![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Actual source #2, Transcript of webchat with J.K. Rowling, is dead. I found an other transcript here and here. I didn't made the modification since those two new source are from fansite. What to do? This source is important as it reveals a lot of things that are not in the books and it is used a lot in the article. Should we use the fansite link anyway, or simply add it as a second link to the source? Or... leave it like it is at the moment, since it already states that the page was retreived in 2007? -- Stroppolo talk 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In the section about the portrayal of Snape by Rickman, it says he was Rowlings personal choice. Yet somewhere later, there is this stand-alone sentence saying "Before Alan Rickman was offered the role as Severus Snape, the role was originally offered to Tim Roth." This is sounds a bit in opposition to what is mentioned earlier. Did Rowling chose Rickman, yet the studio first went to propose the role to Roth, or how did it pan out. If someone knows, a rewrite of this section might be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Denial ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoever changed goatee to goatse is a vandal and needs to remember children view this page. ( 123.2.53.91 ( talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
We've had the same addition to the opening paragraph added three times now by an anonymous editor; I've reverted it twice. The original, long-standing sentence read: "In the first novel [...] he is one of the main antagonists." The version the anonymous editor favors is: "In the first novel, he is built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapters." My objections to the new version are: (i) The primary antagonist is Voldemort's spirit, not Snape, even within the novel, even in the early chapters. (ii) The phrasing "built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapter" is, of course, a nod towards Rowling's misdirections that lead the reader to think that Snape is the teacher helping Voldemort, but I think this is not something to be included in the first paragraph. (iii) Snape is an antagonist, and one of the main ones, in that he is antagonistic towards Harry and remains so throughout the series: there seems to be the misconception on the part of the anonymous editor that "antagonist" means "main villain"; according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition, that is the secondary meaning of the word, but the primary meaning is "One who contends against another; an adversary", and antagonism means "Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness." I think there is simply no argument that Snape is antagonistic towards Harry or that he is one of the main antagonists in the first book (and later in the series); this is not merely a matter of Rowling's misdirection, as the anonymous editor seems to believe. In any case, lest we get into a 3-revert war, I am opening this up for discussion. Opinions? Magidin ( talk) 22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In short, your argument is that since you don't know the difference, then nobody knows the difference. Gotcha. There goes the English language. Or more accurately, you like the character (you label him "good", though even Rowling does not go that far), and you chafe at the notion of having the label "antagonist" put to him. There are COUNTLESS of literary characters who are both antagonists and villains. Just because two things often occur together does not mean that the two words mean the same, your beliefs and knowledge about the English language notwithstanding. The words are not synonyms, and never have been. In case you haven't noticed, for instance, Wikipedia has them in separate pages (could there be a reason for that?). For myself, I'll wait; a couple of days is hardly the eternity it might seem to those with short attention spans and the inability to find out actual the meaning of words. Again: Snape is not an "antagonist" "just because he dislikes the main character." He's an antagonist because of what he does and the role he plays. The role he plays in the first book is not comparable to the roles he plays in later books: while he looms large in the first book, he does not in later ones, so the claim that he cannot be an antagonist in the first book if he isn't in the latter ones completely misses the point. Magidin ( talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a small addition - Re: Edit [ [1]]: I changed some wording in the article so that 'realize' was changed to 'realise' as per WP:TIES/British English. The word is within a quotation, so normally it should remain in its original form. However, I changed it based on the fact that it was quoting Rowling who, had she written it herself, would have used the British version of the word.
Just wondering if anyone knows if this is the original interview text (not aggregated/changed for US audiences etc.)? If it is, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and accept 'realize', with lack of any other opposers :P Thanks. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Under the category "Character development," it says that Rowling based Snape on a childhood teacher, John Nettleship. However, on Rowling's official website [www.jkrowling.com] she states that no Harry Potter characters are based on people she's ever met (except for Gilderoy Lockhart). Severus Snape was not based on any of Rowling's teacher, and saying so could offend the listed teacher (who is compared to Snape, later described in the article as "a bully" and "a horrible teacher"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shfargleyargle ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
While the article mentions his half blood status is rare for a death eater shouldn't it also be included that Voldemort trusted Snape above the other death eaters, because he was a half-blood just like him? As I recall Dumbledore reveals that to Harry.-- 74.131.90.156 ( talk) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has added a bunch of new items to the Character Infobox (and also done so in the Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, and Lord Voldemort pages. Is this part of a revamp of the Infobox across the Harry Potter project, or should they be reverted as good faith, but overly detailed, edits? Magidin ( talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
For some reason this page seems particularly vulnerable to vandalism of all sorts, but one thing that isn't strictly vandalism is the constant changing of the title of the 1st book to "The Sorcerer's Stone." While it seems incredible, there are obviously people who think that "The Philosopher's Stone" is incorrect. In the past both titles were listed, but that decision got reversed. I think we should list both titles simply because there's enough vandalism on this page to monitor and repair without having to constantly revert to the "proper" title, too. I'm going to put in a parenthetical and hope that this solves the problem. Please discuss here before reverting back to the UK title. This is a reasonable decision, I think. Thanks.-- TEHodson 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone's agreed that not using the title at all, but saying "the first book" is the most trouble-free solution. Protecting the page is, I've been told, a temporary solution, so let's stick to this and see how it goes. Since we're on a HP page, is it appropriate to say that I'd do just about anything for an anti-vandalism spell on the whole bloody site? You should put the Yoko Ono page on your watchlist if you really want to go nuts.-- TEHodson 21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, the title change is keeping all of us busy, sometimes more than once a day. I'm going to parenthetically add an aka to try to stop the vandalism or good faith edits. This is a serious waste of time on a easily remedied problem.-- TEHodson 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article seems to been vandalized. See the screenshot http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2511051/Snape+Snape+Severus+Snape/ . Request for it to be removed.
83.100.174.66 ( talk) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Last sentence, first paragraph. Reason is obvious.
70.123.128.139 ( talk) 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph of the page there is a vulgar and inappropriate sentence. Sure under different circumstances it might be found amusing but it is untrue and in much distaste. Please get rid of it?
72.193.129.219 ( talk) 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Spelling should be "Defense" as used in HP books, not defence. through-out entire article.
For some time there was much speculation going around the net about Snape being a vampire. Though never confirmed or even mentioned in the books shouldn't this speculation be mentioned? Just like the speculation of his alignment. Ganglerian ( talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Really, does "He ultimately becomes Headmaster of Hogwarts in the final novel." need to be in paragraph one? 66.68.185.101 ( talk) 01:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add category:Fictional secret agents and spies, since its well-known that Snape was an informant and/or spied on the Death Eaters, and was a double agent working for Dumbledore. -- 72.67.93.68 ( talk) 07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
harry potter and the sorcerer's stone NOT philosopher's stone. Whoever put that in needs to get off the drugs! 75.138.6.144 ( talk) 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A good faith edit was just (correctly) reverted, in which the editor changed "skilful" to "skillful"; the reverting editor noted that the hidden text in the source notes that "skilful" is the correct british spelling, which is used in the page. However, I wanted to note that I just made an experiment using the Edit beta functionality, and of course there is no indication of this "hidden text", so no way for a good faith editor to see the messages. A similar hidden warning occurs to ask editors not to replace "Philosopher" in the title of the first book with "Sorcerer". I just wanted to point out that the new functionality (which is likely to be used more and more as we move forward, in lieu of editing the source) does not seem to support these hidden messages. Magidin ( talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Actual source #2, Transcript of webchat with J.K. Rowling, is dead. I found an other transcript here and here. I didn't made the modification since those two new source are from fansite. What to do? This source is important as it reveals a lot of things that are not in the books and it is used a lot in the article. Should we use the fansite link anyway, or simply add it as a second link to the source? Or... leave it like it is at the moment, since it already states that the page was retreived in 2007? -- Stroppolo talk 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In the section about the portrayal of Snape by Rickman, it says he was Rowlings personal choice. Yet somewhere later, there is this stand-alone sentence saying "Before Alan Rickman was offered the role as Severus Snape, the role was originally offered to Tim Roth." This is sounds a bit in opposition to what is mentioned earlier. Did Rowling chose Rickman, yet the studio first went to propose the role to Roth, or how did it pan out. If someone knows, a rewrite of this section might be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Denial ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoever changed goatee to goatse is a vandal and needs to remember children view this page. ( 123.2.53.91 ( talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
We've had the same addition to the opening paragraph added three times now by an anonymous editor; I've reverted it twice. The original, long-standing sentence read: "In the first novel [...] he is one of the main antagonists." The version the anonymous editor favors is: "In the first novel, he is built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapters." My objections to the new version are: (i) The primary antagonist is Voldemort's spirit, not Snape, even within the novel, even in the early chapters. (ii) The phrasing "built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapter" is, of course, a nod towards Rowling's misdirections that lead the reader to think that Snape is the teacher helping Voldemort, but I think this is not something to be included in the first paragraph. (iii) Snape is an antagonist, and one of the main ones, in that he is antagonistic towards Harry and remains so throughout the series: there seems to be the misconception on the part of the anonymous editor that "antagonist" means "main villain"; according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition, that is the secondary meaning of the word, but the primary meaning is "One who contends against another; an adversary", and antagonism means "Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness." I think there is simply no argument that Snape is antagonistic towards Harry or that he is one of the main antagonists in the first book (and later in the series); this is not merely a matter of Rowling's misdirection, as the anonymous editor seems to believe. In any case, lest we get into a 3-revert war, I am opening this up for discussion. Opinions? Magidin ( talk) 22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In short, your argument is that since you don't know the difference, then nobody knows the difference. Gotcha. There goes the English language. Or more accurately, you like the character (you label him "good", though even Rowling does not go that far), and you chafe at the notion of having the label "antagonist" put to him. There are COUNTLESS of literary characters who are both antagonists and villains. Just because two things often occur together does not mean that the two words mean the same, your beliefs and knowledge about the English language notwithstanding. The words are not synonyms, and never have been. In case you haven't noticed, for instance, Wikipedia has them in separate pages (could there be a reason for that?). For myself, I'll wait; a couple of days is hardly the eternity it might seem to those with short attention spans and the inability to find out actual the meaning of words. Again: Snape is not an "antagonist" "just because he dislikes the main character." He's an antagonist because of what he does and the role he plays. The role he plays in the first book is not comparable to the roles he plays in later books: while he looms large in the first book, he does not in later ones, so the claim that he cannot be an antagonist in the first book if he isn't in the latter ones completely misses the point. Magidin ( talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a small addition - Re: Edit [ [1]]: I changed some wording in the article so that 'realize' was changed to 'realise' as per WP:TIES/British English. The word is within a quotation, so normally it should remain in its original form. However, I changed it based on the fact that it was quoting Rowling who, had she written it herself, would have used the British version of the word.
Just wondering if anyone knows if this is the original interview text (not aggregated/changed for US audiences etc.)? If it is, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and accept 'realize', with lack of any other opposers :P Thanks. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Under the category "Character development," it says that Rowling based Snape on a childhood teacher, John Nettleship. However, on Rowling's official website [www.jkrowling.com] she states that no Harry Potter characters are based on people she's ever met (except for Gilderoy Lockhart). Severus Snape was not based on any of Rowling's teacher, and saying so could offend the listed teacher (who is compared to Snape, later described in the article as "a bully" and "a horrible teacher"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shfargleyargle ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
While the article mentions his half blood status is rare for a death eater shouldn't it also be included that Voldemort trusted Snape above the other death eaters, because he was a half-blood just like him? As I recall Dumbledore reveals that to Harry.-- 74.131.90.156 ( talk) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has added a bunch of new items to the Character Infobox (and also done so in the Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, and Lord Voldemort pages. Is this part of a revamp of the Infobox across the Harry Potter project, or should they be reverted as good faith, but overly detailed, edits? Magidin ( talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
For some reason this page seems particularly vulnerable to vandalism of all sorts, but one thing that isn't strictly vandalism is the constant changing of the title of the 1st book to "The Sorcerer's Stone." While it seems incredible, there are obviously people who think that "The Philosopher's Stone" is incorrect. In the past both titles were listed, but that decision got reversed. I think we should list both titles simply because there's enough vandalism on this page to monitor and repair without having to constantly revert to the "proper" title, too. I'm going to put in a parenthetical and hope that this solves the problem. Please discuss here before reverting back to the UK title. This is a reasonable decision, I think. Thanks.-- TEHodson 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone's agreed that not using the title at all, but saying "the first book" is the most trouble-free solution. Protecting the page is, I've been told, a temporary solution, so let's stick to this and see how it goes. Since we're on a HP page, is it appropriate to say that I'd do just about anything for an anti-vandalism spell on the whole bloody site? You should put the Yoko Ono page on your watchlist if you really want to go nuts.-- TEHodson 21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, the title change is keeping all of us busy, sometimes more than once a day. I'm going to parenthetically add an aka to try to stop the vandalism or good faith edits. This is a serious waste of time on a easily remedied problem.-- TEHodson 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article seems to been vandalized. See the screenshot http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2511051/Snape+Snape+Severus+Snape/ . Request for it to be removed.
83.100.174.66 ( talk) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Last sentence, first paragraph. Reason is obvious.
70.123.128.139 ( talk) 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph of the page there is a vulgar and inappropriate sentence. Sure under different circumstances it might be found amusing but it is untrue and in much distaste. Please get rid of it?
72.193.129.219 ( talk) 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Spelling should be "Defense" as used in HP books, not defence. through-out entire article.
For some time there was much speculation going around the net about Snape being a vampire. Though never confirmed or even mentioned in the books shouldn't this speculation be mentioned? Just like the speculation of his alignment. Ganglerian ( talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Really, does "He ultimately becomes Headmaster of Hogwarts in the final novel." need to be in paragraph one? 66.68.185.101 ( talk) 01:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add category:Fictional secret agents and spies, since its well-known that Snape was an informant and/or spied on the Death Eaters, and was a double agent working for Dumbledore. -- 72.67.93.68 ( talk) 07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
harry potter and the sorcerer's stone NOT philosopher's stone. Whoever put that in needs to get off the drugs! 75.138.6.144 ( talk) 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A good faith edit was just (correctly) reverted, in which the editor changed "skilful" to "skillful"; the reverting editor noted that the hidden text in the source notes that "skilful" is the correct british spelling, which is used in the page. However, I wanted to note that I just made an experiment using the Edit beta functionality, and of course there is no indication of this "hidden text", so no way for a good faith editor to see the messages. A similar hidden warning occurs to ask editors not to replace "Philosopher" in the title of the first book with "Sorcerer". I just wanted to point out that the new functionality (which is likely to be used more and more as we move forward, in lieu of editing the source) does not seem to support these hidden messages. Magidin ( talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)