Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Dead link to source

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)

Rickman vs Roth

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)

Vandal

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))

"Main antagonist" vs. "built up to be the main villain"

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)

I think labelling Snape as an antagonist at all is an insult to J. K. Rowling and makes a joke out of the series and Wikipedia itself. This is my opinion: Snape is hinted many times throughout the first book to be plotting to steal the Philosopher's Stone, and it is even him who Harry expects to see in the last room, therefore making no mention whatsoever of Voldemort's spirit until the final moment. Also, Snape appears to be attempting to kill Harry during the Quidditch match, also reinforcing the fact that he is the book's main villain (again, with not even a single rumour of Voldemort's spirit lingering about), yet it transpires at the end that Snape was, in fact, saving Harry's life. Also, Snape appears to be trying to threaten Quirrell into telling him how to get past the three-headed dog, and complains about the bite marks to Filch while he's being bandaged, yet at the end, it turns out to be Quirrell trying to steal the stone and Snape was doing all that on Dumbledore's orders. Lastly, to say that Snape is an antagonist towards Harry makes him one of the antagonists of the book makes him one of the antagonists of the entire series, since he remains so until the very end. Basically, this is my point: Snape does many evil things throughout the series which lead us to believe that he is a villain, but it turns out he was working for Dumbledore the whole time, which essentially makes him an anti-hero, which Rowling herself said. If being nasty to Harry makes him one of the first book's villains, then it makes him one of the series' main villains. Jienum (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the difference between "antagonist" and "villain" which I explained in my previous comment. Your very last sentence shows that you are conflating the two. This quite simply not so. Labeling someone an antagonist is not the same as calling him a villain. That's the whole point. And, yes, Snape is in fact antagonistic towards Harry and his friends throughout the entire series. Magidin (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time, "villain" and "primary antagonist" are the same. But still, to say that Snape is "one of the primary antagonists" of the first book is still wrong, in my opinion, because you are referring to what he does in the first book, and this is technically what he does throughout the series, which would make him, in your words, one of the series' main antagonists (not villain). I think it'd be better to say that "he is built up to be the primary villain of the first book" or "he serves as an antagonist towards Harry throughout the series", not naming him as a main antagonist of the first book if he's the same in the seven books. Jienum (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason he is not one of the main antagonists in the rest of the series is because his role in the rest of the series is much reduced compared to his role in the first book, even though his actions are similar. He looms large in "Philosopher's Stone", he is much more incidental in the remaining books. Note also that the old phrasing did not name him the "main antagonist", but only "one of the main antagonists". Look back to "Philosopher's Stone": the antagonists are to a lesser extent the Dursleys, and Draco, Snape, and Voldemort. It seems to me that you are basically trying to retcon his role in the first book in light of the revelations of the final book. And now, I'll shut up and see if anybody else chimes in. Magidin (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Again: "villain" and "antagonist" are not synonyms. Perhaps, instead of side-swiping at people who actually know the meaning of the words, you might consider looking them up and educating yourself. Magidin (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Been a few days now. No one's opined or reverted the article. I guess that's a sign of no one agreeing with you on your definition of "antagonist" and "villain". Face it, Magidin, there are COUNTLESS articles about fictional villains which use "antagonist" and "villain" in the same light, and Severus Snape is no different. Since he wasn't a villain, it's useless to to name him as an antagonist, because it still sounds very similar. It may be different in the dictionary, but most people consider "villain" and "antagonist" the same, because we can't call a good character an antagonist just because he/she dislikes the main character. Jienum (talk) 19:25, 1 December 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)

I rest my case. Jienum (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you'll go and "fix" the Javert page as well in short order? You'll note the word "villain" doesn't occur there. Guess they don't know that "antagonist" means "villain", and that you can't call someone a villain just because he dislikes the main character, so you better go there and educate them as well, teach them not to fuss over synonyms. Magidin (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I rest my case. The article's fine as it is now, and I couldn't care less about this Javert guy. 88.16.225.78 (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your objections ("insult to Rowling") rested on your confusion about the meaning of the word "antagonist". Your claim that calling him an antagonist is a "joke" is, in point of fact, an slight on the author. You are claiming, in essence, that it is impossible to make a complex character that is not a hero but not a villain either. Javert happens to be a classic example of an antagonist who is not a villain, an example of a complex character with great depth; exactly what Snape was. But you'd rather stick to misunderstandings and superficiality, and "rest your case." If someone else comes and opines on the issue, what then? You'll still "rest your case"? Magidin (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Third time. I rest my case. Jienum (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Realize -> Realise with Quote

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)

Looking at the page cited for the quote, it cites the Leaky Cauldron (which seems to be an American website although at least one of its staff is in the UK) but is actually from a French article, which provides an English translation, about an event at the University College Dublin. Yeah, that's not complicated at all. So the origin of the text was probably that it was transcribed from a recording by someone whose first language is French. Both the Leaky article and the Gazette article use the "-ize" spelling, but I'm guessing that considering it was a British author speaking in Ireland, if you had asked her to spell what she had just said, she would have said "-ise".

All that to say: I'm fine with it if you want to switch the quotation back to the British spelling. I've just been bugged in the past when people changed things willy-nilly in quotations, without considering that they should be treated differently from other text. It certainly appears that you've thought this through and have a good reason for changing the spelling (and are indeed aware that you're changing a quotation, which I wasn't sure from your original edit), so I would aprove of the spelling change.

Wow, this was a lot of text to spend on a one-letter change. :-) Princess Lirin (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And people say the content posted on Wikipedia isn't scrutinised enough... :P

I'll make the change live for now. ⚡ KEYS767 ⚡ ^(talk) 15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

misquoting Rowling - misrepresenting her teacher

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)

I suggest you read John Nettleship (who, incidentally, has recently died). Not only did JKR's mother work as an assistant under Nettleship at the school when JKR was a pupil there, there is considerable circumstantial evidence, fully accepted by Nettleship himself, that he was a major influence on the character. Not the only influence - no-one has remotely suggested that - but one of the major ones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we come down to verifiable vs. true. If there are verifiable reliable sources that state Nettleship may have been/likely was/was an inspiration, then it can stay with suitable attributions (the weasel words "it is believed" need to go regardless, and the conjecture/opinion attributed). I would say that, right now, the source provided is insufficient; half-bloodprince.org is probably not a "reliable source" within the meaning of Wikipedia. If it is merely conjecture (even from Nettleship himself) and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, then it has to go. As far as Rowling, her statement that Snape (or any character) is not based on any person should, of course, be placed in contrast to those (putative) reliable/verifiable opinions, but should not pre-empt them. Magidin (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe she said that none of the characters were based on any one person - not quite the same thing. The best sources are probably this, this and this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, those are certainly better than half-bloodprince.org. Use those as sources, and contrast it the (suitably sourced) quote from Rowling. Magidin (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm no expert on Rowling - can someone find the quote from her about her characters not being based on real individuals, and add it as Magidin suggests? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly what I hoped would happen when I reverted the unexplained deletion for being unexplained, as it has now led to an improvement in the article.

I went looking for possible quotes, googling "lockhart site:jkrowling.com" because I knew she would mention Lockhart in the quote. She has said the same thing multiple times, but slightly different. The following three versions are all from Rowling's official website. First quote (from Edinburgh Book Festival interview): "The only character who is deliberately based on a real person is Gilderoy Lockhart. [...] Other people have contributed the odd characteristic, such as a nose, to a character, but the only character who I sat down and thought that I would base on someone is Gilderoy Lockhart." [2] Second version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about Lockhart): "I have only once set out to depict somebody I have met and, unlikely though it might seem, the result was Gilderoy Lockhart." [3] And third version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about the Weasleys): "I have only once set out to faithfully depict a real human being (see Gilderoy Lockhart); everywhere else, though I might have borrowed the occasional real person's characteristic, they are at least 90% imaginary."

I'm going to take a shot at incorporating Rowling's comments into the article, but I'm not really attached to my version so feel free to change it up. Princess Lirin (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks OK to me. I've added a quote to the Nettleship article as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. It's a fantastic page for a fantastic character, I just want to make sure it stays that way :D Shfargleyargle (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Characterization /Family

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)

Infobox additions

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)

Seems silly to me. Why list categories that we know will never be filled? Snape has no spouse, for example, and as the series is finished, is unlikely to acquire one. It just encourages people to do things like fill in "Lily" for his Significant Other (which I removed). I would support removing superfluous categories.--TEHodson 05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, though, that it is funny to see "Significant Other" listed for Voldemort!--TEHodson 05:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's getting ridiculous. Now we have a "Relatives" entry? Six relatives listed for Voldemort in the infobox? The box is not supposed to be exhaustive, and I really think these additions should be removed across the HP pages. Magidin (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally support purging infobox-cruft like this from the character articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First book titles

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 agree that this is an issue, although I also suspect that there are as many or more people who change "Philosopher's" to "Sorcerer's" specifically because the hidden text says not to as opposed to people who are honestly confused even though the changed title is explained in multiple places.

My suggestion: remove the title from the lead, just saying "in the first novel". After all, five of the novels are currently not mentioned in the lead, so what's one more?

I feel this is preferable because it deals with the problem you raised above, of people changing the title, but doesn't put undue emphasis on the first book when that's not the topic of the lead. I'm going to go ahead and change this, but I'm open to further discussion if you or others don't like this solution. Princess Lirin (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with "in the first novel" as a compromise. I suspect we'll see a lot of increased (unintentional) vandalism on all HP pages over the next week or so, what with the release of Deathly Hallows Part II. a_man_alone (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever might have the best chance of working is fine with me. --TEHodson 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "in the first novel" is more appropriate in this instance. However I don't think this is a case of compromise. The novel is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". The fact that it was released under a different name in a particular country is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases. When a film is released under several names in different countries, we don't list every name in every situation. The American title should only be used in Wikipedia articles that specifically use an American English MoS. Mato (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but we're trying to solve a practical problem of constantly having to change the title back. We all know that the books belong to England, etc., etc. But there's an especial problem due to the film also having the Sorcerer's Stone title, and those of us who monitor the page for vandalism want to try to prevent as much of it as possible. There is little point to putting one's foot down in this case--we need a solution that works. Your film example is a poor one, by the way. Type in The Story of Adele H. or I Am Love and you'll find that the articles are in English, with their English titles, with the original titles in parentheses, which is one idea to do here. It really shouldn't be that contentious an idea--a compromise doesn't detract from the Englishness of the originals. The Harry Potter series seems to bring out a bit of nationalism, for some reason.--TEHodson 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(Topic drift) It's not only nationalism - although I agree with you there - but also the fact that Rowling herself dislikes the "Sorcerer" title, and has said many times that she wished she could have kept "Philosopher". a_man_alone (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, my example was a bad one. But I think the usual answer to solving the "practical problem of constantly having to change the title back" is page protection - especially when the majority of people here (I think?) seem to agree that it is impractical to state both titles of the original novel/film on the page of any article related to the Harry Potter series. Mato (talk) 10:33, 19 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)

Protectus Vandalus? a_man_alone (talk) 09:58, 20 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)

While it may lessen them, I predict it won't stop them; there are three instances of "Philosopher's stone" in the article (including one in the infobox). The edit comment after the first "instalment" doesn't seem to prevent changes to "installment" elsewhere... Magidin (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this nonsense happen on every HP character page? I wonder if the real solution is for me to take this damn page off my watchlist!--TEHodson 07:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.100.174.66, 20 August 2011

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)

Y has been fixed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.123.128.139, 20 August 2011

Last sentence, first paragraph. Reason is obvious.

70.123.128.139 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.193.129.219, 20 August 2011

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)

Y has been fixed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's called vandalism; it happens, unfortunately, but editors tend to be rather quick at fixing it. There were way more than usual today (I count about 11 instances); all but the last were reverted very quickly: 5 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, and 3 minutes. The last one took a bit longer because there were two consecutive instances, the second was reverted within a minute by a Bot, and the editor who turned up the protection (Fastily, within 5 minutes) missed the prior instance, which was reverted 25 minutes later. Alas, it happens. Magidin (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

spelling

Spelling should be "Defense" as used in HP books, not defence. through-out entire article.

You are presumably referring to the US editions of the books, however, the UK spelling - defence - is what is used in the articles, based on wp:engvar. a_man_alone (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

vampirism

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)

Do you have a reliable secondary source that mentions the speculation? If not, then it doesn't belong. Magidin (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you HAVE to put spoilers in the first paragraph?

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)

No, we don't have to put "spoilers" on the first paragraph. However, neither should we avoid them simply because some people think they are spoilers. The policy of Wikipedia on the subject is quite clear:

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.

In short: the fact that you may consider that information a "spoiler" has no impact on whether the information should or should not be in the article or in the lead. If the only reason that makes you object to that information being on the lead is that it is a "spoiler", then that is not a valid objection. Magidin (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fictional agent

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)

Y Seems reasonable. Perhaps not in the James Bond sense, but a spy nevertheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2013

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)

Not done:. See Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New editing functionality and hidden text in the source code

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)

Valid point, and I apologise to the editor in that respect - for the assumption, not the reversion. There are a few things that can be done to mititgate such a limitation - the first of which being raising this as an issue to those who are bugzilling the new edit functionality. Don't know who or where this is happening, but I'm guessing that it is.

The second thing would be to add the {{Use British English|date=September 2013}} tag to the article, but this then shows up as an alert - and we are dependent on the editor reading such notices. I took that one from the Harry Potter page - it shows up as an alert, along with the page protection warning and the Philosophers vs Sorcerers warning.

And of course the third thing is to just keep reverting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We can also make use of an WP:Editnotice, which requires the assistance of an administrator to add it to articles. It could handle all kinds of warnings, and would pop up in the Visual Editor as a warning before editing. But frankly, even with the best of precautions, we're still going to get edits like this. So I question the need to bring out all our artillery on this. Sometimes it's best to just keep reverting reactively. Elizium23 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I'm not sure what can or should be done, or whether it is worth it (we have no way of knowing how many people have not made changes thanks to the hidden notices, after all). Mainly, I wanted to point it out so we can all (myself included) try to be aware of this going forward. Magidin (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)