Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Tense in the article

We keep going back and forth as far as tense; it has been mentioned above. My humble suggestion would be this: events that occur prior to the opening of the first book in the series can be in the past tense ("Was appointed Potions Master... Was born in...") Events that occur as of the opening of the first book should be in present tense ("teaches Harry", "he accidentally allows", etc). Does this seem reasonable? Magidin 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been posted in the Harry Potter Wikiproject. That might be the best place to propose that suggestion, as it can become uniform throughout the project, governing all te character articles moving forward. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the Project page already agrees with this suggestion. In the Style page for character biography, it states:

It is standard practice, when writing about literature and films, to describe the action that takes place in the story in the present tense. Present tense should be used even when desribing action that takes place in an earlier book in the series, or about facts that have changed by a later book in the series. [...] On the other hand, action that takes place before the story's present (ie: in the past) is normally described in the past tense. This includes characters who died before the start of the first book. Thus, Horace Slughorn was a teacher at Hogwarts, but retired before Harry's first year. In Book 6, he returns to the faculty as professor of Potions.

So I will try to go through the article and do that. Events prior to Harry's arrival to Hogwarts, even if discovered only later in the books, should be in the past tense. Events starting from Harry's arrival should be in the present tense, through the end of the book. The only exception I can think of is when JK Rowling is quoted as having said something. Magidin 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You and others kinda beat me to it. I changed the tense, soit was kinda up to me to fix it. Thanks. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Half-blood Prince section

I don't care much for the current section "The Half-Blood Prince." Most of the third and fourth paragraphs are not really about Snape; about the only thing that chronologically belongs here is Snape's intervention after Harry uses sectumsempra on Draco. The fifth paragraph is about Harry, not Snape. The penultimate paragraph is chronologically out of place. The invention of the spells, the abililty with potions and improvement on the textbook, and the origin and meaning of the personal nickname should be in the Hogwarts section, where it belongs chronologically (with suitable references to the sixth book as the source of the information). And that being said, the title of the section is also, I think, inappropriate; it refers to events in the 6th book, but is not in keeping with the rest of the section titles. Perhaps a better one here, following on the immediatley previous section, would be The Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher. Comments? Magidin 02:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes; if it is decided to revert them, note that there have been a number of contemporary changes involving active vs passive voice, so it should not be done by simply loading up a previous version. Magidin 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your editing is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Edit Conflicts

Hi. I thought I'd give my thoughts the various aspects of the current edit conflict:

Snape does not reveal his true allegiance vs. his true allegiance is not revealed The first version is false, because Snape most certainly reveals his true allegiance prior to the finale---to Dumbledore. It is only the reader to whom his true allegiance is not revealed. This is why it is just plain inaccurate to imply that his true allegiance is something that only revealed by an action he takes right before he dies. Dumbledore knew his true allegiance throughout. The former version would only be relevant if the qualifier "to Harry Potter" were added to it, which is not advisable, IMO.

This is the problem with passive voice. So who did not reveal Snapes true allegiance? Was it Rowling? Then let's say it was Rowling rather than be in a muddle. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean' "his true allegiance is not revealed by Rowling (until the end of the series)" '? Yeah, that seems a smart way to handle it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

and did not have a loving relationship with his father Why was this reinserted into the article? I was the one who put it in originally, and Arcayne argued that this was merely an interpretation on my part, and removed the source I provided for it. Personally, I disagree, based on the arguments I made on Arcayne's Talk Page, but if you're going to remove the source, shouldn't the entire quote go? And if so, shouldn't the part about him being neglected by his parents go to? I asked Arcayne that on his/her Page, and haven't gotten a response yet. In either case, if the source I provided for the father passage is going to be removed, so should the passage itself, since any other source is unlikely to be provided in the future by anyone.

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see the message from you on Talk, or I would have responded (I am good at that, unless the person is a rude bastidge, which I don't think you are). The article has changed significantly in the interim (and for the better, to my reckoning), but leaving the cite in may have either been an oversight on my part, or they may have been something salvageable from the cite. I honestly don't know. It was okay to note things specifically addressed in the book (not how I said specifically addressed, and not implied), but unless JKR or some reviewer addresses what I agree is strongly implied but not expressed, we cannot include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Snape befriended his neighbour Lily Evans They were not neighbors. When first meeting Lily and Petunia, Petunia identified him as living in Spinner's End, "and it was evident from her tone that she considered the address a poor recommendation". This explicitly shows that they live near enough each other to run into each other in play areas, but their homes were not in the same neighborhood.

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Snape remained a close friend of Lily's for the next few years until his interest in the Dark Arts and the anti-Muggle views of his Slytherin friends drove them apart. His interest in the Dark Arts and the friends his consorted with certainly among the things Lily mentioned, the anti-Muggle views espoused, particularly in the form of epithets, were those of Snape specifically, not his friends. I think the edit I made of that passage is not only a fair compromise, but the most accurate, given a reading of that scene in the book: Snape remained a close friend of Lily's for the next few years until his interest in the Dark Arts, and the anti-Muggle views that he and his Slytherin friends espoused as aspiring followers of Voldemort drove them apart.

Your text is 'purple': "espoused as aspiring" is weirdly alliterative and grandiose. Sorry but it isn't good style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Purple, yet accurate. However, the same problem arises - it is an inference, not an observance. We aren't here to chew the food for the reader - that's left up to them to evaluate what they are reading. However, for brevity's sake, I would have ended it with something along the lines of "...that he and his Slytherin companions embraced in accordance to Lord Voldemort ". But then, that's just me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

During his fifth year at Hogwarts, Snape reveals a talent for Potions Nothing has indicated this. Snape's fifth year was simply the year that Harry saw when he viewed Snape's "worst memory" in the Pensieve. For all we know, Snape could've revealed this talent in his fourth year. Or third. Or first. It's more accurate to say By his fifth year.

Either way...which ever is most factual. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not sidestep the issue altogether and just say that he developed a talent for Potions while attending Hogwart's? Accuracte while not crossing the line of supposition

Just before what would have been Harry's final year at Hogwarts I don't know why this passage keeps getting deleted, but it is appropriate to keep it, because it gives a indication of the time of the event, just as the phrase "Near the end of Voldemort's first reign of terror" is used to date Snape's overhearing the portion of Trelawney's prophecy.

It is irrelevant to Snape. This is about Snape and not Harry. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question lies within the deleted statement: "what would have been Harry's final year, etc". It's supposition, and cannot be used in that form. A better method would be to tie the event to something that actually happens, not what is supposed to have happened. It was a weak statement, as is the one about "near the end of Voldemort's first reign of terror" (I can hear the wailing of Keats as a perpetual motion turbine, spinning in his grave at that). Tie it to spomething specific that happened, like shortly after Harry's first birthday, or whatever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The stories describe Snape vs. Snape is described I see no reason to keep mentioning "the stories" in all these passages. Of course it's the stories that do this. That's a given. It's given in the Intro, which describes Snape off the bat as a fictional character in these books. There is nothing more "passive" in one version than the other, insisting on this change is arbitrary, and makes it read poorly, IMO.

You don't understand the passive and active voice. One sentence is definitely in the active and the other in the passive voice. One has a subject and the other does not. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Rowling commenting on Snape and Lily Putting the mention of Rowling at the end of that first line ("Lily might have grown to love Severus romantically, Rowling said..") instead of in the prior version ("Rowling revealed in an interview...") just makes no sense. Mentioning her in the beginning is far more clear and sensible. The other way just tortures the reading of the passage.

"Rowling revealed in an interview" is purple prose that is best conveyed by "Rowling said" which should preceed the quote. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree to this (which might be moot, in view of the new edit, which I haven't examined in depth as of yet). Purple language is that which is unnatural or excessively fancy-shmancy. I think that identifying immediately where the quote from JKR occurred puts more definition on the prevenance of the statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other things: "Half-Blood Prince" is properly written with a capital "B", because it's a title, not just of a novel and chapter, but a title of a person. Reviewing that novel, and the instances of that title in the text shows that it is written this way. Also, Snape heard part of the prophecy only. Nightscream 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Factually, your observations are OK. Stylistically, they hide what you are trying to say. That is my whole point of keeping to the active voice. With the active voice, we know who did what to whom. The passive voice muddles and causes the confusion you are describing. I don't know who is doing what. For example, his true allegiance is not revealed ... who is not revealing his true allegiance. Grammatically, we don't know. It is a muddle. Is it Snape? Is it Rowling? Maybe the sentence should put Rowling as the subject. This is an encyclopedia...we should know. Likewise, Snape is described ... who is describing Snape. The books, the movies, the cover art? ...we don't know. George Orwell wrote against the passive voice for just this reason: Georgle Orwell's rules for writers - Never use the passive voice where you can use the active. It muddles thought. Yes, it does seem boring because it states explicitly who is doing the action: it states the subject. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While active voice is better generally, and I think most of the changes benefit the article, there is nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice either. In some instances, it even reads better, George Orwell notwithstanding. In particular, I too dislike the constant "The stories/books/novels describe/say/show..." and think passive voice would be much better there, at least. While active voice is almost certainly better in the biography section, the situation is different in the character description section. Magidin 05:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm passive when it comes to conflict :-) The only important things are a) does it convey the information simply and completely and b) is it pleasant to read. By the way, the article is much improved. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Justification for major rewrite

“ Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. ” — Wikipedia:Writing about fiction

• Moral: in-universe is evil

“ Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:

• Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour.
• A plot synopsis written like an historical account.
• A fictional character article or section written like a biography.
• Description of fictional places written like a geographical account.

” — Wikipedia:Writing about fiction

• Moral: this article cannot be written as a biography as if the character were real.

“ Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'. ” — Wikipedia:Writing about fiction

• Moral: The present tense used in this article is fine - it's the format that's wrong.

Happy-melon 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Concern about his "Status"

But I think your listing of Snape's status as "deceased" is also an improper encroachment into "our" universe. For the vast majority of the series as a whole, Snape is alive and well and tormenting Harry, Ron, and Hermione at every opportunity. To be proper, we would need to consider the "status" of Snape in the context of the series as a whole, not just the last couple of chapters of the last book. Presumably all of the characters will eventually die, since the Philosopher's Stone and Resurrection Stone are out of commission - so should they not all be listed as "deceased" since eventually they would be? I understand that you are using their status as of the series finale, but what happens if/when Rowling publishes the Encyclopedia of Characters, and describes the eventual death of Harry and the others? If the "present tense" is the proper tone for describing the ongoing events in the series from Book 1, then we cannot suddenly jump out of that form and blurt out that he is somehow "deceased". I think the whole concept of "status" (living or deceased or whatever) needs to go away for all the HP characters, along with their "birthdates" and "deathdates" as sometimes posted in the introductory sections, except in the context of the fuller plot summaries, because it is inherently a universe-perspective time and space problem. None of the characters were ever "birthed" in reality, and none of them ever "died" - only in the context of the ongoing plot do these end-points actually occur. In any case, stating only Snape's "final" status as "deceased" in the infobox is, in my view, improper and unencyclopedic. A section describing his death and the penseive memories that Harry retrieved is the proper place for the final status of Snape. The infobox should represent Snape as he "is" - an ongoing character throughout the entire HP series, not only his "current" or "final" status as of the very end of the last book. The same principle should apply to all the other characters who may have passed during the course of events in the book. The only place the (previously "living") characters are "now dead" is at the end of the stories in the HP-universe, not in the HP-universe as a whole, and certainly not in "ours". --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is all very true. The infobox is unchanged from prior versions of the article - I simply didn't bother to look at it, save to check the fair-use of the image. I also have a problem with "Deceased" - I'll remove it for now. Happy-melon 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather removed it before. Not sure why it kept getting added in, especially after it was remvoed fromthe template shortly after the infobox text coloring was blessedly removed. I mean, Ron's infobox doesn't list his status as "living, currently in the w.c". It's silly nonsense, crufty as all get-out, and should be annihilated as the affront to God it is. Well, okay, that last bit was slightly over the top, but folk know my opinions of cruft. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about me?--[[User:Rory666 new|Rory666]] 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored bla bla bla, why dont you put a spoiler tag on it--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

because we don't use spoiler tags anymore; they are unencyclopedic. The reason for removing the category has nothing to do with spoilers as it does with presenting the character as they appear for 6/7th's of the series. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about me, aren't you?!--Rory666 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to and about, Rory? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking to you and T-dot and about my listing of his status.--Rory666 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you re going to have to give me a few more hints than that, love. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no more hints.--Rory666 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening of seventh book

“ In the aerial battle that marks the opening of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, George Weasley's ear is accidentally cursed off by Snape,who was aiming at one of his fellow Death Eaters. ” — Arcayne's version

“ In the aerial battle that marks the opening of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, George Weasley's ear is cursed off by Snape with the Sectumsempra curse. It is later revealed that Snape had been aiming at one of his fellow Death Eaters. ” — Happy-melon's version

The development of the story in the book is that at first we believe that Snape attacked George. Later, we learn that that is not what happened, and it was in fact an accident. My version of the paragraph follows that evolution in thinking, albeit without the intervening 400 pages. Your version is more concise, but has no other advantage. In particular, my edit is not "cruft", a term that I feel you may be applying a little too casually in your edits to this article. I won't enter a discussion about the nature of 'cruft', save to say that you are quite right that true cruft should be vigorously attacked. This is a question of a concise statement verses a slightly more fluid one. As this article is certainly not overly long, I feel that the slightly more detailed version is appropriate. It's also arguable that my version is less in-universe by viture of the "it is later explained" clause. Comments, of course, appreciated. Happy-melon 21:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not use spell names in the articles - that is in-universe lingo, and isn't encyclopedic. However, I agree that the second sentence should reveal that intentions behind the missed targeting. I will edit out the spell name, retaining hte rest of the edit. And I am almost positive that my edits aren't all that casual. Funny, or perhaps even witty, but not casual. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How is using in-universe lingo unencyclopedic? Any article about a fictional universe is going to use that universe's terminology. Word's like "Muggle", "Pensieve", "horcrux" "disapparates", are all in the article, and are all in-universe lingo. What's the difference? Nightscream 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Because those all have articles, and fairly extensive ones, if I recall correctly. Anyone who's read Potter books knows that the number and breadth of spells cast ina single novel could fill a well-stocked library. there's no point in discussing the spells, as the effect is far more important to the reader than the mechanics or etymology of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, and not use the spell name. We don't for instance, mention that it was the Bat Bogey Hex that got Ginny her interview with Slughorn in HBP. BUT, Sectumsempra is a curse that Snape invented - it's mentioned above as such. As such it's something of a speciality of his. And it does also have its own section, if not it's own article: Spells in Harry Potter#Sectumsempra. Happy-melon 09:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On a hunch, I wikilink-ified the Sectumsempra curse in the above candidate rephrase, and sure enough it redirects correctly. I prefer the second version, as it is conveys much more information with little more wordage. By the way are those gawd-awful "cute quotes" absolutely necessary? Those are fine for quoting experts on hand embroidery, amish quilting bees, and competitive holiday basketweaving. Otherwise they are distracting, garish and gaudy. Just my view. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I really disagree that naming the spell affects the course of the article. Please, someone - explain to me how the name of the spell is vitatl to the plot, the theme, the pacing of the article, because if it isn't, it should not be there. It's a spell, like stunning or making people lose their wands. It isn't necessary. Even if Snape invented it. The course of its discovery is not recounted int he 7th book whatsoever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would suggest that if there is a general Consensus that the Sectumsempra spell should be named and linked in the article as encyclopedically useful for the average reader, and doing so would not violate any Wiki Policies, Guidelines, or Manual of Style forms, then it should be presented and highlighted stylistically as an in-universe concept, and not apparently as general "real world" knowledge. For example, it may be helpful to write something like: "George Weasley's ear is accidently sliced off by Snape using the "Sectumsempra" curse, which was one of Snape's inventions "for enemies" ... ^[HP6]". My view is that if posting the curse name causes no harm, violates no rules, can be clarified as in-universe, and is notable and helps the average reader in his/her research efforts in cross-referencing, then there is no encyclopedically valid reason to exclude it. To exclude it almost seems to approach hiding useful and relevant information from the reader. What other possible reason would any of us be here editing these articles, besides helping others to quickly find the information they seek? I fear if the article simply says "Snape cursed George's ear off" then the reader would be left with an ambiguous image that either Snape was figuratively relentlessly vocally swearing at George, or perhaps that Snape simply swore at the ear and it fell off in some sort of obediance. The Sectumsempra link and descriptive information clarifies the issue for the reader, and gives the reader a cross reference to read more about it if desired. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that your suggestion is a bit too long and out of place: the article already specifies that Sectumsempra was one of the Prince's spells, that it was labeled "For Enemies," that it causes slashing wounds, and links to the spell (third paragraph in the section on the sixth book). Also, "accidentally" should not belong in that sentence, as this is revealed later and mentioned in the immediately following sentence. So really, this should be about whether to say ...cursed off by Snape or ...sliced off by Snape using sectumsempra. Is that coda really necessary? Magidin 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the spell is an undue emphasis on the spells of the novels, which are of secondary (or, to my reckoning, even tertiary) importance to the plot and the main characters. The article is not ruined or even damaged by their removal, which is a sure sign that they are cruft. We don't need it and, as it is policy to remove it as an undue influence, we are on solid ground keeping it out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I don't see why this is such a bone of contention, but articles for British subjects retain British spelling. Also, the first book in the series is referred to as the Philosopher's Stone; that's how it was written and how it was first published. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the name of the book. Why are Americans so intent on trying to make HP their own? It's a British book by a British author about a British boy who never leaves Britain. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Harry Potter is a British series, but I think it is still worthwhile to mention in the article that the first book is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in America. You know, just put in parenthesis "Known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S." after the first mention of HP-Philosopher's Stone. Because, crazy as it may seem, but not everyone here in the U.S. knows about the different title. Indeed, I didn't know about it until I had already read the first three books, and for a short time was pretty shocked that someone had dared to make a different cover and a different title for a Harry Potter book. Another reason why the bit about the U.S. title should be added: to keep some ignorant American teenager from going through the article and changing all the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone references to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Wouldn't that anger all the British people who work hard to maintain the Severus Snape page? Please consider my suggestion. Thanks. --Jedi Shadow 01:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence in the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone article does exactly what you want; if someone is puzzled about that first book, shouldn't they click on the link and see what is going on? Amazingly enough, doing that will give them the information in question right off the top. Your suggestion has been discussed in the Harry Potter Project page, from what I can tell. As for the ignorant american teenager going through the article and changing it... check the history log for the article. It happens only a little less often than the changes of "skilful" to "skillful". But this article is not about the novel, but about a particular character. Alas, that Scholastic thought so little of americans! That's why I got all my copies off the UK even though I live in the US (and "mum", "sherbert lemon", etc.) Magidin 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of new folk edit here all the time. i remember making the same mistakes when I first started, and it was before I knew to watchlist the pages I wanted to keep an eye on, so I had probably changed the English spellings of at least a dozen film articles before someone sent me a message and directed me to the right area. Perhaps we should do this when it comes up, not just bc of the don't bite the newbies, or because it prevents them from making the same mistakes here, but also because it will keep them from making mistakes all over the project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if it will do much good, but I've added an infobox to the Talk Page identifying this page as one that uses British spelling; I don't think this particular infobox is appropriate for the article page, but perhaps some variant might be put there. Magidin 14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent find, Magidin. I'm tempted to add it to all Harry Potter articles or, better still, the WPHP template. Any thoughts on that?? Happy-melon 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a member of the HP project, just hanging out here with the Snape page, so it's not for me to say. But it would probably be nice to have something along it in the template. The British spelling infobox occurs in a number of mathematics articles, which is where I remembered it from (not that it matters, but I cut-n-pasted it from the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page). On the other hand, since this seems to occur mostly with newbies, I do not know how much good it will do in the end. After all, newbies are unlikely to check in with the Talk page before "fixing" the spelling. (-: But it certainly cannot hurt to have it, and have something to point them to (lest we have the multiple fixes we just had yesterday). Magidin 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about adding to the spelling problem. I made changes to the words "skilful" and "instalment", adding them in as "skillful" and "installment", someone else saw the words and said the British spelling was really "skilful" and "instalment" with just one "l" in the words. Is this right? KellyLeighC 12:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kelly - there is no problem with you "inadvertently" using American spellings when improving and updating (adding to) the HP articles; I do it all the time myself. It is simply because I do not know most of the differences in spellings between British and American English (and possibly others - Canadian, Australian, etc.). So I use what I was taught, except when I happen to know the correct British spelling (eg: "colour" instead of "color"). At some point a bot or a friendly associate from across the pond will correct my errors all in good faith. It is part of the fun in (sort of) sharing a language and an English Wikipedia. The real concern is when we have a fundamental disagreement between some Yanks and some Brits over who has spelling "priority", and an edit reversion war breaks out over it. American youths are not generally taught that there are any spelling differences in modern English, nor what the differences might be, so confusion in topics of special interest to youths can be expected. It has been decided by general consensus and the Manual of Style to always go with British spellings in covering primarily and fundamentally British subjects, for example Harry Potter. On the other hand, articles covering subjects on American literature tend to use American spellings. Inadvertently mixing the two styles is not a major problem, it will eventually be corrected, hopefully in a gentle and sensitive manner, and without a lot of yelling and accusations. Deliberately changing spellings back and forth without regard for policies, guidelines, and the style guide is a problem which we need to address from time to time as newcomers stop by for an edit or two. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) KellyLeighC 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist

A recent edit changed the line in the opening paragraph from As the series continues, his status as protagonist or antagonist is ambiguous to As the series continues, his status as hero or villain is ambiguous[.]

There can be no doubt that Snape was an antagonist; in fact, this is mentioned in the previous sentence of the article. I think it is also clear that he is not a protagonist, meaning one whose intentions are the primary focus of the story; and likewise, I would say he was not a hero. I think the real dichotomy was whether he was merely an antagonist (an opposition against whom the hero must contend), or whether he was in fact a villain (an evil character opposed to the hero). So I would say that the correct dichotomy should be As the series continues, whether he is a villain or merely an antagonist is left ambiguous, and Rowling does not reveal... with a link to villain (antagonist is linked in the immediately previous sentence). Based on this rationale, I will change the text accordingly. Magidin 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should, that's too confusing. Why don't we just revert to the original phrase that you gave (prior edit)? It makes more sense and it's easier to read. EDIT: And why do we feel the need to use the word "ambiguous"? I don't even know what that means, and I'm sure that quite a few other people don't either. --VorangorTheDemon 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. How about Whether he is actually a villain is unclear, and Rowling... ? We already mention he is an antagonist earlier; and I really think that "protagonist" is simply wrong here. Magidin 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have resolved the issue by dropping all the terms. Thanks to Arcayne and others for suggestions and changes. Magidin 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment addressing what Vorangor said, when writing we must not censor ourselves because someone might find something "confusing" or not understand a word. We do a disservice to ourselves and the readers by dumbing down our articles. All that being said, the previous version was a little cluttered and awkward, this one is probably better. Faithlessthewonderboy 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Snape is the most complex character in the entire series. He isn't a nice man. He favors Slytherins, and tormented Neville Longbottom. With Harry, he had a blind spot - Dumbledore's characterization of Harry as a man who looks like his father but has a nature more like his mother is accurate. Snape only saw the image of the man he hated, who married the woman he loved, not the soul within Harry who detested what his 15-year-old father did to Snape. However, he did difficult, dangerous, and dirty work for Dumbledore and ultimate gave his life to defeat Voldemort. At the very end, Snape's memories served as both an apology and a set of instructions. Snape ultimately was many things to many people. He was often cruel, often angry, often hateful, often spiteful, but deep down he suffered inwardly greatly for the acts of betrayal against Lily Evans Potter (first his use of the world "mudblood" then her death). When he became Dumbledore's for keeps, he was a man taking bitter medicine. He promised anything to Dumbledore, and was bound by it. Overall, Snape lived a very unhappy life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 12:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you were a notable book reviewer with national cred, we could consider your assessment useful. Alas, you aren't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:CIVIL or don't contribute.—Kbolino 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how my comment was uncivil, dear. All I said that we couldn't use the observation, since the person wasn't a notable reviewer. Perhaps you might want to take a stab at assuming good faith, okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article. Your criticism would apply, say, in an edit history for your removal of that text from the article. Otherwise, you're just saying that the comment is not substantive by attacking the person who wrote it. This is Wikipedia, not the New York Times, and as far as I know, you can be Joe Nothing and still have a voice here—whether or not it offers some contribution to the matter at hand.—Kbolino 18:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point that was trying to be put across, in what I at least perceived to be a humorous fashion, is that the comments in question were Original Research. One's interpretation of literary events is in fact material that does not belong in Wikipedia. "Having a voice" does not mean that one's opinions on facts necessarily belong in the page, except in very special cases (the author of a book adding information about that book, a recognized expert on a topic writing on that topic, etc). If Jclinard wants a forum for expressing opinions and analyses on the book, then that should be done in discussion group, not in Wikipeida. For the text of the article, only reliable sources should be used, and in that sense, being Joe Nothing does disqualify one's opinion and interpretation from being included. Magidin 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, and perhaps most importantly, this is not an article, this is a talk page. A quick perusal of the edit history of the main article reveals that Jclinard has not made any changes to it. As such, had Arcayne said "That reads like original research, please see WP:OR," I would not have said anything. But instead, the criticism was placed at the user, and not the content. Per WP:CIVIL (policy), incivility is defined as "personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Additionally, I read the comment as snide, not humorous, but that can be set aside per WP:AGF (a guideline). I do not take objection to the points you read in Arcayne's comment, that Jclinard's comment is original research and not verifiable, but rather to the manner of its delivery.—Kbolino 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparing Lily

I think the following words under "Loyalties" are not true...Voldemort denied his request that Lily be spared... There is nothing in the books about Voldemort denying Snape's request. In my opinion the sentence should be changed.TanizakiChoson 28 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanizakiChoson (talk • contribs) 11:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that Voldemort killed Lily? faithless (^speak) 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who used the wording in the article. Upon reviewing the text of the book, there is some merit to TanizakiChoson's comments. My impression was that Snape went to Dumbledore because Voldemort refused his request to spare Lily ahead of time. But upon review, when Dumbledore asks "Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for son?" Snape's reply is "I have - I have asked him -" There is some implication that Snape does not believe Voldemort will spare Lily (since he is talking to Dumbledore after all), but no confirmation that Voldemort did not at least allow the possibility of saving Lily. Later, in the confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, I misremembered Voldemort implying that Snape had agreed he did not need Lily before she was killed, but what Voldemort actually says is "He desired her, that was all, but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women". So perhaps rather than "Voldemort denied his request", the fact that he killed her is "Voldermort failed to honor his request"; and his concern for her safety is what drives Snape to Dumbledore in the first place, rather than Voldemort denying Snape's request to save her. Dumbledore later also says Snape had hoped Voldemort would spare Lily, and Snape does not deny it. Magidin 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it was roughly stated that when Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow, he told Lily to get out of his way several times before he eventually killed her. I don't have reference for this, but I definitely remember one of the books having a small section where Lily and Voldemort are speaking to one another prior to him killing her. --VorangorTheDemon 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clearly stated in Voldemort's memory after Harry and Hermoine escape from Godric's Hollow that Voldemort told Lily to get out of the way, and when she wouldn't, he considered tossing her to the side, but felt it was more prudent to kill her instead. HUGE mistake. Dumbledore was right when he said Voldemort handed Harry unique and deadly weapons to take Voldemort down when he trusted the prophecy. The first weapon was the loyalty of Snape. The second was the shield of Lily's death-love sacrifice. The third was the bit of Voldemort's soul in Harry which allowed him penetrate Voldemort's mind and speak parseltounge. Next was the affinity for the Holly and Phoenix feather wand. Harry's foster family was also a weapon and blessing - he grew up with no friends or love, so he saw no shame in people like the poor Ron or the muggle-born Hermoine (quite unlike his father, who grew up rich and pampered). It also led to him hanging with misfits like Neville and Luna who he valued far more than the "cool" crowd. Perhaps Harry's deadliest weapon was empathy with Voldemort (or at least Riddle) - shared upbringings. Harry's childlike fascination in his first encountered with the wizarding world were shared by Voldemort. Hogwarts was his first real home. Gringott's bank was a symbol of belonging. Harry understood the power they had over an untrained mind and used it to steal and destroy two horcruxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 12:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I find it none too difficult to see that Lily was trying to get in Riddle's way and shield her child. To Riddle, it seemed that the best way to get to Harry, was to kill her. As for honoring Snape's request...I doubt he took it seriously, Lily being Muggleborn and all. Oh, for the record, I take no offence in anyone's disagreeing with my views. Mathematicus 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Snapes parents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was close merger, go for deletion. -- Judgesurreal777 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, they have zero notability and their significence is totally dependent on Severus, so they should not have their own article and that information should be folded into this one. Judgesurreal777 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Opppose merge, favor deleting article on Snape's parents. They should not have an article (lack of notability), and furthermore there is no reason to have their information here either. Not every bit of information in the books belongs on a page in Wikipedia, as it is not a fan site. I would say that the page on Snape's parents should simply be removed. Magidin 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Opppose merge, favor deleting article on Snape's parents. Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), they either have to be merged or deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, I mean merging whatever is useful, which I suspect would be about a sentence and no more, and then have the parents page redirect here. I don't oppose an almost complete deletion, as there is basically nothing to save. Judgesurreal777 05:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be done now, avoiding the need for any merge. That way, we've got what we want, and can delete the less-noteworthy article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Possible merge Perhaps Snape's article already mentions this (I imagine it does), but it should be noted that Snape's mother was a witch and his father was a muggle. This is a fairly important detail. But other than that, his parents play no part in the story and don't warrant inclusion to any large degree. faithless (^speak) 06:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the importance of even that detail, except perhaps as a footnote explaining the nickname "Half-Blood Prince". Even that bit seems, to me and in my humble opinion, unnecessary. I do not see even a single sentence from the Snape's parents article being really useful for merging, though that page should probably redirect here. Magidin 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it is very important in understanding Snape and his motivation, the way he rejected his muggle blood and embraced "blood discrimination" or whatever you'd like to call it. The best reason for its inclusion, of course, you gave yourself: the Half-Blood Prince. It was the name of an entire book for crying out loud! :P Surely at least a passing explanation is warranted? After all, WP is not paper; I can't see what harm an extra sentence or two could possibly do. Obviously his parents shouldn't have their own article, nor even a section in this one. But what's the rationale for purging them from the encyclopedia entirely? faithless (^speak) 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the name of the book happens to be in this article: it was the name of the owner of the potions book, and Snape reveals that it was himself. I disagree thoroughly that "his mother's name was Eileen Prince, a witch, his father's name was Tobias Snape, a muggle" is important to understand Snape or "his motivation" (his motivation to do what, anyway?) His motivation for the actions he takes in the books is already spelled out in the page. As to rationale for "purging" the parents, I think you've got it backwards: what is the rationale for including them at all? They don't even make an appearance in the books. That WP is not a paper means that one should not exclude topics on the basis of length or overall size of Wikipedia, not that one can include anything and everything. Snape's parents simply do not satisfy the notability requirements to be in. Again: Wikipedia is not a fan site to collect all the minutiae from these or any other works of fiction; there must be a compelling reason to have them in, not one to not have them. But in any case: including a one-line explanation for the nickname is not, in my opinion, a "merge." What we are really talking about is deleting the article on Snape's parents and redirecting here; putting one or two lines in this article hardly constitutes what I would call a merge, even if it happens. But it seems that an AfD poll was attempted two years ago and failed, so perhaps the proposer feels that saying "merge" will go down better than saying "delete" this time. Magidin 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When I said his "motivation" I was talking his motivation for joining Voldemort, become a Death Eater and aligning himself with the blood-purity crowd. I thought I was clear, but obviously I wasn't. We see in the books that Snape had a, shall we say, less than happy childhood, that his muggle father tormented his wife and son, driving Snape to reject his muggle heritage. But I really don't care nearly enough about this to continue arguing. faithless (^speak) 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Opppose merge, strongly favor deleting article on Snape's parents. as per Notability. While Snape's parents may have helped shape who he is, they are so vitally UN-important to the article as to be distracting. I didn't even know the article existed before someone mentioned it here. It is cruft of the lowest common denominator, a classic example of WP:UNDUE, and should be purged like the waste of bandwidth it is. I also recommend flogging with a nerg baton thos eresponsible for its creation (just kidding with this last one). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:Merge Tobias and Eileen with Minor Harry Potter characters. I both oppose merge and deletion, maybe creating a section in Minor characters for "Tobias and Eileen Snape" would be more accurated. Lord Opeth 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but there are minor characters and then there are characters which make no appearance whatsoever in the series. I am thinking that they are not important to any article in the Harry Potter series. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I got your point, you are right, but there should be at least one mention of Tobias and Eileen in the Snape article, something like "Born to Tobias Snape and Eileen Prince". I then Opppose merge, favor deleting article on Snape's parents. Lord Opeth 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let's delete the Snapes. Like, Diapparate...Forever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just push then through the veil. Should we remove the merge proposals and simply propose a delete-and-redirect for Snape's parents, then? Magidin 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that. In fact, why doesn't someone just do it, pointing to this discussion if there's dissention?? I bet there are precious few people with that page on their watchlist. Happy-melon 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Let us kill Veil them. Stick a nice greeting card into the mouth of one of them for Sirius, and cradle a bucket of KFC in one of their cold stiff embraces - the Afterlife is hungry place after all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.