! faithless (^speak) 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The prank

The article now reads that the prank, in which Sirius told Snape how to enter the tunner to the Shrieking Shack and almost got him killed, took place "late in their Hogwarts years." However, reading the Chapter The Prince's tale in DH, it can be derived that the prank actually took place much earlier. The exact year does not become clear completely, but it can be said with certainty that it must have been early in or before their fifth year: Harry witnesses Snape and Lily walking across the castle courtyard arguing as she mentions James saving Snape from "whatever's down [the tunnel]." However, Lily would no longer call Snape her friend after he called her a mudblood at the end of fifth year (after the OWLs, Snape's worst memory in OOTP), calling his friends Death Eaters and him as much as one. (Also, the memory in which Lily mentions James saving Snape is seen before the memory of the OWLs; I'm not sure if the memories in a pensieve are always displayed chronologically, but it could count as another indication.)
It would also explain why Sirius, James and Peter weren't with Remus at the time of the prank, as they hadn't managed becoming animagi until somewhere in their fifth year.
However, all of this being said, the HP-lexicon mentions Sirius being 16 at the time of the prank, meaning that it would have been in sixth year. If anyone could confirm this age from somewhere in the books, the article might be left the way it is. Otherwise, I think changing might be in place. Dabih 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this "HP lexicon" you speak of, and where is the citation for it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The HP-lexicon is http://hp-lexicon.org, an extensive website that even the filmmakes use for their information (said in an inverview with David Yates, I believe). The quote is on Lupin's page, but I have no idea where it's from in the books. Dabih 06:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a change. Its still possible that 16 is right, as we don't have a birth date for Sirius (he could have been born late in the year, meaning he would turn 16 soon after 5th year started). In any case, there is no definitive primary evidence of Sirius' age at the time, and all direct references in the books indicate that it was in the later portion of his Hogwarts career (so to speak). As the lexicon is only a fan site (albeit a rather detailed one), anything on it has no weight in a wiki discussion. Besides, they're nowhere near finished their post-DH update anyway ;).Snuffulufagus 06:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I wish them godspeed with it. However, unless someone citable mentions facts from it in relation to Sirius Black, we cannot use it. More's the pity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the dates over again later at night after posting this (who needs sleep anyway, right?) and came to the same conclusion about Sirius's birthdate - early fifth year might be very plausible indeed. However, it remains that no date or age was specified in the books, so it might as well have been third year for all we know (which is was why I was wondering where the 16 year came from in the first place). Dabih 06:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked in Prisoner of Azkaban, and it actually explicitly states that Sirius was sixteen. "Snape took a step towards Dumbledore. 'Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen', he breathed. 'You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me?'" (UK kids ed pg286) So based on the evidence in the books, we know that Sirius was sixteen but in fifth year. Whether it needs to be stated explicitly in the article is another matter.Snuffulufagus 05:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I must've overlooked that part. I remember in an interview J.K. Rowling once stated that Sirius was 22 when he was sent to Azkaban, while the Potters must've been 21 at the time, so it makes sense. Dabih 11:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Name etymology

This edit was just removed fromt he article,and rightfully so, as it has no citations whatsoever. I have repiared that section to here, with the idea that some industrious sould will find the citations necessary to allow the section to rejoin the article. Without it, it cannot.

As with many Rowling characters, Sirius's name partly reveals his nature. "Sirius Black" is a pun on his ability to transform into a giant black dog (Sirius being the "Dog Star"), which is often confused with the Grim, which in the Harry Potter series brings death with its presence. Black hounds also appear on the Black family crest.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HarryPotterGOFPoster-SiriusBlackWanted.jpeg

Image:HarryPotterGOFPoster-SiriusBlackWanted.jpeg 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) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

family tree!

i just wanted to post my views about the family tree.in the family tree its written male and female longbottom.well isnt it supposed to be frank longbottom and alice longbottom.their son neville longbottom who marries hannah abbot.hope my suggestion is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow dweller28 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The male and female Longbottom you mentioned are brother and sister, not husband and wife. We don't know who they are. faithless (^speak) 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We can be 100% cartain that they're not Neville's grandparents- Neville's grandmother's name is Augusta, whereas on the tree Harfang married Callidora Black and their kids, as stated above, are the anonymous Longbottom siblings. Rowling is too smart for a slip-up as such. --Maurice45 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021 (2)

2601:248:4E00:43D0:B8B8:BBDC:8B:81E5 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Change the last appearance to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix2601:248:4E00:43D0:B8B8:BBDC:8B:81E5 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done While he dies in Order of the Phoenix, the character still appears in Deathly Hallows. —El Millo (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

infobox fix

in infobox, please move "House:Gryffyndor" to the in-universe section. I had trouble finding this info because I looked in the wrong part of the box. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done -ink&fables «talk» 08:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • User:-ink&fables, thanks. Could you do the same for Remus Lupin and maybe others? Perhaps there is some way to find all these infoboxes in one go, but I don't know offhand what it would be. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I made requested changes on all the Harry Potter characters' articles per WP:BOLD, because I do agree with you.

There is no way to make such changes in one go for all the pages, because infobox used is {{Infobox character}} which are used on all the fictional character related articles and not only for Harry Potter characters. You can find more information about the infobox on its page. If you are a regular editor on wikipedia I would suggest you to make an account and you can get rights to edit protected pages like these. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

Change to last appearance to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003) 2601:248:4E00:43D0:5CDF:6E81:9FCD:FFEF (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, the character appears, though dead, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. —El Millo (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)