Talk:Spells in Harry Potter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

01 – 02 – 03 – Archive 05

Past discussions:

Archive 1: Discussions from December 2005 to August 2007

(See bottom of page for decision to archive)

Harry's Spell is NOT a spell at all

The spell "Harry's Spell" is not a spell, it is an effect of Harry's Wand and a freak of nature series of events from Lord Voldemort and Harry. I propose this spell to be wiped from the article, and will wait 24 hours for anyone to reply to this with either agreement or disagreement before taking any action.--Problematik 22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but went with it because I was unsure. Go for it. •Malinaccier• 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your concern, and even though talk pages can be incredibly fun (I sure think so, and I love this one!), Jimbo's original wiki-policies included BE BOLD! To be honest, I never thought it should be there either. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a spell, it should be listed elsewhere, it was not a Priori Incatatem, but it was kinda a consequence of it wasn't it? If it is then it should be noted as a possible consequence of it. I'd like to consider it a spell, because even though it is "an effect of Harry's Wand and a freak of nature series of events from Lord Voldemort and Harry", the effect per se is the fact Harry's wand reacted to Voldemort regardless of there being no twin cores interaction, if it had cast any other spell, from Alohomorra to Avada Kedavra, it would still be a spell anyway, it just happened to be one that we hadn't seen up to that point. 201.53.128.157 23:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I kind of thought that it was really a plot device to get Harry to survive Voldemort again. Just one of the criticisms I had with the book, that he didn't know what it was or how it happened and he never did. Therefore, we don't know what it was or how it happened and most of the stuff on this page would be speculation. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to leave it open? I mean, there are other matters (such as the Perevell and Slytherin relation through Marvolo) which are laid out as 'this and this, though it's possible that it was that'. I see nothing wrong with putting it as 'Golden Flame Spell'(Or Harry's Spell, like it was before) with a note: 'possibly a reaction between Harry's wand and Voldemort as a lasting effect of the Priori Incatatem'. A penny for you thoughts. 189.4.231.131 01:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't an effect of the Priori Incatatem. Voldemort was using Lucius's wand, so the Priori Incatatem wouldn't happen. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But it was an after affect of it, Dumbledore explains it at the end, it made Harry's wand react strongly against Voldemort, regardless of the wand Voldemort uses, see pages 569 and 570 of British verson of Deathly Hallows. When Harry's and Voldemort's went against each other at the Graveyard, Voldemort's wand lost the "battle of wills" between the wands, because of Harry's courage, thus making it reproduce shadows of the last spells it performed, but also, it gave Harry's wand a bit of "Voldemort's own deadly skill", which coupled with Harry's courage, was more than Lucius wand could handle, due having Voldemort's power in it, it reacted to him even though he was using another wand, cause it recognized him.189.4.231.131 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The strange effect is almost certainly because there was high-level meddling with basic magic law by Voldemort, Lily Potter, and Harry Potter. Voldemort put it in motion by splitting up his soul and creating horcruxes. Lily invoked sacrificial love-magic to save Harry, which made Harry a horcrux and gave him incredible anti-Voldemort protection. Voldemort meddled with that part, seeing only the power of the blood-sacrifice as a protective measure in his own body. Then the dual-core paradox hit them both, and Harry won that duel. It might be guessed that Voldemort's yew wand realized it had been beaten by Harry Potter, but still worked well for Voldemort because there was a bit of Harry in him.

Voldemort's greatest weakness in magic is a basic lack of understanding of fundamental magic law... physics of magic if you will. Of all of them, the simple concept that the wand chooses the wizard didn't sink in at all. By the time of their final battle, Harry knew Voldemort was going to lose, because the Elder wand had picked him. It's why the Crucio curse had no effect on Harry - perhaps the wand knew Harry wanted it to fake it. As far as why Harry's wand acted like it did early in book seven, Voldemort had a bit of Harry in him, and Harry had a bit of Voldemort in him, and with that kind of connection via the horcrux-scar, Harry's wand knew exactly Voldemort was up to. It simply locked onto the target (Voldemort), and blew up Lucius's wand in self-defense. It might even have been because Voldemort created powerful charms around himself to ward off a direct attack on his person.

The problem being, this is all Original Research, and although it certainly sounds believable it cannot be proven and the wand backfire cannot be included. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mine isn't, I gave book references to the explanation. 189.4.251.190 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how can you prove that the wand effect happened because Harry was a Horcrux? How can you prove the cruciatus curse didn't affect him because he was the true master of the wand? It may seem logical but it cannot be taken as fact. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I only argued about the golden flames being a spell which was cast as a result of Harry's courage and Voldemort's deadly skill, after effect of the Priori Incantatem, not the Horcrux relation between them. Those bits have been mentioned in the book as a possible, logical explanation by one of it's greatest minds, Dumbledore. 201.37.226.89 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything you put into an article about a fictional book, unless you publish it in some other forum (not very likely), is going to be "original research" unless you stick to verbatim quotes and paraphrases, which in this case is horribly inadequate because the book is so terse on this subject. I think that everything 189 said is valid, and that OR shouldn't prevent it. I think there was a rule somewhere about not allowing posted policies to limit content, that they were guidelines that could be selectively enforced at the discretion of the community. Here, I argue for an exemption. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Harry's spell definitely isn't a spell at all...more of an interesting effect of two wizard's journey into the physics of magic. Gaget654321 02:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Meteolojinx Recanto

We need to decide whether Meteolojinx Recanto is the incantation or merely the spell. I believe it is the name of the spell, because in the book, "Meteolojinx recanto" is not in italics, as all incantations are. •Malinaccier• 00:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that is my belief also. It should have paranthesi --> ( ) around the name, if they are not there already. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We should get this page semi-protected, because I believe that the IP is using sock-puppets. Any edits to Meteolojinx Recanto, referring to the incantation, will be reverted as vandalism. Thanks all! •Malinaccier• 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in italics at britanic Deathly Hallows | EDIT: Yeah, I did mean British version, sorry!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.90.50 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean the British edition? Well... so it is, too. Scrap my last comment,

Malinaccier, it SHOULD BE INCLUDED. Guess this shows we all need to check everything, and not rely on what we assume!! ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In the American version it is not italicized (I just re-re-re-checked it), and I didn't want to accidentally include false information. If it is in italics in the British edition, then I'm fine with the change. I owe those IPs an apology. Sorry guys! •Malinaccier• 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Do you like my newest to-do list at the top? =D

I personally believe that Metelojinx Recanto is the Atmospheric Charm...just like Inanitmus Conjurus is an Conjuring Spell...lets be smart Harry Potter experts here! Metelo- is the same as meterology which is the study of the weather and the atmosphere! Recanto means recall...just put "Atmospheric Charm" in parentheses and question mark next to it! GOD everybody else can tell it's the Atmospheric Charm why can't you all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.140.244 (talk • contribs)

I see where you're coming from. But - and correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Mr. Weasley suggest the Metelojinx Recanto to cancel the Atmospheric Charm? I'd check but my book has been ~~stolen~~ borrowed by my father. Also, try and keep the profanity/blaspheming/whatever to a minimum in these posts, and remember to sign with four tildes (~~~~) ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the American version, and The Dark Lord Trombonator is right. It is not THE Atmospheric Charm, but a counter-spell to it. The American version has been known to differ from the others(see above), so someone needs to back me up. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Br. Edition Deathly Hallows, Ch. 12 ("Magic is Might"), page 201.

"...something's gone wrong with an Atmospheric Charm, which will be more difficult to fix, [said Hermione]."

On page 210, Mr. Weasley says,

"Did you try meteolojinx recanto? It worked for Bletchley."

I think we can now maintain that Meteolojinx Recanto is a counter-charm for the Atmospheric Charm. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw Nutz!

I added "Periculum" as a matter of course, but cannot verify that it is cannon, as I don't have a copy of GOF to refer to. Could someone please go back and re-read the chapter having to do with the third task, and see if it is indeed there? If not, then I'm not against removal / reversal. Edit Centric 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, its only in the film. The book just describes it as "red sparks [from] the wand". As per the discussion at the top of the page, it should not be included. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sectumsempra

The article said that the sectumsempra spell was impossible to heal. But Snape healed Malfoy, at least partially, when Harry used it on him in Halfblood Prince (page 489). Is this a special spell known only to Snape or was it a more minor wound?Beligaronia 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I remember it said later that Dumbledore healed himself with the same spell (at the cave wall that wanted the blood), so not only Snape knew it; nor was it a counter-curse of some kind. Possibly, it was minor due to Harry's inability to "mean it", or it is healable. And - perhaps this is a later version of the article I am viewing, but - the article states the spell is not impossible to heal, but "Wounds caused by this wand also apparently cannot be properly healed." I would be inclined to removed that sentence, as "apparently" indicates speculation, in violation of WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL (which are essentially the same thing anyway, but it makes for easier tracking down of policy). ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but there's an herbal remedy that, from my understanding, is effective at treating Sectumsempra wounds. IIRC, Snape says in HBP that Draco's wounds from Harry's attack need to be treated with it quickly, and Hermione uses it at one point in DH. I'm not where I can get to the books at the moment to verify by page #, but that's what I remember. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be dittany. You may add it to the article if you like! Be Bold! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

forehead smack* Thank you! Now, if I just had an anti-Obliviate I could cast on myself... Willbyr (talk | contribs) 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Dittany to Plants in Harry Potter --80.175.250.218 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disillusionment Charm

Isn't it mentioned in the Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore wouldn't need an Invisibily Cloak because he can produce a Disillusionment Charm so strong that he becomes totally invisible? The description of the spell says that it changes colour without making invisible. Perhaps it should be added to the description that if powerful enough, the charm can effectively make the individual invisible? 70.81.106.135 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for me. 201.53.128.157 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

His spell does not make him entirely invisible, it only makes him harder to see than it would if another witch or wizard cast the spell. •Malinaccier• 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Muggle Repelling Charm

Under R or M? There is a tag saying not to move, I don't know who put it there or why - thought it might have been you Malinaccier, in your large "DO NOT EDIT TILL YOU HAVE READ HP7" spree? Or was it an IP? I tried to check the history but it was too far back and I couldn't locate the culprit. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You can put it under R, and it was me. . .I just was trying to stop the IPs. They would put Repello Muggletum under R and leave the muggle repelling charm. (they would duplicate the spell). It's up to you really. •Malinaccier• 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiendfyre in movie 5

There is a scene in the Order of the Phoenix movie, where Voldemort creates some fire, which takes the form of a large serpent that attacks Dumbledore. I think it fits the description of Fiendfyre very well. I know movie 5 came out before book 7, where Fiendfyre is mentioned the first time; perhaps the movie's creators unintentionally invented a similar spell. But still, I think it might be mentioned in the article. - Don golgi 09:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is only for canonical spells (spells used only in the Harry Potter books). We do not need any references to the movies here, but I think you could help the page Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter! •Malinaccier• 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The link from the Horcruxes page points to Fiendfyre. However, the UK book and Stephen Fry audiobook refer to "Phoenix Fire," and Crabbe's spell is not actually named.

Clarification on pronunciation?

I added various missing IPA pronunciations in my edits. However, as I'm no expert in IPA, especially in representing English, I'm not sure if I'm 100% correct.

On that note, could someone clarify the pronunciation of "confundo" specifically? Perhaps due to my exposure to the Romance languages in recent years, I usually pronounce it /kʌn.ˈfun.do/, but the English phonetic transcription seems to imply /kʌn.ˈfʌn.do/, which sounds unusual to me, even though it does seem appropriate English pronunciation. Are there any official sources? (For now, I've listed the latter.)

As for "Crucio"—would my pronunciation of /ˈkɹu.ʃio/ be technically incorrect?

Deprimo—wouldn't the stress be on the second syllable? I'm confident enough that I've changed it, but for the record, it was originally listed as "DEH-prih-moh" (no IPA pronunciation at the time).

Also, what of meteolojinx recanto? There's this comment: "IN THE BOOK HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, THE NAME OF THE SPELL WAS NOT ITALICIZED, SO IT WAS NOT THE INCANTATION. In the british version of the book it is italicized." Which book should be considered authoritative, then? I'd go with the British version, myself ...

I've tried to copy-edit this article somewhat and add/fix IPA pronunciations where needed—didn't get through the whole article though. Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, which is both valuable and a rare skill among editors. And what with the Sorcerer's Stone and JKR being British, I'd steer away from the US book. --Kizor 05:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Obscuro

Does Obscuro really create blindfolds only? I was under the impression that Hermione merely used it to paint on Phineas's portrait. Since Hermione painted a blindfold on, it became part of the him, so he couldn't take it off. Just a theory.--Max Talk (add) 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it fairly obvious that it obscures one's vision? It has absolutely nothing to do with paint! Therequiembellishere 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I really think semi-protection is needed due to all the vandalism by anons, this would cut it down a whole lot. It also would help because I don't wanna break the 3-R rule. Therequiembellishere 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested this page be semi-protected, but was denied. Maybe you will have better luck. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

POST NON-CANON DELETION

Okay, we need to think of a course of action now that the non-canon spells page has been deleted. Do we allow the non-canon spells onto this page? Without somewhere else to post them, we're going to get even more people adding them to this page than before. Post your thoughts. GlassCobra 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

At least there are real-life books about Harry Potter magic, so this page shouldn't be in danger...

I have the page so I'll transfer it if everyone agrees. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need many of the non-canon spells. Wikipedia isn't a "completeness" guide. If people add the non-canon to this article: tell them not to, and move on. We shouldn't add them all, in the worry of people just randomly adding them whenever. Being paranoid about the matter doesn't help things at all, in my opinion. From what I can see: most of the non-canon spells appear briefly in the video games. That's not worth a mention: as most movie games aren't that notable. Harry Potter being a popular subject doesn't instantly make all the Harry Potter games more notable. So to sum my thoughts up: some of the non-canon spells (that aren't in the video games) could be listed, but that's all the article needs. RobJ1981 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's actually an article for the non-canon. It's at Non-canon spells in Harry Potter. That said, we dont' need any non-canon spells here at all. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, with that said, the article was deleted several hours ago. I still prefer this article with no non-canon spells in it. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have the code, I think they should be here, so we have two people saying "Yes" and two people saying "No". Therequiembellishere 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have the canonical spells where they are and put the non-canonical spells further down the page. That way, they won't be mixed, and we won't have to identify them as (non)canon throughout the article! Therequiembellishere 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. All the spells aren't notable and this article shouldn't be cluttered with information that was deleted when it was an article. Video game spells show very little notability (as I said before, which no one replied about). RobJ1981 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all articles, lists are not about notability! We might as well delete all minor spells (WHICH WE WILL NOT). Therequiembellishere 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All articles are about notability, so don't make up garbage just to jam a deleted article into this one. RobJ1981 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This page has traditionally been only for canonical spells in Harry Potter. Non-canonical spells, especially those from the games, are not notable at all. The Non-canonical Spells in Harry Potter was deleted because of this lack of notability. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But they still exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.27.137 (talk • contribs)

This is because Therequiembellishere put them onto his page =D •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Slug-Vomiting Curse

Okay, nobody has really addressed this and answered so I'll give it a shot.

I believe that Eat Slugs is the incantation, but have been taking it away with all of you to not go against the community. My reasons for this are:

JKR has proven that she can use pure English words as spells. Most notably, the widely accepted (canon) spell Pack and the (non-canon) spell Rose Growth.
The arguments of the curse being nonverbal a laughable. Ron was still twelve when he cast the spell. At sixteen, Ron was having extreme difficulty with nonverbal spells. This spell was clearly cast perfectly, it was just the wand which backfired against him. Ron did start throwing up slugs, which was obviously the intention, so nonverbal is out.
His first sentence, "You'll pay for that one, Malfoy!" was clearly not the spell. The next two words were written entirely separate from that. Though he did add a "Malfoy" at the end, that sentence must hold the incantation, as I have previously stated, Ron couldn't possibly use such a perfect spell without one.
Finally, (I think I had more, which I'll post as soon as they come back to me) I realise that one of the major factors of a spell are that they are in italics. However, as we know from GoF's infamous little incident and from Meteolojinx Recanto, she can make mistakes. Though, I do know that she has never put any other editions with the words in italics.

Those are my reasons, so hopefully, you guys'll respond and we can have real clarification--unless JKR gives another incantation. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the GoF incident? I like to think that the wand exploded by itself. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know? O-ho-ho! I have a copy somewhere in the house, but the gist of it is, in her original version (that was sent out!) she had James come out first saying "Your mother's coming, Harry". This caused HUGE controversy because people thought it meant James died after Lily. However, it was all a mistake that was soon rectified. It was fun while it lasted though. Therequiembellishere 08:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that. I thought it was spell related. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just mentioning the mistake, but it sort of was. My theory was that Priori Incantatem was more random than they thought, and my friend thought it was a time-portal. WE were silly. :-P Therequiembellishere 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a real say on the topic? Therequiembellishere 15:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Petrificustotalus

I have 3 reverts on this, so I can't change the article -- but could someone please put the removed spells back, and see if we can start a discussion as to why they were removed? Just because we don't know the incantation doesn't mean they don't have one, so I don't understand the user's reasoning for removing them. Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

As far as I can tell the etymology aspects of the article are origional research. Whilst the origins of the words may appear obvious, without a source they are just assumptions or speculation. Is their any reliable, independant secondary source which suggests origins? [[Guest9999 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]

They're sort of original research, but they're also fairly obvious. I think we should leave them. Therequiembellishere 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they're completely origional research (unless there is some source I am unaware of - which there may well be). I do think they add to the article but I think that there should at least be a discussion of how it might not be a violation of policy. 81.178.79.223 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Can't we make an exception? Like you said, they really ad to the article. Therequiembellishere 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm personnaly not going to delete them but I also wouldn't revert if soemone else did. Are there any references anywhere to J.K. Rowling saying that she based the spell names on Latin (or any other language). Have any commentaries written on Harry Potter mentioned it. Maybe a language department at a University (or some other institution) has proposed etymologies for the words and they could be mentioned in the article through that. There may well be a source out there somewhere. [[Guest9999 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]

I have no problem with them. The bulk of the entries are in intelligible Latin, and the original form of a foreign language together with an editor's translation is acceptable for references, which are far more important things. Some others are in other languages, such as Greek or even archaic English, and the rest tend to be... obvious. It doesn't cheapen our ideals much to note that "Conjunctivitus" is likely a reference to conjunctivitis. There are a few "could also be taken to mean"s around, Latin often doesn't map 1:1 to English. OR was originally brought in to combat crackpot science theories, anyway. --Kizor 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Accio/Other pronunciation

Recent browsing brought me here, and we can finally correct the pronunciation to Accio and other hard to pronounce spells. http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation.htm •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article already mentions that pronunciation. Interestingly, the pronunciation given in that website differs from the film an the audiobooks. I don't think you can really say that any is the "true" pronunciation. -Hemidemisemiquaver 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(Anon.) :The Scholastic pronounciation guide could be considered the "official U.S." version. Differences will obviously remain between the Scholastic guide and the audiobooks by Stephen Fry and Jim Dale, as well as from the Latin roots of the spells.

It also pronounces He Who Must Not Be Named, after coaxing the mouse button three times as "Vol-Da-More" (silent 't'). This is the same as Jim Dale pronounced it for the first book or so before beginning to pronounce the last syllable as "Mort", yet the scholastic website still uses "More", so I don't know how much the website can be trusted, even if it is the publisher of the US edition. The movies pronounce it "Mort" and though we don't always consider them canon, I think such a major character's name was confirmed by Jo. Valley2city 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has been addressed on Voldemort's page. It is officially pronounced VOL-da-mor because this is how JKR pronounces it. Only a few people actually pronounce it this way. If his name actually does come from French and it is "vol de mort", then the "t" is definitely silent. Therequiembellishere 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While the Latin pronunciation of "Accio" is accurate, it doesn't sit well upon my ears. I've always preferred, where they "sound better" (as a result of personal preference) to use more of an Italian pronunciation, especially with this particular spell. Doesn't have a meaning in Italian, mind you, and it really doesn't add _greatly_ to the discussion, but it's an option that I think hasn't been discussed. As Rowling is the author, and Scholastic merely the U. S. publisher, I think we'll be in the dark about hard-to-pronounce spells until we her Rowling herself pronounce them. Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.97.131 (talk) 08:00, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Narcissa Malfoy's jinx

It is my belief that Narcissa Mlafoy's jinx is a Revulsion Jinx used by Hermione in DH. The reasons for this are: 1. It states that Narcissa Malfoy's jinx makes the person holding them get hurt and so make them let go. In Deathly Hollows, hermione makes Yaxley let go with a Revulsion Jinx, and it is further stated that "there was a scream..."(Canadian edition Chpt. 13, pg. 220, line 13) Therefore it is probable that Yaxley let go from getting hurt by the Revulsion Jinx. 2. They both force the person holding on to let go. Also, may I state that a Stinging Hex causes a welt as shown in OotP? Therefore the current definition in Wikipedia cannot be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRhyu (talk • contribs)

We do not know whether the scream came from Yaxley being jinxed, or just because he was angry that he was forced to let go, or some other reason. It might not even have been Yaxley screaming, but someone else. I think we should leave it, but we should get at least a few other people to comment on this. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NOR -Hemidemisemiquaver 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive page

I think we need to archive many of the past discussions on this talk page. I will archive them if I can get a consensus on which discussions should be taken out (if not all of them). I suggest we take out everything and start from scratch. Thanks! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think everything above "Harry's Spell is NOT a spell at all" has been finished. Also, I got the page semi-protected for 10 days, so we can hopefully root out most of the vandalism before then. Therequiembellishere 16:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone second the motion to archive everything above "Harry's Spell is NOT a spell at all?" •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do. But I'm not sure this counts ^^ Therequiembellishere 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait for The Dark Lord Trombonator to get on overnight: he lives in New Zealand. . .I think. He's one of the few others who care about the fate of this article =D. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I live in New Zealand, Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud... and I'm touched that you think of me in such a way. I think that the "Harry's Spell" debate is an interesting one, and new visitors to the page may have an opinion. We should archive the first 39 items on the talk page (i.e. from the very top of the list up through and including "Article Split"). So, yes, I support the decision to archive above "Harry's Spell". THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K. then! Archiving shortly! With all the supports, I feel like I'm on the RFA page =D. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge article?

It has been suggested that Spells in Harry Potter is not notable and should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter). I disagree mainly because the page Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) states this:

Notable topics

Topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) are covered in the article on that work of fiction, with two exceptions:

If these concepts are by themselves notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment; this shows that the information is notable enough to stand on its own. However, the material should be well organized; excessive sub-articles lead to disorganization and unbalanced coverage.

Although the sub-article may be kept if is there is a clear availability of real-world information, please do not create sub-articles until this material is added.

Obviously, Spells in Harry Potter meets the first criteria. We could not merge the page with Magic (Harry Potter), because this page is well organized, and it is longer than the article it has been proposed to merge with. As far as I can see, there is no reason to merge the article at all. My vote: oppose. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Defining notability for fiction (the section above the items you quoted), which states that a topic within a fictional universe is notable if it contains substantial real-world content. Real world content is stuff like merchandise, concept/creation, reception/criticism, and other information about the topic relating to the real world. — Deckill er 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read it, and I have done a little more research, and have found that the Manual of Style states in regards articles that are in-universe:

"If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the {{In-universe}} template to bring the issue to the attention of others. Be sure to leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your objections."

It says nothing about "merging the page" •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF describes the approach to writing articles after their notability is established, as is mentioned in WAF's lead. — Deckill er 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Drastically Strong Oppose This is dumb, if we merge the spells in, we might as well merge the horcruxes and the deathly hallows in too. Therequiembellishere 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've placed merge tags on the entire category. Please fine real-world information to establish notability of these plot elements outside of the work so that they do not consist of just plot summary. Interviews, google news, and findarticles.com are good sources. — Deckill er 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to cite http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/spells/index.htm for every single spell?? This seems unrealistic, and time wasting. We could always use {{HP1}} {{HP2}} {{HP3}} (^[HP1] ^[HP2] ^[HP3]) etc. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That helps to cite the fictional-world information (and it's fine as a reference at the bottom; there's no need to cite it every spell). However, what makes the spells of Harry Potter notable in the real world? Meaning, what has Rowling discussed about inspiration for naming or conceiving the spells? Have they been featured in popular culture or criticism? — Deckill er 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The movies seem to be part of popular culture. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not taking about Harry Potter in general; I'm talking about the spells of Harry Potter. — Deckill er 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact that half the world was prepared to line up at midnight to recieve a children's book imply that Harry Potter (and thus the spells involved in it) is part of popular culture? And the continued hostility by religious groups, other athors who claim plageurism, etc. is not enough to count as criticism? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spells_in_Harry_Potter Nobody there could find a problem with the article. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is channeling that information to the spells of Harry Potter to show why it is necessary to list all the spells (i.e. showing how the spells are notable in the real world). As you said below, the main magic page already goes into detail, so why is it necessary to explain every spell? — Deckill er 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since they're an integral part of the biggest literary event of this decade and a few other ones? I'd suggest leniency, since you noted above that you know naught about Potter and can't make this judgement. "Necessary" is a fascinating argument, but as happens with everything I do, I can't give a satisfactory addressing here and will have to return later... --Kizor 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is only a last resort, and there are dozens of options to take before considering AfD. Spells are a major aspect of Harry Potter; the question is whether we need to cover every single spell on Wikipedia. Our goal isn't to duplicate every fansite out there by creating large databases on fictional universes (Wikia can and does do that much better, without going against the fundamentals). Our topic coverage might be extremely broad, but it doesn't mean we explain every detail in a plot. Also, while the etymology is great real-world info, it might be considered WP:OR in its current state (lots of "...may be considered" or "...could be"). — Deckill er 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose As brought up on this page, it would be impractible to merge the two pages. The section "Spellcasting" on the Magic (Harry Potter) article is of suitable content already; it provides a brief overview and further information (this page) should the reader require it. Furthermore, the content on this page is encyclopedaic and did not meet any criteria for deletion at a recent AfD. It does not contain any plot summary, only (sometimes excessive, but that can be remedied) plot references to support information about the spells. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Per Trombonator above, as well as Therequiembellishere and Malinaccier previously. GlassCobra 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a good site to get refs for some of the etymology. See the reference for Accio's etymology. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Rather than merge, this is a prime candidate for being transwikied. Good stuff, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia itself. Being transwikied to another Wiki, we can still link to it all the same. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Behold, this link points to Wikia, and all links on that article point back here: Spells in Harry Potter. For the reader, this process is seamless. Transwiki also means more detail is allowed. We can do this for a number of articles, all interconnecting and behaving just as they did before. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil? Democracy and all forms of compromise are evil? Aren't we supposed to reach a consensus? I don't really understand why this page should not be on Wikipedia. When this page was proposed for deletion, (which is a different thing completely, I know) almost everyone decided to keep the article. I for one would rather leave the article on Wikipedia. I don't know if this sort of thing requires consensus, (everything pretty much does on Wikipedia) but I Oppose this Transwiki. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be new. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and m:Voting is evil. No one actually means voting is evil, it's just a reference to the meta essay on the topic, and how Wikipedia counts arguments and points, not number of votes. The transwiki itself is already done, so you can't actually oppose that (the power of the GFDL), but if you want to spend time working on the Wiki copy, when it will eventually be redirected or merged (WP:NOT#PLOT), well, it's your choice how you spend your time. Instead of becoming defensive and irritated for no reason, maybe you guys should realize there is an existing Harry Potter Wiki out there, where you can do whatever you want with, and completely interconnect it with the articles that are on Wikipedia. A list of spells is fancruft, and the only reason we are tolerating it now is because the popularity makes it too much of a pain in the butt to fight. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, went over mt edit. How rude is that? And I'm sure that's against the rules. I'm putting my sections back. Therequiembellishere 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing/closing voting that deters discussion is not only appropriate, but encouraged on Wikipedia. We don't vote, we discuss. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely support merging this with the Magic (Harry Potter) article. Notability is not inherited, and these spells are not notable outside of their own universe. Deckiller is right, there needs to be out-of-universe information to make these notable on their own, and the merge should happen, IMO. Thanks, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 05:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott, I may be newer than you are, but I still know that voting is a tool and should be used as such. We are still trying to get a consensus, and you really shouldn't change others comments. Also, if the "only reason we are tolerating it now is because the popularity makes it too much of a pain in the butt to fight." Then why don't you wait until it is less popular and less viewed, before you start trying to delete, merge, or transwiki. Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki would mean readers would still have full access, and even have more details. You'd have full linking support from the main Wikipedia articles, and everything would be connected. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolohov's Curse

Wasn't the so named "Antonin Dolohov's Curse" the same spell McGonagall used on Snape in hp7? It was stated that she made a slashing motion with her wand, and Harry expected Snape to crumple, but Snape got off a shield charm right before it hit. There was no incantation, so it seems to be identical to Dolohov's curse. --Fwahm 05:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not know this. Remember that Snape used a similar slashing motion on Harry in the end of the Half-Blood Prince, which was described as a whip-like feeling. (glad I remembered that, I should add to the article sometime) We do not know that McGonagall used Dolohov's curse (and would she use such dark magic?) You could add her spell seperately, but I do not think they are the same spells. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 14:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was Dolohov's Curse because it was such a damaging curse seen so many times by Harry, I feel JKR would have mentioned it. However, Minerva's proved that she can use Dark Magic. She used the Imperius Curse on Amycus fairly lazily, not nearly as hesitant as Harry was when he used it. Therequiembellishere 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is the same, as no other wand-slashing that causes the target to crumple unconsious has been shown in the books. Plus, Harry has only seen it twice in OotP, and JKR could would not have mentioned the name if Harry did not know it, since it is a incantation-less spell in all 2 (3 imo) uses.

Wikipedia does not run on original research. Unless you can totally prove that the spells are different, we shouldn't add it. Plus, Harry was expecting Snape to crumple, but he did not know. It is better to leave these things as they are. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spell Missing

What about Hermione's revulsion jinx used on Yaxley? I cannot find it listed. You previously stated that Narcissa's spell could not be proven to be the same, so why arent both listed separately?

Expelliarmus!!!

Latin correction!!! The page that explains all the spells used in the books says that expelliarmus means "let us expel" this is wrong...it means "we expel" it's first declension first person plural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.248.11 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~, and begin all new discussions at the bottom of a talk page, so it does not get out of order. Furthermore, recent qualms with this article have resulted in sources needing for etymologies. If you can find one, feel free to post it here and I will reference it correctly. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Salvio Hexia

I do believe that this is the spell that Hermione and Harry used on their campsite to make it invisible, and that "Protego Totalum" is the spell that "Possibly deflects minor hexes aimed at an object (the tent)"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teddy Lupin (talk • contribs) 09:08:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Unplottable Charm

I'm not sure why this source says Hogwarts is not Unplottable, but I'm pretty sure that it is. Isn't it stated several times in the books? GlassCobra 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found several sources that say that Hogwarts is indeed Unplottable ([1] [2] [3]), including the Harry Potter wiki and Wikibooks. I'm not going to do anything about the HP Lexicon entry, but shouldn't we keep our entry accurate? GlassCobra 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Geminio/Gemino

These are separate with large intimidating comments not to merge, but I think they are identical. The names, for example, are similar in a way that is typical of a spell name and its incantation (see Imperius, Imperio, Cruciatus, Crucio), and spells are often modified, so it is quite plausible that the same spell could cause either simple single duplication or uncontrollable cascades activated by touch. If no one responds within 24 hours I will just merge them. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Geminio seems to be a sort of charm that just duplicates an object. The Gemino Curse's purpose is to bury that offender in the object upon touch, and more than once, with a clear need for offence and is obviously a curse and not a charm as Geminio appears to be. Therequiembellishere 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying Charm

There is a incantationless entry for the Flying Charm:

(Flying Charm)

Pronunciation: Unknown

Description: Apparently the spell cast on broomsticks, and magic carpets to make them fly.

Seen/Mentioned: Draco Malfoy mentioned this spell when tauntingly asking Ron Weasley why would anyone cast a Flying Charm on Ron's broomstick in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix during Ron's first Quidditch practice. It is also mentioned in Quidditch Through the Ages.

Notes: See Quidditch.

Surely this is Wingardium Leviosa?

Levitation and flight are clearly not the same thing, especially in the HP universe. Therequiembellishere 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you evidence of this? The action of the sidecar in Deathly Hallows in response to "Wingardium Leviosa" seems the same as that of the motorcycle it had been attached to, or the broomsticks. We may expect that as with other spells, there exists a wide variation in strength; and as in many other cases, the broomsticks in particular seem to have had the spell imbued into the object to be activated on certain conditions (as is the case, also, with most of Fred & George's creations.) Certainly Wingardium has been seen to allow the object to move according to the wizard's will; all that remains is to get on top of it. 134.53.26.15 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is evidence! The sidecar LEVITATED it did not FLY. Flight means that it actually flies not floats, or levitates. I highly suggest you look up the words before asking. Therequiembellishere 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several spells that have uses that pertain to flying. Wingardium Leviosa (the levitation charm: cannot aim or direct objects that have been affected by the spell as stated in HP7), the Hover charm (like wingardium leviosa, but can be directed), and the flying spell (Used to give brooms, magic carpets, etc. the ability to fly. Also read Quidditch Through the Ages for more information). These are all clearly different. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: (Main) archives