Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your editing is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Half-blood Prince section 

message: *Moral: in-universe is evil
*Moral: this article cannot be written as a biography as if the character were real.
*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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Justification for major rewrite

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Concern about his "Status"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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" ... ".  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opening of seventh book

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sparing Lily 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge in Snapes parents