Talk:Spells in Harry Potter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] To do list

₮While reading various articles on Harry Potter I'm finding spelling and grammatical errors. I cannot fix those in the Spells article. One is "their" should be "there" in some places. This is my first try at editing in Wikipedia, so help me out if I'm doing something wrong. AllenFin 02:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page! •Malinaccier• T/C 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

☑Remove all references to movies and games. DONE Malinaccier 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

☑Add spells that will be added when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is released. DONE •Malinaccier• 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

☑Continue to add references to spells from the books. (Reasonably DONE) •Malinaccier• 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • After we process the spells from the final book, it needs to be broken up into A-D, E-H, etc. while making this the directory page.

☑Make the page have uniformly British not American spellings of words like organisation/organization. (Reasonably DONE) •Malinaccier• 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

☑Make the page uniformly mention the Philosopher's Stone not the Sorcerer's Stone. DONE

  • Get the IPA pronunciation for all verbal spells.

☑Try to get at least one spell per letter. I know this may not be possible, but it should be attempted. (G has no spells under it) DONE (We know that there are no spells for X, Y, and Z)•Malinaccier• 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

☑Only include one or two seen/mentioned per spell. DONE Malinaccier 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Malinaccier 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


  • I think that we should place a warning on every spell to try to eliminate vandalism by IPs:

<!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD REFERENCES TO THE HARRY POTTER MOVIES AND GAMES!! ALSO, WE ONLY NEED ONE OR TWO SEEN/MENTIONED PER SPELL!!!-->

Malinaccier 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article splitting and pictures

  • I agree that there is no practical way to split this article into sub-sections, as it is an article to cover all the canonical spells in Harry Potter, and to do this, it is necessary to have an extremely long article. It should not be divided, and I suggest removing the [[verylong]].
  • Though the article is extremely long, there really isn't a practical way to split it into sub-sections. I would suggest abandoning all attempts at splitting it. Do you have any comments on this subject? Malinaccier 00:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we could improve the article by creating a good heading, with a picture or two. I'm horrible at graphics and pictures, so I think someone else should do it. I would suggest a wand performing a spell with lots of lights and colors...Malinaccier 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I can make out from discussions and histories, this article was originally canonical spells in Harry Potter. The header paragraph still refers to this, stating, "listing of the many canonical spells". The Harry Potter Canon, as has been discussed on other talk pages, is the BOOKS only. Many of these spells are from the films or video games. If we are looking to split the article we should move these non-canon spells to a separate list.
Furthermore, many spells here are far too trivial. "Knitting Needle Charm"? That doesn't need to be here. If it does, why should I not add "Spell used by the Hogwarts House-elves to make food appear on the tables of the Great Hall"? How do we know that some of the spells unknown are even spells at all? Molly Weasley could have dipped her needles in a potion for all we know. Wikipedia does not run on speculation. Furthermore, there is a lot of trivial detail in the description of the spell that could be taken out. We do not need to have every single useage of every single spell listed.
If this is not enough, we may need to list the spells in sections, as List of musicals: M to Z has done.
In case I have not made myself clear, the key steps to shortening this article is to limit the spells put into the article to canonical only (others may apply elsewhere), take out spells we have little reasonable ground to write about, restrict the amount of cr*p that gets put into the spell subsections, and if the worst comes to the worst, split alphabeticaly.
~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A: We are trying to make a list of ALL canonical spells, so even if the magic is trivial, it should be included. We know certain things like the knitting needles charm are actually spells because in the books themselves, it is said that "Hermione tapped the knitting needles with her wand..." However, spells such as "spell used by house elves to make food appear on the great hall's tables" should not be included because their is no reference to them actually being a spell (It could just be that the house tables were made that way). If you do not believe that something that is included in this page is not actually a spell, then look it up in the book before changing it!!

B: The spells do need a description for each, because even if you could tell me what expelliarmus, accio, anapneo, and levicorpus means, any outsider would not. Why would anyone even go to this page if they did not want a description of a certain spell.

C: From now on, any referneces to the movies and games should be removed when noticed.

D: I agree that we should split the page into Harry Potter (Spells A-D), Harry Potter (Spells E-H), etc. BUT only after we have removed all non-canonical references, and adequately completed the entire list of spells using Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to get any new spells included in the final book of the series. This page could then be made as a directory to all of the alphabetically divided pages.

Malinaccier 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Malinaccier. It was almost as long as mine - very impressive! (no sarcasm intended).
  • A: If you cared to check the history, I have not gone and deleted spells willy-nilly. That is being done by the IP Addresses that roam this page, often with intent to disturb. I object to have bold print shouted at me to "look it up in the book". If it is in retaliation to my saying the Knitting Needles Charm should be included in the article, here's another suggestion. It's not a specific charm for knitting needles, but an animation charm that could be used on anything. We do not know this, therefore it is speculation, therefore it should not be included on Wikipedia.
  • B: I misunderstood my thoughts when I originally wrote this down, therefore I mislead the world. I apologise. Instead of saying we should have no descriptions (what a short encyclopedia that would make!), we need to minimalise the descriptions. I have seen spells with every single useage described in great detail (again, often the work of the IPs). This is what is causing the article to be excessively long.
  • C: Thank you for removing the video games and movie references.
  • D: Hopefully this page will not be wrecklessly vandalised with new spells, as the Deathly Hallows page certainly will be. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


  • I'm sorry for offending you using the bold print. It was not meant to make you feel bad, but it was meant to let anyone know who reads this page to look things up in the book before editing anything. I had no intentions of being malicious.
I agree with you that there whould be less useage included (I will add that to the to-do list), but I'm not so sure of the knitting needle charm spell that you say could just be an animation charm (it could even be the same charm that Charlie and Bill used to cause the furniture to battle when Harry visited the Weasleys). Probably what we should do is put this idea into the "Notes" section of any spell that may just be a way of animating any object.

Once again, I am sorry for any misunderstandings. Malinaccier 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Maybe I over-reacted. :D But it's all OK now, and having this debate was both fun and useful for the article's sake. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various from MatthewDBA

To Do:

  • Sort the "silent spells" at the end of the article into the rest of the Canonical Spells. -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Expand all "paragraph" spell entries into the new template seen in Accio. -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
    • The first word in the template should be spelled Pronunciation, not Pronounciation. -- MatthewDBA 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've expanded several spell entries into the standard template; I've also added or edited some etymological information based on definitions in the Perseus Project's Classical language word search web page. I did not change the etymological discussion of the Ennervate spell, as the etymological situation seems a bit complex and I'd like to have some other user input before making a change. -- MatthewDBA 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC) -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Should we expand the template to include a specific entry for etymology? I have, or can find, etymologies for all the Latinate incantations. -- MatthewDBA 12:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Done (MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

ATTN: Typer 525 - Re your change in the entry for Avis, the spell Hermione uses is nowhere stated to be "Avis", and we don't actually see her casting the spell; that's why I decided to class that use as conjectural and put it in "Notes" rather than in "Seen/Mentioned". Comments? -- MatthewDBA 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation guide

The pronunciations should be in IPA characters.

This is certainly a good way to standardize pronunciation; however, it will be useless for readers not familiar with the notation. For these readers, a simplified guide based on typical English pronunciation is probably the easiest approach; but we should probably add IPA readings for those who are familiar with IPA, or for those who are not fluent in English.

Please don't forget to sign your name to your posts. -- MatthewDBA 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick question - what sources are people using for the pronunciation of spells? Personally I think the pronunciation on the Audiobooks - Stephen Fry - should be adopted, but the fact that the emphasis in the word 'Avada' (on this page) has been placed on the second syllable, as opposed to the first, would suggest that the films seem to have more influence. Does anyone else feel that this is incorrect? --Libatius 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Antonin Dolohov's Curse

I have no canon evidence for this, hence it being in discussion, but I noticed a big similarity between Dolohov's curse and Sectumsempra. Maybe his being unable to speak hampered the spell and saved Hermione? Granted this doesn't explain why he didn't say it out loud once he got his voice back, but I just thought it was worth mentioning.


[edit] Avada Kedavra

Is there a non-Rowling source for the Aramaic origin of this name? When I googled on 'avada kedavra aramaic', I got nearly 100% Harry Potter returns. Some of them mentioned a connection between the Aramaic phrase and 'abracadabra'. But the abracadabra entry says that avada means "create", not "destroy". [|Etymonline] gives 'Abraxas' as the origin of abracadabra, a possibility also discussed in the Wikipedia entry. Since the Etymonline site lists the documents it uses as sources (at least in general) whereas the Wikipedia article doesn't, I'm inclined to go with that entry -- at least until I find someone who can speak Aramaic. This (or even the idea of avada meaning "create" rather than "destroy") undermines the relevance of the etymology entry.

-- MatthewDBA 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The avada=destroy is pure fantasy. In Hebrew and Aramaic, 'b' and 'v' are indistinguishable (being the same letter transliterated differently in English), so having words that are alike but for a 'b' or 'v' is ridiculous. Abracadabra and Abraxas are likely related, both have roots in ancient magic and have similar meanings- the former is a bowdlerized Roman version of "Avara K'davra," which does mean "I create as I speak," in the sense of "So mote it be" or "It will be done."

The above is correct. I speak (some) Hebrew, and Avada means work/make/create/do. Abra in Abra Kedabra probably is supposed to sound like this. The root of another Hebrew word meaning "create" is BRA (as in Bereshit, the Hebrew name for Genesis) Abra may be related to this. But the Avada definately means create/do, NOT destroy. So its more like, "I do as I speak".


The above is NOT correct. Previous poster is thinking of the root ayin-bet-daled, which does mean make/create/do. But the root here is aleph-bet-daled, which in different forms means lose, cause to perish, destroy, etc. So "avda kedavra" = "I destroy as I speak", "avra kedavbra" = "I create as I speak".

[edit] Incendiah

Could the author, or someone else, point out where this spell is mentioned in the novels? That is what the "seen/mentioned" section is for - not exposition on the spell it'self.

If no one comes forward in the next day or so, I'll take it back out.

Beowulf314159 14:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Heck with it - it almost certainly was someone "making up something cool and getting into Wikipedia". Bad description, badly written up. If it's actually mentioned in the books, by all means put it back in - but reference it this time! - Beowulf314159 14:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protean Charm

Either take the prounciation OUT again, or leave the dual name in as it fits the naming convention.

I've reverting this a vandalism

Beowulf314159 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not sticking to the naming convention was an honest mistake on my part. I've fixed it. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely the word "possible" ought to be changed to "probable" when talking about the Dark Mark. I also believe that the Dark Mark does get hot when it is touched to alert the wearer etc TheTrojanHought 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serpensortia Etymology

I changed the note on the etymology while arranging all spells into template form. Serpensortia does not come from Latin serpens meaning snake and Latin sortia meaning "attack". According to Lewis & Short, there is no Latin word sortia or any similar form with a meaning of "attack". The English word "sortie" comes from a Late Latin/Medieval Latin word "surctus", which is an altered form of the Classical Latin surgere, meaning "to rise up" (reference).

(edited from my earlier -- accidentally unsigned -- entry MatthewDBA 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Accio Pronounciation

It's amazing the things that can be points of contention on Wikipedia!

There have been a number of edits changing the pronounciation of Accio from A-kee-oo to A-see-oo and back again. I tried to stop the flurry of edits by putting both in, and today somone "corrected" the english pronouncition to ASK-ee-oo.

I took the last one out, because I don't think CERN has a particle ask-ell-er-at-tor.

However - I did put an HTML comment in the code asking people to STOP changing it back and forth.

If you disagree with the current pronounciations, please discuss them here first. - Beowulf314159 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't AK-see-oh the English pronunciation of accio (like in "accept")? --Muhaha 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Great - a 4th candidate! Is there an etymologist in the house! -- Beowulf314159 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Here I've always pronounced it with a "ch" sound, a la modern Italian (cf. cappuccino). Oh well. :) -- Acheron
I tend to agree with Muhaha, although it comes down to what you feel constitutes acceptable evidence for one pronunciation over another. While Daniel Radcliffe does indeed pronounce it with a hard 'c' (Akkio - my phonetic transcription is a little rusty...), Stephen Fry offers 'Ak-see-o' in the audiobooks. I am inclined to go with Stephen Fry, considering the films' track record on pronunciation...anyone remember Lockhart's version of 'obliviate'?Libatius 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake, how on earth do you get ['æsiəʊ] out of accio?? Only the second <c> got palatalized in Latin, giving French and English [ks]. The only possibilities are English ['æksiəʊ] and Classical Latin ['akkio:].

According to the official pronunciation guide, it is Ah-see-oh. That should be definitive. http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation.htm--TwoThumbsDown 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the classical Latin pronunciation of accio, [akkio], contains doubled Ks? I can think of no reason or rule in IPA to justify this ... However, I'm not exactly a linguist, so I'm hesitant to change it. Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave the HTML notice for Accio in!

MatthewDBA took it out - and just over two hours later someone "corrected" Accio again. Do we need to get an admin to lock the page or something? Beowulf314159 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I was only intending to add the IPA pronunciation guides; I don't recall specifically removing the comment, and did not intend to. I have no problem with the display of two acceptable pronunciations. Apologies for any misunderstandings created, and I fully support your position on this.
Minor quibble: should the second pronunciation be listed as classical, rather than classic, Latin?
-- MatthewDBA 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I find HTML comment warnings annoying myself - I don't like having to put it in, but it seemed the only end to the edit war.
Go for it :) I guess you could just say Latin as well. - Beowulf314159 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, technically no -- there is a difference in pronunciation between classical (German pronunciation) Latin and ecclesiastical (Italian pronunciation) Latin. I'll change it to 'classical'.
Classical pronunciation = German pronunciation? Isn't German pronunciation also different from classical? --Muhaha 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it's speculated in several pages that dog Latin might be better? - Beowulf314159 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Accio is correct Latin --Muhaha 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Considering that "Dog Latin" is often "correct" Latin strung together unconjugated or "tensed" you can't tell :) It seems that a lot of the "Latin" in J.K. Rowling's books is "Dog Latin". - Beowulf314159 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Directly from Latin dictionary: "accio -ire -ivi (-ii) -itum [to call , summon]." (remember that the first form means "I summon" and the second (accire) means "to summon") --Muhaha 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Calm down guys :) This particular word is in fact a verified Latin form, although it's pronunciation isn't clear. The points I would make about "dog Latin" are:
  • It does include correct as well as corrupted Latin forms
  • It doesn't have any particular pronunciation, since it's a written rather than a spoken phenomenon
  • Those who spoke or wrote in dog Latin generally had had exposure to ecclesiastical, rather than classical, pronunciation of Latin ("Latin pronunciation" meant "ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation" until about 130 years ago)
  • Most of Ms. Rowling's Harry Potter incantations are probably best classed as "dog Latin"
  • Most importantly, it's impossible (and in many ways meaningless) to say that any single word of correct Latin should or should not be classed as "dog Latin".
Here endeth the lesson ;-P MatthewDBA 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The last point was kinda what I was driving at. - 69.19.14.24 16:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latin and English pronunciation

This is an interesting discussion. Assuming that incantations are in Latin - which they aren't - there are three possible ways to pronounce "accio".

The Oxford school argue that we should pronounce Latin as the Latins did, though it's not clear 'which' Latins (early, late, urban, rural, etc.). In this case it should be /AK-kee-aw/. The "A" might be long, but is probably short. The "O" is as in "Potter", but longer.

The Cambridge school argue that the entrenched English grammar school pronunciation should be continued. In this case it should be /AK-see-oh/ (short "A", long "O").

The Ecclesiastical Music school argue that we should speak Latin as it is now spoken by the Italians in the Vatican. In this case, it should be /AAA-chee-aw/.

(Actually, I might have the Cambridge and Oxford schools the wrong way round).

I do not see any reason why /ASS-ee-oh/ would ever be correct; but as ever I stand to be corrected.

See Wiki : Latin Pronunciation.

OrangUtanUK 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that's the official pronunciation, as given by the Scholastic website. AK-ee-oh is the official pronunciation as given by the Warner Brothers films. And AXS-ee-oh is the official pronunciation as given by the audiobooks (though if this is the American version or the British version, I don't know). Therefore, all three pronunciations have a right and will remain up, unless JKR gives further confirmation. Therequiembellishere 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

After looking at the discussion regarding the article on Horcrux, I started wondering about how much of the "perhaps" speculation on this page might count as "original research". Any ideas? -- MatthewDBA 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you, in theory, I have to wonder as to how practical an attempt to weed out "original research" on this page. It's hard enough weeding out comments tacked on the end like "and then Harry did so-and-so, which proves that pudding is better than cake!". A lot of people edit the Harry Potter pages, and I suspect that not all of them are completely familiar with peer-review journals - or are old enough to drink. I think keeping the comments down to "perhaps" keeps the original research inoffensive and stunted - and might be a good "compromise position" between a Harry Potter fan club discussion, and a strict interpretation of the Wikipedia content guidelines. - Beowulf314159 17:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attn: Tom Marvolo Riddle

Do you have canon sources for the Confundus and Fidelius Charms? If not, we should at least mark them as speculative. -- MatthewDBA 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aguamenti

So, is it Portuguese or Spanish? Given that the words are apparently the same in both languages, is there a reason to pick one over the other? Let's please not get into an edit war over this. -- MatthewDBA 11:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of stone is it anyway?

We just had a number of changes of "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone". "Sorceror's Stone" is a live link, but just redirects to "Philosopher's Stone". Either is acceptable (I suppose one could argue that "Philosopher's Stone" is more acceptable, since that's not a redirect). But I thought we should clear that up before people get into an edit war. -- MatthewDBA 11:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Philosopher's Stone is the author's original title. Sorcerer's Stone is an American 'translation'.

[edit] Arresto Momentum

There was a spell in the third movie that does not appear in this glossary. When the Dementors in the air above a Quidditch match once knocked Harry out and made him fall from his broomstick, Dumbledore called out "Arresto Momentum" just before Harry was to slam into the ground. I can only assume it was meant to stop him before he struck earth. I don't know if it was in the book.

--64.95.49.41 23:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not in the book. The reason Harry wasn't hurt in the book was because it was raining very hard and the ground was soft as a result.--Vercalos 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The notes claim that whether Arresto Momentum is canonical or not is currently disputed...surely this is fairly clearcut..? There's no incantation in the book, so personally I don't think it has a place in this article. Apologies if I've missed a debate somewhere along the line...Libatius 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm keen to remove 'arresto momentum' (and a few others, but this one most of all...) - does anyone object? If there's nothing in a few days, I'll delete it...Libatius 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Hermione report that Dumbledore waved his wand to slow Harry down and then 'shoot silver stuff' at the dementors? However, whether that is accurate or merely film pollution, arresto momentum certainly isn't canonical, so axe the name. Michaelsanders 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"Hermione said in a quaking voice. 'I've never seen him like that before. He ran onto the pitch as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground.'" Michaelsanders 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to stick in the canonical facts: that a spell (Slowing Spell, for want of a better term) is able to slow down a falling person or object. If it is not already there (Quaffle movement?). Does anyone have any objections? Michaelsanders 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea - I just removed the whole thing because I thought it would be easier to start from scratch...Libatius 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be put back. It was clearly in the movie and it was also mentioned in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.246 (talk • contribs)
This list is only for canonical spells. In the books, there was no "Arresto Momentum" incantation at all. It is already listed under "slowing spell" and should be left as canonical as possible. •Malinaccier• T/C 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
AAH! I just put it in...I gotta get rid of it! ZanderX (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colloportus

In the description of this spell, it previously said "The fact that the Death Eaters mentioned above did not just open the sealed doors with Alohomora may indicate complex interactions of Alohomora and Colloportus. It is in fact because the alohomora charm only works on uncharmed doors." This has been changed to "The deatch eaters opened the door with 'ALOHAMORA'" by User:82.5.189.55 on 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

In my edition of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix it says "'Colloportus!' gasped Hermione and the door sealed itself with an odd squelching noise. [...] They were almost there when Harry heard something large and heavy collide with the door Hermione had charmed shut. 'Stand aside!' said a rough voice. 'Alohomora!' As the door flew open, Harry, Hermione and Neville dived under desks." (UK edition, p. 695)

So it seems that doors sealed with Colloportus can indeed be opened by Alohomora. But perhaps (and this could explain why it previously said that these doors could not be opened this way), there is another occurence of Colloportus in the novel around these pages (but I didn't find it), where the Death Eaters are not able to open a sealed door. This could also explain why it says "Neville, Luna and Harry needed to seal doors", whereas in the aforementioned passage it's Hermione, Harry and Neville sealing the door.

Any help on clarifying this would be appreciated. — Sebastian Goll 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the it depends on the wizard's power if he may or may not open a "Colloportused" door with "Alohomora"... an example would be that if a normally experienced wizard like let's say Neville would lock a door with Colloportus and Dumbledore would use Alohomora to open it, he could easily do it, but if it was the opposite, Neville couldnt open it because Dumbledore is way more powerful than Neville... but that's a personal oppinion -- Halyks 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peskipiksi Pesternomi

I want to draw your attention to the spell Peskipiksi Pesternomi. In the notes, it says "In the Chamber of Secrets movie, when Lockhart starts saying the spell one pixie took his wand and then spoke the same incantation, pointing it at a rope holding a creature's skeleton and cut it, releasing the skeleton and making it fall down."

In my opinion, this is not correct. The way I see it, the pixies don't say any spell (they're talking amongst themselves but definitely not saying "Peskipiksi Pesternomi"), they simply touch the chain to the skeleton with Lockhart's wand after taking it from him (who tried to say the spell just before that, but was interrupted by the pixies).

Furthermore, in the German version of the movie, the pixies are saying "Los, hau weg das Ding" (something like "Let's cut it", perhaps someone can give a better retranslation?) while releasing the skeleton. That leaves the possibility of a mistranslation in the German version, but personally I think it's proof that the the pixies are not saying "Peskipiksi Pesternomi" themselves.

Again, any help on clarifying this is appreciated. — Sebastian Goll 07:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember, to be honest... My edit was mostly a copy-edit. I honestly don't remember the pixies saying anything particularly coherent.--Vercalos 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the aforementioned note from Peskipiksi Pesternomi in a few days' time, if there aren't any objections, because I still think that it is not correct (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). -- Sebastian Goll 12:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Notes

This is an article about CANONICAL spells in the world of Harry Potter. Therefore, all references to the effects of spells in movies or games ought to be removed. Wackojacko1138 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, the notes concerning the Harry Potter films and video games should be preserved. You are right, this is a list of canonical spells, but in my opinion this only tells us that all spells mentioned on this list should have occured in the books in the first place (which is the case). The "notes" merely give a reference from the spells to their respective occurences in film and video game. It's quite interesting to note how specific spells were shown and/or interpreted in film/video game, and this list is (again, my opinion) the perfect place for such a comparison. (The alternative, i.e. putting these references on the non-canonical list, is not practicable in my opinion, because you'd have to mention spells twice, on the canonical list and on the non-canonical list, thus possibly confusing the reader.) — Sebastian Goll 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, we'd only mention spells from the books here, and make notes of movie usages as applicable?--Vercalos 09:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that's correct. Compare the introduction to the article: "This article is about specific canonical spells which are those spells that are specifically mentioned and/or 'demonstrated' in the novels, or other writings of J. K. Rowling, [...]." So, if I interpret this correctly, we should mention only canonical spells (as above) on this list, and place a note whenever a spell has been reinterpreted in one of the films or video games (e.g. Orchideous). On the other hand, spells that never occured in one of the books and were invented for either film or video game, should only occur on the non-canonical list (compare "[...], as opposed to non-canonical spells which appear only in the movies or games." and "Non-canonical spells are those spells that are mentioned only in the films, video games or other media, but not the novels.") — Sebastian Goll 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 'Reducto'

Can anyone provide a source to show that 'reductio' is a genuine Latin verb, meaning to reduce? Surely it's from 'reduco' which has the supine 'reductum' from which we get 'reduction' in English, but the Latin literally means 'to lead back', although the connection isn't hard to make...And the combination of 'c' and 't' (reduCTio) is almost unheard of in the present tense. Just checking before I delete it. Libatius 09:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"reducio, reducĕre, reduxi, reductum". —18:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't this thing kill like if close enough to somebody, cause I know Avad Kedavra is not the only killing curse.

[edit] Reducing unwieldiness

The name "Canonical spells in the world of Harry Potter" is massive and rather redundant. The article was originally renamed this as a part of a larger naming system, but that basis has been somewhat lost due to other renamings. I'm planning to move this to "Spells in Harry Potter" or "List of Harry Potter spells", and the counterpart to "Noncanonical spells in Harry Potter" or similar - are there any objections? --Kizor

Well, I don't object. "Spells in Harry Potter" (or even "Canonical spells in Harry Potter" is better than what we have now! Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with this move that has just happened is that at WikiProject Harry Potter we just finished fixing links that linked to List of spells in Harry Potter, which was moved to Canonical spells in the world of Harry Potter to distinguish from the non-canonical. Can we just move this to Canonical spells in Harry Potter, because there still is the page Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter. I think taking out the "the world of" cuts down its massiveness but still preserves the effect. What do we think? --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

I've deleted Spells in Harry Potter as a csd request to make room for a page move of this page. If concensus for this is not met, please recreate the Spells in Harry Potter as a redirect to here, or request undeletion (it was only a redir though). — xaosflux Talk 14:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Xaosflux. There should not be a problem. --Kizor 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress marks

I was going to start moving all the IPA stress marks to their correct places, until I saw this discussion page. Now I just want to shout that you're a load of useless bloody loonies. Typical masturbating Wikipedian clueless pedantic idiots. What a pile of ludicrous rubbish this site is. Shee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.72.92 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comments. They'd be very welcome, but most of them are irrelevant and uncivil and likely to harm the feelings of others. However, as wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" feel free to put the IPAs in their correct places. The "idiots" that moderate this page would be glad for some help to keep it free of vandalism and being a "pile of ludicrous rubbish". ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split up the article?

Given the article's length, it might be appropriate to split it into sub-articles, in a similar manner to List of gay people. Just to make this explicitly clear, I'm not implying any homosexuality of anyone present or anything in the article, but providing an example of how I think the article should be divided, should it be divided.--Vercalos 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually think this is a pretty good idea. This page is awfully long. Thoughts? GlassCobra 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See article split at the bottom of the page for a more up to date discussion of article splitting. Thanks! •Malinaccier• T/C 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conjunctivi-TUS/TIS?

Since "conjunctivitus" is a common misspelling of the correct "conjunctivitis", I was going to change Conjunctivitus Curse to Conjunctivitis Curse, but then I realized that it might be intentional.

A Google search isn't helping (both versions of the curse get about the same number of hits) and I don't have any references I can consult at the moment.

Can anyone check this? Intentional or Typo? Mip | Talk 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ConjuncitvitUs curse, as per [HP4], p353 Br. Edition. I think that's the only mention, so we can't check in another book. I think that is the right spelling, though, as it has the commonplace "-us" suffix. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced spells

Is it just me, or are there a lot of spells here that don't belong in the article?--Vercalos 23:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, loads. It's getting ridiculous...Libatius 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Examples please. All of these spells are mentioned in the books. Then again it could be useful to split up the spells for which we have incantations and those for which we don't. Rpeh 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accio

The Summoning Spell entry states that: "To summon an object, one must know where it is." Is there a canonical source for this? Didn't Harry try to summon the Horcrux at the end of the Half Blood Prince, without knowing where it was? risk 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I put that in, and am now rather annoyed about it. I thought I remembered Rowling saying something like, "You can't use it to find lost items because you need to know where they are." However, the best I can find is a Lexicon essay ([1]) which argues the same point, but has no backup. I think I'll remove it (unless anyone can source Rowling saying that - I was convinced that she had).Michaelsanders 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've read that too (but I can't source it either...). But even if she did say that, the fact that Molly Weasley manages to summon all of the sweets Fred and George try and smuggle out of the house on the way to the Quidditch World Cup would suggest, perhaps, that she doesn't always stick to the rule...Libatius 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite - as indeed appears to be the case in the Horcrux incident. At any rate, unless someone can source it, it will have to remain out of the article (I originally added it thinking it was effectively 'common wisdom' - since I can find neither article or quote, and one person has audibly questioned the idea, it clearly isn't). Which I am rather peeved about. As for apparent contradictions: I'm sure they could be explained if 'can't find lost items' was indeed canonical, but with no evidence, it would be rather pointless. Michaelsanders 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hermione summoned Horcrux books at the beginning of HP7. She didn't know where they were. 88.111.25.194 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immobulus

Well, I'll admit to not understanding when someone first added the Immobulus spell, why it was immediately deleted. So I re-read the article... *light dawns*

In an effort to slow down the well-meaning contributors, I've added a hidden comment under "I" requesting that users not add the Immobulus spell. Maybe that will help. Well done list, btw. --Snicker|¥°€| 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slug vomiting

Right then... Ron was definitely trying to cast a spell - "Ron plunged his hand into his robes, pulled out his wand, yelling, 'You'll pay for that one, Malfoy!' and pointed it furiously under Flint's arm at Malfoy's face." Okay, definitely trying to cast a spell. Definitely no spoken incantation (unless 'you'll pay for that one, Malfoy!' is the incantation).

The spell backfires, as happens on only one other occasion - when Lockhart uses obliviate. Indeed, when does the wand do anything like that by accident? Blows smoke instead of working, but it doesn't decide to cast spells on its own.

But you think it 'might be a random spell effect caused by Ron's broken wand'. Well, if we use the sources, we see: "'I don't think there's anything to do except wait for it to stop...That's a difficult curse to work at the best of times, but with a broken wand...'" i.e. she knows the curse Ron has used, she knows it's complex, and she knows that with a broken wand, it couldn't have worked properly. And how can you describe a 'backfire' as a 'random spell effect'? - there is a difference between the spell coming out through the wrong end, and the wand choosing to enact an entirely different spell. Michaelsanders 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enervate

I have to confess I thought the English word enervate meant enliven or invigorate, and there's a usage note on Dictionary.com for this word that points out that this is a common misconception (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enervate). Does anybody else think it's possible JKR made the same mistake here? Is it worth mentioning in the article? Or are my fellow illiterates and I just stupid? Rpeh 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an English word called ennervate, let alone any synonyms. Besides, the spell has been officially renamed (and sourced) as Rennervate. I don't think it requires mentioning. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 11:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] barty crouch jr. as alastor moody used portus

to turn the triwizrd cup in to a port key and although it dosent directly say that it is known he did i mean who else would make the triwizard cup a port key to the graveyard where tom marvolo riddle's fathers bones lie and tom is there ready waiting for harry to come there or is that just a coincedence that voldermort was there and thats where voldermort's fathers bones lie because i for one am quite sure that he used portus

True, but we don't need every reference to every spell. Expelliarmus alone would be several pages long! Also, signing your posts with four tildes (~) can be helpful; it allows everyone to know that you've been here asking a question. If you are a registered user we can also reply to your personal talkpage. For more info, see WP:SIGN. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 11:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown Curses

What was that one charm/spell/curse that Dubledore used in Harry Potter 5 movie when he winks, claps his hands, and Fawkes swoops over him and the two are gone in a red blast. Is that real or was that made up for the movie. Also what was that one curse at the end of Harry Potter 5 movie when Dumbledore and Voldemort are dueling and Voldemort absorbs all of the magical energy and begins to suck it in as everything moves closer to him and then he shoots it out and everyone goes flying and all of the glass shatters. Does anyone know what these two spells are cause I have know idea. I was wondering if we should mention any of these in the article. ManofSTEEL2772

It's in the book, and it is neither a charm nor a spell nor a curse. It is just extorting the Phoenix's power to magically transport itself. The wink is to let Harry know that everything will be OK and to Dumbledore this is just a game (or so I interpreted it), and the clap is to summon the bird (or so I think). The red blast comes from Fawkes' own powers. The spell used by Voldy at the end is in the article, under (Lord Voldemort's Shield), although the director has obviously interpreted it in such a way that the glass shatters. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thats cool. Thanks for clearing that up. ManofSTEEL2772

[edit] Flipendo

In the first four Harry Potter video games it was the main spell. it desirves inclusion eventhough it isn't real.

You said it yourself. It isn't real. Futhermore, we are are only including spells from the books, or canon. If you wish to help please see the to-do list at the top of this talk page. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] False Memory Charm

Is this not just a strong Obliviate charm? I don't want a whole paragraph in the article, but would like to reach a consensus. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it may be related, but it definitely is a seperate spell.Malinaccier 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
But is it ever referred to as a false memory charm? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince P. 367 line 17: ". . . .Then he returned to the Gaunt hovel, performed the complex bit of magic that would implant a false memory in his Uncle's mind, laid Morfin's wand. . ." In all the other cases, the obliviate charm just wipes the memory. This just writes over the memory with a new one. •Malinaccier• 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. It stays. Good work finding the quote, too. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this in an interview.

Laura Trego: Did hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm
J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents’ memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people.

Further proof that the charms are different; the original can be found here: [2]. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why haven't we added any spells starting with 'G'? Is there are particular reason?

http://www.mugglenet.com/info/other/spells.shtml is a good resource, it has two spells. I don't know if we're allowed to use that info, but I assume we can, considering that it's all in relation to the book...

I added the sections for the two G-spells. I didn't manage to make a "Seen/Mentioned" section, as I'm not totally sure where they've been used. I speculate that the Gripping Charm was introduced in Quidditch Through the Ages, due to its description, but I'm not sure. As for the other one, it's very broad so I'm not at all sure where it was first used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ISAYsorry (talk • contribs) .


We just never came across any spells starting with 'G'. The Gripping Charm is from Quidditch through the ages, but I couldn't find any reference to the Growth Charm in the books. Don't forget to sign your posts. •Malinaccier• 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drought Charm

I haven't been able to find a reference to any Drought Charm in the books, leaving me to believe it is non-canonical. Has anyone else seen it in the books? •Malinaccier• 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is never specifically stated as such. Furthermore, it has only two lines of text and is not given a first mention. I think this meets the criteria for deletion off the list, yes? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it then! •Malinaccier• 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Transfiguration

Should we include human transformation (animagi, Harry's eyebrow color change, Krum's partial animagus transformation)? •Malinaccier• 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Would we not need a spell for that? They are likely to be various spells; we cannot call it (Human Transfiguration Spell). I find it unlikely that you can use the same spell to change the colour of your eyebrows and turn into a shark. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
We could just add it under a category Human Transfiguration. It would be a minor and easy formatting change. . .If you would agree, I could add it. Also, we should add appartion to the list, because you need your wand to apparate (as stated by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) •Malinaccier• 18:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Apparition is now clearly an example of non-verbal magic. I'm still not sure about the Human Transfig. section. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I finished the book in about 10 hours, and I got on this page to edit all the spells I had bookmarked around about 2 and a half hours later to find that many of the spells from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had already been added. Because I have marked all new spells and magical references in the final book, I believe that I should be able to complete the list in only a few hours. For each new spell I have decided to add this HTML warning: <!--DO NOT EDIT THIS SPELL UNTIL YOU HAVE !!FULLY!! COMPLETED HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS!!!!!!--> This should stay up for at least two weeks, maybe longer. I will post on this page when I have completed every new spell from The Deathly Hallows. •Malinaccier• 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have finished every spell in the final book. We should now discuss how to break up the article. •Malinaccier• 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the warnings seem a little informal. We could essentially have that on every spell, because the type of vandalisms you are expecting occur regularly on the other spells. Are they still there? ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the Section Edit buttons broken?

Most of the Edit (section) links edit a completely different section than the one they're attached to. THIS SUCKS. How does it get FIXED? 68.123.29.195 02:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Might be your browser or something... I'm not a very technical person. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article split

Now that we have all of the new spells from the Deathly Hallows, we need to split the article. I would suggest splitting into A through D, E through H, etc. We can't sort the kind of spells in any other usefull way. Once we decide on a way to split the page, we should wait for at least two weeks to tweak up the page, and the newest spells. •Malinaccier• 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will take some time to have the new spells up to the standard of the old ones. For the redirects, this page should be the first page (A-whatever), and have listings from there. However, it may cause people to think that the split is to allow more room for the rubbish we've been removing over the past week or so. (Just a thought). ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it would just give people a larger incentive to add uneeded info. It would also make the article harder to patrol for vandalism. We will have to discuss this in further detail once the vandalism dies off. •Malinaccier• 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a downside in the article's large size. It's still smaller than a great deal of our images, and handily navigable - moreso than split articles would be - by the horizontal table of contents. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with policy regarding long pages (and have a bit of a healthy disrespect for the rules anyway...) --Kizor 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)