09:29:20 AM Oct 28th 2017
I feel like we should restructure the character page. It's full of blatant spoilers, such as putting "professor" in neville's name and having all of the next generation characters be at the tops of their houses. These pages should be friendly to people who are new to the series, but if anyone looks at the page as it is now, they will be spoiled on everything. Personally, I'd argue moving all "Cursed Child" characters either to their own page or at least to the bottom of the character lists, and also remove professor from Neville's name. We may not be able to completely hide spoilers, but we should at least make them less blatant
10:16:10 AM May 5th 2016
I feel this should this be turned into a "Potterverse" character sheet - not removing anything from the page, but expanding it to include characters mentioned in Pottermore and the Fantastic Beasts films. Thoughts?
10:41:25 AM May 5th 2016
I think Harry Potter Pottermore, one new folder for the website is fine, same for Fantastic Beasts. Potterverse though is premature...
02:10:32 PM May 5th 2016
And any new characters introduced in Cursed Child would go here?
03:08:45 PM May 5th 2016
Okay - based on your input, Julian, I'm going to make a Harry Potter Other Canon page, for characters who have been mentioned in other canonical works, such as Pottermore, Fantastic Beasts (book), Quidditch Through The Ages, The Tales Of Beetle The Bard, Rowling's website or Word of God herself. Currently scouring through the Potter wiki to see what entries I can add to make a base page for it.
08:35:04 PM Nov 12th 2010
Does Snape really fit as a "Double Reverse Quadruple Agent"? 'Cos that trope seems to only apply if there's more than two sides in a given conflict. Snape seems to me to be a textbook example of a just plain Double Agent: he's acting as the Reverse Mole for Dumbledore, while pretending to be The Mole for Voldemort. Simple. That's why descriptions like "triple agent" and even "quadruple agent" just aren't accurate when applied to Snape. He was a Double Agent — the only question during the series was whom he was a Double Agent for. Was he The Mole pretending to be the Reverse Mole, or the Reverse Mole pretending to be The Mole? Of course, it turned out to be the latter.
11:25:19 AM Nov 13th 2010
You're right- he doesn't. Edited that out and a bunch of other stuff, too. Restore in case of disagreement.
06:45:19 PM Nov 14th 2010
Wow. "A bunch of other stuff" is an understatement. That was a shitload of edits. (Although I still maintain that Snape inventing "Sectumsempra" is an indication of a Dark and Troubled Past, and thus fits the trope. I mean, you gotta be dark and troubled if you invent a flesh-slicing spell when you're still a teen...)
06:31:14 AM Nov 12th 2010
How is Voldy an expy of some guy in Dungeons and Dragons? Wouldn't that require him to be a shout out to it or something? I mean, idk about this thing, but it seems more like a WMG than a trope example
08:02:27 AM Nov 12th 2010
It's not a "guy"- a lich is a kind of undead creature from Dn D, a magic-user (normally an Evil Sorcerer) who makes themselves immortal by using a Soul Jar from which they can regenerate if killed. Voldie does the same thing, though he's (probably) not technically undead. However, I'm a little iffy on this one myself- who knows if Rowling had liches in mind when she created Voldemort and his Horcruxes, or if both simply drew on legendary uses of the Soul Jar?
07:10:15 PM Sep 26th 2010
Someone keeps deleting my examples under Snape's name, and as far as I can tell, they're doing it because it makes their examples look better, not because I'm wrong or making a wrong example. So, whoever's doing it, KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF, okay? Snape is a polarizing character, and needless to say, your mileage may vary on everything he does and everything other people think about him. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong, and deleting someone's example just because you disagree with it is not acceptable. For further reference, please see Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
12:02:02 PM Sep 27th 2010
See the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment yourself. Your examples mostly attack other examples, and are much longer than the average, mostly full of Alternate Character Interpretation. If you're the only one adding in those examples, while multiple people are removing them, chances are that you're the one who's wrong.
12:11:49 PM Sep 27th 2010
edited by tenderlumpling
edited by tenderlumpling
Pointing out where there's conflicting evidence is not an attack; you partake in pointing out the conflicting evidence yourself, but I'm not accusing you of attacking me. I'm just asking you to stop deleting my examples just because you disagree with them. Deleting an example because you disagree with it is petty; if you disagree with it, make a bullet saying so and stating why. Simple as that. No one is attacking you, and if you continue to think we are, that's all on you. Also: Before you accuse anyone else of Alternate Character Interpretation, realize that Alternate Character Interpretation accounts for almost all of any character's applicable tropes. Kind of happens when two people read the same book, since those two people are highly unlikely to have the exact same opinions about anything. And for a series as popular as Harry Potter, that's going to be ratcheted all the way up. Alternate Character Interpretation is part and parcel of all character sheets; get over it.
05:59:25 AM Sep 29th 2010
Except that when an example has multiple bullet points after it, it's generally not a good example and tends to get deleted for being Conversation in the Main Page. Nobody is attacking you by deleting your examples, they're just following the guidelines of the site and deleting examples that are obviously very open to interpretation.
11:21:55 AM Sep 26th 2010
Think some character folders in the characters section would be nice
11:01:34 AM May 17th 2011
What happened to Ernie Mc Millan? Didn't see him anywhere. I thought he's a decent character.