Talk:Spells in Harry Potter/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive
Archives


[edit] Current Fiction

How much time has to pass before we can take that template down? Therequiembellishere 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's no longer "recently released" as of now (over a month since release day). And it's not as though we're short of banners to put at the top of this article!! Happy-melon 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to add more much-demanded real-world content

A moment's incompetent journaling found an a scholarly article, "Harry Potter throught the Looking-Glass". I will have to ask someone else to do this if it's to be done before Sunday, seeing as how I am stuck in Germany at the moment, but it has intergratable content about Rowling's use of language, in particular how it's expressed through magic, and what this tells about the works and how they compare to previous ones. No doubt there are other ones, too. --Kizor 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the article that Kizor is talking about; looks like it's actually part of a whole conference for Harry Potter. This could be just what we need! If this isn't "real-world importance," I don't know what is. GlassCobra 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed spells

Ferroverto
In the second (2nd) Harry Potter Movie (and the chamber of secrets), Professor McGonagall teaches the students in her transfiguration class how to turn animals into water goblets.
Three taps on the animal followed by the incantation "ferroverto" (fe-ro-VER-to)
The animal would then, sometimes with a flash of yellow, turn into a silver water goblet.

Unless it's changed since I last passed by here (I haven't been following much), this article is for canonical spells only, i.e. only ones appearing in the books. —Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove low importance spells

This list needs to be tightened up a bit. Perhaps spells which are only mentioned once in the books should be removed?--Nydas(Talk) 22:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you lose the comprehensiveness, which is the foundation of the usefulness of this list. Instead, I'd argue to put a very tight leash on each individual spell. Looking at the As, I'd say that Alohomora, Anapneo, Antonin Dolohov's Curse, Avada Kedavra and Aguamenti are all about the right length, while Accio is horribly bloated and Age-line and Atmospheric charm are really too short. Most short spells are short for a reason - the spell was mentioned only in passing. However I think that Accio is too long and reeks of cruft and OR. Absolute minimum of in-universe information, as much referencing to the books as possible, and keep them all short is my recipe for success for this list. Happy-melon 19:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there's nothing that can be written about the atmospheric charm, why have it at all? It's just like a starship that gets mentioned in one line in one episode of Star Trek.--Nydas(Talk) 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you vow to include all canonical spells it makes it clear where the boundary is. If you start removing some, you have to set a new boundary and things become subjective. If we remove the Atmospheric charm, do we also lose the Fidelius Charm - both have only ever been talked about. We've seen the Age Line in action but never cast, but the same is true for Fiendfyre and that's crucial to The Deathly Hallows. At the moment we have clearly defined criteria which function fine, with the only side effect being that the page is longer than usual. Removing material doesn't improve the readability of the page because no one is ever going to read the whole page in one go - that's not the point of the article. It's in the top 0.001% of most-viewed articles on Wikipedia; I suspect almost every hit is someone looking for details of one particular spell. If we lose the comprehensiveness then its usefulness takes a nosedive. Happy-melon 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing spells with a single, throwaway mention isn't especially subjective. For example, the Stretching Jinx is only mentioned once and in a jokey manner. We can't tell if it's a 'real' spell or just a gag from Mrs Weasely.--Nydas(Talk) 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But it's not our place to judge which spells are 'real' and which are gags. That would be original research. Happy-melon 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we should err on the side of caution when declaring them 'canonical' spells.--Nydas(Talk) 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Nydas, trimming spells that only get one mention sounds good, and could seriously help to improve the overall quality of the article. bwowen talk•contribs 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it will "help to improve the overall quality of the article". The article's problem is not its length. Wikipedia has a dispensation for pages that are not intended to be read from top to bottom - this is a classic example of that. The length of the page is unimportant as long as modern browsers can read it, so it's fine (now it's under 100kB). I think that the quality of the article is really going up at the moment, now that we've got the AfD out the way and people are really working on pruning cruft, OR and bad grammar. What we need is good references, and lots of them. And if it's not our place to decide if spells are 'real', it's certainly not our place to try and work out whether Rowling intended them to be real! Happy-melon 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In the case of spells which are not named and only appear once, the balance shifts against inclusion. It's creating canon where there is no reason to assume it exists, for both in and out-of-universe reasons. Is the 'streamer spell' a distinct spell, or just a variant? Was Rowling intending to create a canonical spell or just provide some magical atmosphere? When other characters create things by magic, are those distinct spells as well?--Nydas(Talk) 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
On that example, I agree. Someone "doing something with a wand" is not necessarily a magic spell, even if wierd things do happen as a result. Spells that are neither cast nor named in the books can, I agree, be cut. That is also a nice clear, objective guideline: "either the spell's official vernacular name, or its incantation, must be stated in canon for it to warrant inclusion". At a rough guess, that allows us to cut:
  • Concealment charm - actually where the hell does this come from anyway? No reference, no description, could be OR as far as anyone can tell - it's not even at hp-lexicon
  • Dumbledore's Spell
  • Dumbledore's Jinx - can't remember if I deleted this commented-out spell earlier, but it should definitely go
  • False memory charm
  • Featherweight charm
  • Healing spell - this is borderline, healing spells (plural) are mentioned, but only deduction suggests that this is one of them (even if the deduction is one a two-year-old could have made!)
  • Horcrux curse
  • Hot air charm
  • Inferius animation curse
  • Knitting needles spell
  • Ear leeks jinx
  • Lupin's light
  • Morfin Gaunt's Hex
  • Narcissa's jinx
  • Streamer spell
  • Toenail growth hex - described as "There was a hex that caused toenails to grow alarmingly fast (he had tried this on Crabbe..." - very borderline
  • Transmogrifian Torture - given Lockheart's reputation, we might give this one the benefit of the doubt, given that we know nothing bar the name
  • Unplottable charm - only references are to teh effects, not the spell used to cause them
  • Voldemort's shield

I would be amenable to the bold above being implemented as a clear criterion for inclusion in this list. By the strictest definition of original research, if neither the incantation or vernacular name is given to us, then there's no way we can give a title to the section without it being OR! Does anyone disagree?? Happy-melon 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've removed Lupin's Light and the streamer spell. For the former, it's unnamed, and we can't positively assert that it's a spell rather than an innate ability, learned skill or something else.--Nydas(Talk) 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No objections have been raised, so the above list was removed 13:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC). I've left the Unplottable charm because it's very borderline and I need to check my copy of GOF for the precise reference, which I don't have to hand. Happy-melon 13:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I, writetheusernamehere, say that you should NOT errase this spells, the title is harry potter spell list, not harry potter mayor and not minor spell list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor inaccuracies?

The first fire spell (possibly Incendio) we see performed in the books is by Hagrid when he creates a fire in the grate of the hut on the rock.

The hair loss, jelly-legs and tongue-tying jinxes are first mentioned in chapter 5 of the first book, as part of the subtitle of Curses and Counter-Curses by Professor Vindictus Viridian.

The "Curse of the Bogies" was mentioned by Ron has having been mentioned by Professor Quirrell.

The bluebell flames Hermione uses on the Devil's Snare is mentioned as being the same one as the one she used earlier at the Quidditch match but in neither case is the incantation given.

--80.175.250.218 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Does anyone else think that a template would be a good idea to ensure standardisation of formatting etc? I've made one: User:Happy-melon/sandbox2. Some examples are available in User:Happy-melon/sandbox3. Takes seven parameters, two as compulsory. Would also reduce the filesize a little. It would be a good opportunity to go through the list and give it a damn good cleanout. Happy-melon 19:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly no support, so withdrawn. Sandboxes have been refilled (although the templates are still somewhere in the edit history). Happy-melon 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymologies

I removed the etymologies that had no sourceing at all from the article (although I think that the others should be removed too as there is no evidence that they are accurate). Many of the the entries started with possibly..., prehaps..., maybe... or gave several different alternatives. I do not see how this can be anything other than original research and sythesis as outlined in WP:OR and particularly WP:SYN. I do not think that there is any evidence linking the fictional spell names to individual real life words in Latin, Greek, Portugese or any other language - moist of the etymologies are logical deeductions but these have to be made by people other than editors of the encylopaedia before they can be included. Even then (unless J.K. Rowling confirms them) surely they would still need to be put down as "it has be suggested that" or something like that - not as a fact. [[Guest9999 22:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]]

This is just SILLY. I'm sorry, but if the spell's name is "glisseo", it creates a slide from stairs, and the French verb for "to slide" is "glisser", it's simple deductive logic that JKR (being FLUENT in French) derived the spell name from the French verb. That would be like me asking you to cite your use of the word "Greek" before writing it in your post. Please, from whom did you first hear the word? What dictionary did you first learn its meaning from? Edition? Year of publication? There IS such a thing as being a citation-monkey. Because JKR hasn't herself discussed the pseudo-Latin/Greek/French/Italian/Portuguese etymologies of EACH of the spells she invented in-depth and at length, of course no source material regarding the origins of the spell names can be cited. But use a bit common sense.SumeragiNoOnmyouji 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to put it, but I am kind of new to this whole wikipedia thing. But in the spell Cave Inimicum which protects areas from enemies, Inimicus means enemy or "not friend" in Latin. It is inimicum because the spell is neuter and not pertaining to a gender. The opposite of the word Inimicum is Amicus which means friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiam71492 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a logical deduction and eminent common sense. However, as it has not been said by a reliable source, it cannot be included in the article as it would be Original Research. Happy-melon 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But I don't get how it doesn't work if it is a literal translation of the word. Most of the spells are latin and make sense (Sectumsempra... Sectum means cut and Sempra means always so it means Always Cut. I think JK Rowling did that on purpose) I just wrote a long post on it, but i think it got deleted.Samiam71492 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rennervate

I don'y know if this has already been settled, but my US edition of GoF says Ennervate instead of Rennervate, not a mistake as the spell is continually spelled as Ennervate throughtout my book.Rttrt 10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. You've got an early edition, which does say ennervate. However Rowling, for whatever reason, has decided to have it changed to rennervate, so that's the new canon. Happy-melon 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, she changed it due to a common misconception of the meaning of the word enervate in English for which she fell: enervate on Dictionary.com. —Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation Charm

I deleted the inflation charm as the only seen reference on the page then went on to say that it may not have been the inflation charm - it did not mention it being mentioned. This description made the spell's existence seem like original research if the entry is put back could the person clarfy this - put in a definate mention or seen entry. [[Guest9999 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] (Age-Line Spell)

The last line needs a preposition- "by"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.204.235 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avada Kedavra (Killing Curse)

The IPA pronunciation does not match the non-IPA guide. The ash character != "ahh." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.204.235 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description Section Question

How can you know all the effects or potential effects of a spell unless specifically outlined in the book. For instance Spells in Harry Potter#Ferula gives a description of "creates a bandage and a splint" - I can't rememebr the details from the book so I'm assuming that this is been deduced from the fact that it was used to binf Ron's broken leg - as described in the Seen/Mentioned section. However do we know that this is how the spell would always work - maybe it can have other effects - putting on a cast rather than a bandage - or a plaster.Could it put in stitches or heal wounds in other ways. Could it be used to create a bandage to wrap a present or as a splint to attack something. Like I said I cannot remember the spell from the book so it may not be the best example but I think the point stands. Effectively all that is known is the Seen/Mentioned - I think the description is original research unless the spell has been described in the book or by J.K. Rowling. If a spell ois mentioned as doing something then it is fair to report what it does but summerising it's overall function based on one or even multiple instances would seem to be an unverifable assumption.

Example - in a book a newspaper may be repeatedly used and only mentioned when it is used to swat at flys - from this it cannot be assumed that the only function of the newspaper is to swat flys.

Does any of this make sense to anyone apart from me? Apologies if it doesn't. [[Guest9999 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Here's the quote directly from the American hardback version p.376:
"'Right', said Lupin, suddenly businesslike. 'Ron, I can't mend bones nearly as well as Madam Pomfrey, so I think it's best if we just strap your leg up until we can get you to the hospital wing'."
"He hurried over to Ron, bent down, tapped Ron's leg with his wand, and muttered, ' Ferula '. Bandages spun up Ron's leg, strapping it tightly to a splint."

So the description is correct. Therequiembellishere 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that yes in that instance that spell was used to achieve a certain result but how do we know that is all it is capable - can it be used to do other things in other situations? It was used to give a bandage and splint but maybe it is actually just a general purpose healing spell. We can't know for sure (unless it is explicitly stated in the books or by Rowling) - so should any description other than the instances of use be included? [[Guest9999 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]
But . . . I just gave you something directly from the book that tells you exactly what it does. I', afraid the answer is "no" Guest9999, just leave it at that. Therequiembellishere 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't tell you exactly what the spell does it tells you exactly what it did on that occaison, can you say for sure that it does the same thing on every use and has no other applications. On that basis you could say that it is a spell that is used to banadage up legs, it's only an assumption that it can be used on other parts of the body, it is also only an assumption that it does have other uses. [[Guest9999 05:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]
Erm, it creates a splint. I don't see what's so difficult. Are you questioning that the Killing Curse has a differing effect everytime it hits someone? Or that since Reparo can fix a bowl, it only fixes bowls? Therequiembellishere 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really want to get caught up on that one particular spell as it was just an example of a possible problem with parts of the article. My point was if I was to give description of "creates bandages and splits to be used on the legs of young red haired wizards" there is evidence to support that or if I was to give a description of "helps with the healing process of injuries" there would also be evidence to support that - one is more specific than the current description and one more general but from the text it is impossible to say which (if any) is correct. [[Guest9999 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Protego Totalum - "Provides protection of some form for an area or dwelling." - a slightly different example, unsourced and very vague sounding - does say this is what it does in the book, if so it sounds like the character doesn't exactly know what it does. Isn't the example of what the spell does - which is verifyable - enough?[[Guest9999 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]

I'm astonished to hear you saying this, Guest9999, as it seems to me to go against everything you've previously said about this article, both here and at the AfD debate. Rowling hasn't told us that Ferula is used to assist in the healing process - that's a deduction from the books, which is original research. All that the books tell us is that in the instance of the spell being used shown in PA, it conjured bandages and a splint, which were used to bandage Ron's leg. Saying, therefore, that Ferula "creates bandages and a splint" is a clear, non-OR statement of fact from the book. To say anything else would be OR.
I am responsible for the wording of Protego Totalum, along with Cave Inimicium, Salvio Hexia, and others that say that they "Provide protection of some form for an area or dwelling". The reason is simple: that's all that the books explicitly state that they do. They are all described as 'protection charms' that Hermione and Harry cast around their campsite each evening: yes one is an intruder charm, one is the disillusionment charm, one is the unplottable charm, but we're not told which is which. Consequently it would be OR to say anything more than "Provides protection of some sort".
Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, but I fail to see what the problem is. Happy-melon 10:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Saying that Ferula can only create bandages and a splints is equally a deduction based on the text - I wasn't suggesting the other descriptions be put in - just giving examples. I'm just trying to say that the description of the spell can unly be based on the times it is Seen or Mentioned in the book. Therefore having both a Description section and a Seen/Mentioned section is redundent and since one (descriptions) is essentially a user made deduction of the other then maybe it would be worth looking at cleaning it up. [[Guest9999 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]]
OK I think I see where you're coming from. However, while your suggestion (which I assume is to remove the "redundant" Description section) might work for some spells you've mentioned, like Ferula, it falls flat for the (majority of) spells where the precise effect is not in doubt. If we remove the description section, we have to include the effect of Expecto Patronum in the "Seen/mentioned" section for every occurence, or at least throw "the same effect was seen in book X..." in all over the place. The vast majority of spells in this list woudl suffer for having their description section removed, because it provides a summary of the effects seen multiple times throughout the books. Only in a few instances would a "cleanup" be useful, and consistent formatting is more important than being as concise as humanly possible. Happy-melon 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor innaccuracies, volume 2

Memory Charms are first mentioned in chapter 3, when they are described as being used to cover up after an enchanted teapot got into the hands of a Muggle.

Ron did not yell "Eat Slugs, Malfoy," when attempting to cast the Slug-Vomiting Charm, although he had threatened Malfoy in the previous chapter (chapter 6).

Also in chapter 6, Hermione uses a Freezing Charm to control the pixies; at one point cleverly freezing two at once.

--80.175.250.218 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expeleramus Question

In the section it says it is "Called Harry's "signature move" in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." - is this actually the case? I seem to remember it said something like it had come to be considered Harry's signiture move by Death Eaters's and was not explicitly called his signiture move? Sorry if I'm rememebering it incorrectly. [[Guest9999 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Ofc it's his signature move, its the only spell he ever uses. He opens doors with it, cooks dinner, and kills ppl. Chandlertalk 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spells with no seen/mentioned verification

Could someone put in an example of when the Jelly Legs Jinx and the Unplottable Charm are seen or mentioned. [[Guest9999 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Off the top of my head, the former is in GoF during Harry's spell training for the final test. The latter is mentioned repeatedly when discussing the security measures of Hogwarts, and possibly Grimmauld Place and Durmstrang. --Kizor 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, im am not sure if they are the first time but at the Goblet of fire, hermione tells harry and ron that beux batons or dumstrang may have an unpplotable charm, and in the same book hermione uses a jelly legs jinx on harry when they where training the Protego charm \writetheusernamehere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-universe

One of the things brought up the AfDs was that the spells are not notable out of the Harry Potter universe. I was wondering, could a reference to a spell in a television series be considered notable enough? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to cram this article full of useless trivia, I am trying to fix the "problems" found in the AfDs. The television programme was The Shakespeare Code, from the most recent Doctor Who series, which, as the longest running sci-fi series, is pretty notable itself. Let me know your thoughts. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of universe information, IIRC, is information published in notable sources (e.g. newspapers, encyclopedias, scholarly journals, etc). Mention on a television show does not confer notability to the best of my knowledge. bwowen talk•contribs 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's far from a given, Bwowen - it all depends on the nature of the reference. Can you elaborate on exactly what was said, Trombonator? Happy-melon 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
To banish the evil villain witches (more info at main article above) William Shakespeare adlibbed a "spell". Unable to find a rhyme for a word I didn't hear, the Doctor's companion Martha Jones suggested "Expelliarmus". It was the second Harry Potter reference in the episode, the first being "wait til you read the seventh book - I cried, you'll love it." THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Out-of-universe means to give real world information, not just source things with real-world sources. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ned is right. This would be a useful source to support a passage about the cult-following of the spell and its ubiquity in the modern world: it may well have a place at, say Harry Potter fandom. You might want to have a look and see if it can be added there. However, as this list does not cover cultural impact, it's not really applicable here. Good idea though. Happy-melon 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. All part of the learning process :D THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

(Atmospheric Charm) Description: Modifies or creates certain weather conditions; can be applied indoors as well. Seen/Mentioned: Mentioned only in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a possible cause of the rain inside Yaxley's office at the Ministry.

The description seems to be original research based on the only time it was mentioned in the series. - is this the case or was there furthur elaboration in the book? [[Guest9999 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]]

That's certainly arguable. I've rewritten to just "modifies or affects the weather". Happy-melon 17:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Pronounciation of Accio

In one of the first 2 Potter games, it was Aht-chee-ow (wich is how Italians would pronounce it, based on it's spelling), in Goblet it was Ak-see-ow (according to Madeye) & Ahk-kee-ow in the Phoenix game.

Thanks for your concern, but in future please add new comments to the BOTTOM of a talk page, to keep discussions in chronological order. It is also extremely debatable for both the pronounciation of the spell Accio, and also the canonability of video games and films. I think the suggestions we have at the moment are fine; we don't need this article full of every single possible pronunciation, as it once was. Finally, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, i.e. four of these --> ~~. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know its: ahk-kee-ow but before i said ak-see-ow writtetheussernamehere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expelliamus Pronounciation

In the American audibooks, Jim Dale pronounces the spell ex-PEL-ee-AHH-mus, not "ar-mus."Purplemouse 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he does, it's just really softened. Therequiembellishere 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i belive its ar-mus (if you hear really carefully you can hear the r in a throaty sound) writetheusernamehere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing and Reffing

Could someone with knowledge, experience or a knack of guessing and getting it right take a look at Reference Number 9 at this version of the page [1]. I'm not sure why it says that bit in red, or how to fix it. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference is ID-linked. Essentially, once upon a time, the article contained multiple references to the same source, so the text of the reference is placed at one point, and given a span name: <ref name=ACMedia>Blah Blah Blah</ref>. All other times the source needs to be referenced, a blank ref tag is included: <ref name=ACMedia/>. At some point more recently, most of the references were deleted including, crucially, the one that actually contained the {{cite}} template that held the reference. The parser therefore has nothing with which to build a reference and so it shows an error. this is the page to which the "ACMedia" reference tag referred - I think it was removed because it was not considered reliable. to fix it, remove the forward slash from the reference tag and include a proper reference template, followed by </ref> Happy‑melon 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hex Deflection

I really do not believe that this can be considered a spell. This may have been a class of multiple ways to deflect hexes. We really can have no idea about the true nature of hex deflection therefore making it original research. Therefore, I believe the spell should be deleted from the article. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Malinaccier's decision. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Happy‑melon 13:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait for another person to agree, then we delete it! •Malinaccier• T/C 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. GlassCobra 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H.Revelio Spell

Dumbledore can clearly do it minus a wand, so this should be mentioned as an important point. For eg, whenever he uses it to see through Harry's cloak, not only is there no mention of wands, but in some situations it would be impossible for him to have used it, eg Book 2, Lucius, Fudge, Hagdrid all in Cabin, while Ron and Harry are on the other side of the room in the cloak. It would be impossible for dumbledore to use a wand without them noticing, yet he can see through the cloak.JJJ999 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you know he didn't cast the spell before going into the cabin? We don't know when he cast it. If it doesn't say he cast the spell without his wand, we don't know that he did. V-train 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
He walked to the cabin with fudge... and the spell now works through solid walls? Come on, Occam's razor here, he can clearly do it minus wand. What possible reason would he have to do the spell outside the cabin, even if he could see through walls and perform the spell through a wall? He just walks around with his wand at the ready to pull it out when nobody is looking, then uses it to see through walls? For a guy who claimed OR couldn't be used for Snape, you seem very comfortable to make the exact same argument here. Occam's razor and Expressio Unius tell us he doesn't use a wand... of course, we can't prove a negative like prove dumbledore didn't use a wand, but the facts make it clear he almost certainly can't have.JJJ999 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You are speculating as to what happened. The point I'm trying to make that you seem to keep missing is that we don't know for a fact. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. Occam's razor doesn't apply to a person's writing, the author can choose to be as complex and illogical as they want. Using an OR example to prove a point in the talk page is completely different from wanting to add it to an article. There's no policy barring OR from a talk page. V-train 03:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
We are no more speculating than the person who claimed the spell was non-vrbl is speculating, or Harry is speculating about the Disillusionment Charm. This is logic, so we may apply it. Alot of things are never explicitly said in the books, but it would be insane to not mention them because of that. It is never explicitly said that Madame Maxime is half giant, it is simply so obvious from the reading of the book that we don't need to worry. It is never explicitly stated that Dumbledore is older than Fudge, it's simply obvious from the reading he is though. We don't know Trewlaney is a fraud, but the evidence of this makes it clear. Since there is no other way Dumbledore could have performed the spell, we should assume what the text of the book tells us must have occurred.JJJ999 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
When there is a dispute over an addition, it is customary (and Wiki policy) to get consensus BEFORE adding it, not after. Since I don't want to be accused of edit warring, I will leave it be. Hopefully someone else reverts your unilateral edit and a consensus can be reached. V-train 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to get on like 7 hours ago, but the school computers are blocked against editing Wiki. Not viewing, or logging in, but editing. Sigh. Anyways, I tried to post a comment (I forget what it was now) but it went something along the lines of why does it matter that this one particular spell can by done by Dumbledore, "the greatest wizard of his age", without a wand. Surely, being so great and powerful, doing things with a wand Ms Marchbanks had never seen before, and being revered by the whole wizarding community despite being a (starved) power-hungry fool with a brother who liked goats more than the average man, old Albus was able to do more than this one spell by wandless magic. Does this mean we can comb the books to find references to him - and other wizards, witches and warlocks - using magic without a wand? Because surely, Dumbledore wasn't the only person who ever did magic without a wand. I remember reading somewhere (although it may have been a fanfic so it may not be entirely canon, but the principle's the same... could have been in another work, now I think of it. Like a real, published book about wizards, but not by JKR) that a wand is only used to channel the magic. You can use anything, but... I guess Merlin just happened to be standing in a forest when he wanted to channel his magic. So, with the right amount of focus, surely it is possible to do magic without a wand. OK, so Harry can't do it, but he ain't perfect, is he? Do I have to cite that for you? It's through the whole book - one of these things "the text of the books tells us". So by Dumbledore being awesome, and this supposed one occasion where he *didn't* use a wand, "the text of the book tells us" that it can happen with more than just this spell. We cannot assume that Homonem Revelio is the single spell out of this list that we can perform without our piece of blackthorn bark, nor can we explicitly mention it on this spell's entry. And, perhaps, this isn't even the right place to mention wandless magic. Is it on Magic (Harry Potter)? It would probably fit better in there. Lastly, I totally uber mega apologise for the length of this response/opinion/rant/all of the above. I just type, and the words come out and I'm gonna sign off here. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, DLT, that was quite an epistle! However I agree in all the pertinent points, although not with the unhealthy conjunction of "uber" and "mega" :P If I can sum up in three sentences what DLT said more thoroughly in 20, I would say this: The burden of evidence for a claim is upon the editor who added the claim to the article; and the source used to support that claim must be verifiable (ie it must be self-evident that the source supports the claim) and must be reliable (ie the source must be sufficiently well-informed on the claim). While the source (the literary canon and JK's affirmation that Dumbledore used H. Revelio) is certainly reliable, the evidence it provides is not verifiable - it is not self evident that the source supports the claim. While it appears to do so, and common sense dictates that this must be the case, the use of common sense by an editor violates policies against "synthesis". Happy‑melon 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I am struck by this statemetn by JJJ: "Alot [sic] of things are never explicitly said in the books, but it would be insane to not mention them because of that." It isn't insane at all - that's Wikipedia, seeking citations for information likely to be challenged. And what we have here (aside from a failure to communicate) is a challenged piece of information. Therefore it needs to be cited, end of story. The citation needs to be provided or the information must be removed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if a piece of information isn't mentioned in the books? A mere trifle, as far as I'm concerned! Therefore, we must immediately insert the following into all pertinent articles: Severus Snape is a vampire, and the half-cousin twice removed of the vampire at Slughorn's party; Viktor Krum is an animagus, taking the shape of the giant squid in the black lake; Godric Gryffindor was also an animagus...Fawkes!; James and Lily were never killed, but simply obliviated, believing they were muggles, they gave birth to Harry's sister, Hermione Granger (never mind that Hermione is older than Harry, they had time-turners); need I go on? I trust someone will get to work and include this information immediately. It would be insane not to, just because it isn't mentioned in the books! (This is meant as a joke, and not as a jab at anyone. Don't take it personally. :)) faithless (speak) 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, why is this discussion even happening? All spells can be done non-verbally, so why note this one specifically? As for Dumbledore doing it without a wand, there is no proof. The example given (in CoS), doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As has been mentioned (and ridiculed by me in a joking fashion), just because something isn't mentioned explicitly doesn't mean it didn't happen. For instance, through seven years there is nary a mention of Hermione taking a bath, but I think it's safe to assume it did. Likewise, couldn't Dumbledore have been holding his wand, perhaps under his robes so no one could see it? Of course it is! Rowling didn't state every single minute detail, otherwise she would still be writing Chapter One of PS! The bottom line is, we don't know. And again, the fact that it can be done non-verbally is irrelevant, as all spells can. It should be removed. faithless (speak) 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The way this has been mischaracterised is very disturbing... does nobody apply norms of logic anymore? Paradise Lost would have a blank page if you guys were in charge of it...JJJ999 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, JJJ999, I don't think even Jimbo Wales is in charge of anything anymore. Remember Wikipedia is a colaberative project. It's just that there are these rules about verifying your sources, etc, and all editors (us guys included) need to remember that one thing may appear like something it is not. We need to hold netural ground and look at things from all angles. Logically, it is highly likely that Dumbledore was holding his wand up his sleeve, behind his back or under his robes. I agree with Faithless, Happy-Melon and that cool dude with the huge rant up there when I say this shouldn't be mentioned. Have we reached a real consensus now? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree too. You're being ridiculous, logic has nothing to do with facts. LOGICALLY there is alien life outside of earth, but until we haves FACTS to support this, we are the sole intelligent species. Therequiembellishere 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

actually you can cast a spell without touchng the wand,when harry and dudley are "demented" before that dudley hits harry and makes him loose his wand, he tapped the floor and said lumos, and then he saw his wand tip lighting up and it says that after seeing it he grabs it writtetheusernamehere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC) That has absolutely nothing to do with magic with NO interaction with a wand. Harry said Lumos, but the wand was inches from his fingertips and still lit up. Dumbledore's was nowhere near his fingers and we have no right to assume that he did the spell nonverbally away from his hand. It stays as it is. Therequiembellishere 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dumbledore casts this to detect Harry underneath his Invisibility Cloak, which, as a Deathly Hallow, can be detected no other way" ...What about Mad-Eye Moody's eye? <.< ... >.> 64.180.188.225 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, point taken my anonymous friend. I'd offer you the opportunity to edit this yourself seeing the semi-protection's gone (when was this, incidentally?), but I, uh... already did it. For those who can't see any changes I integrated the note about Dumberz into the main text of the spell. It seemed kind-of redundant without the supposed wandlessness and the reference to the Cloak as a Deathly Hallow. the DARK LORD trombonator 06:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Reference

Several of the spells use a reference called ACMedia, but none of them actually include the reference info. They all correspond to reference 9 in the reflist, where it says "Cite error 8; no text given" in big red letters. Anyone know what happened to the reference? GlassCobra (Review) 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked this above. In a moment of compassion for the wikipedian who wanted to read it here, I have opened two - yes, two - browsers at once and have pasted the discussion (if you can call it that) below.
Could someone with knowledge, experience or a knack of guessing and getting it right take a look at Reference Number 9 at this version of the page [2]. I'm not sure why it says that bit in red, or how to fix it. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference is ID-linked. Essentially, once upon a time, the article contained multiple references to the same source, so the text of the reference is placed at one point, and given a span name: <ref name=ACMedia>Blah Blah Blah</ref>. All other times the source needs to be referenced, a blank ref tag is included: <ref name=ACMedia/>. At some point more recently, most of the references were deleted including, crucially, the one that actually contained the {{cite}} template that held the reference. The parser therefore has nothing with which to build a reference and so it shows an error. this is the page to which the "ACMedia" reference tag referred - I think it was removed because it was not considered reliable. to fix it, remove the forward slash from the reference tag and include a proper reference template, followed by </ref> Happy‑melon 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Tragically, I can't make head or tail of this. Does anyone understand enough to fix it? --the DARK LORD trombonator 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually cheque to see what problem you guys had, but I think I understood what melon meant and I believe it is now fixed. Defodio has the first reference link. Therequiembellishere 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I also went to the aforementioned link and we can use this site for a load of links. Just type in "Guide to Harry Potter's Spells: Letter (whatever)" and we should be able to get a lot more information! Unfortunately, I have to read and get stupid vocabulary from To Kill a Mockingbird (one is apprehensively! how dumb can you be?!) So I hope someone else can do it! Therequiembellishere 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm glad that one got fixed, but now the reference for Expelliarmus seems to going bonkers. GlassCobra 06:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geminio

Someone repeatedly removes the etymology for Geminio, which I have placed as

:Etymology: From the name of the twin constellation, Gemini.

This IS the etymology. Gemini is the name of the "twins" constellation, so the reason for Gemini-O being a duplicating spell named as it is is obvious. I do not see why edit wars must be taken of this matter, when it is clearly the case. Eedo Bee 15:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" - the fact that it's self-evidently true does not make it acceptable for Wikipedia. Silly, but that's the way of things. I don't like it any more than you do. Happy‑melon 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Eedo, you are incorrect. Geminio does not come from Gemini; both words are derived from the Latin word geminus, meaning twins. Actually, to settle this, I'll go put that in the article. GlassCobra 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question about Immobulus

I saw the notice on the talk page saying not to add Immobulus, but why? It was mentioned in the books, wasn't it? --θnce θn this island Speak! 17:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the books. It was named in the PoA film, but not in canon. Happy‑melon 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Happy-melon, it was the CoS film. :D the DARK LORD trombonator 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was in PoAf - Lupin uses it to freeze the Whomping Willow (seen in the Time-Turner sequence). Regardless, it's not high canon, so it doesn't go in here. Happy‑melon 13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but I like to end my discussions. Hermione used it on the pixies. -- TDLT 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
are we sure it wasn't used in the books? It's questionable whether the freezing charm Hermione used was this. Enigmaman 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
To out it extremely bluntly-Yes we are and no it isn't. It's as simple as that. Therequiembellishere 02:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

It would not be difficult to develop a template which could be called for each spell. I can see numerous advantages:

  • It would ensure consistent formatting
  • While we transfer spells to a new system, we could ensure that numerous maintenance tasks were completed:
    • Ensuring IPA pronunciation, and sourcing the pronunciations
    • Trimming the Seen/mentioned
    • Linking, etc
  • Pronunciations and etymologies can be coded such that they only appear if a parallel "source" field is also filled in, ensuring referencing (and finally ridding us of the anon-adds-non-canonical-pronunciation edits)
  • A certain amount of obfuscation will probably deter some anon edits.

Would anyone like me to code up an example? Happy‑melon 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a template, but I think that we should still keep some of the paragraphs too. Therequiembellishere 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Therequiembellishere. It sounds great! Go ahead, Happy-melon. --the DARK LORD trombonator 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dumbldore's fidlius charm

When dumbledore died, the trio suposedly became the secret keepers, but if dombledore died, wouldn't that make the charm vanish insted of them becoming the S.K. when they couldn't, so when they showed it, they didn't do it because they werre S.K., but because it wasn't hidden? But even so, why diddent the death eaters see it? although, it could have been protected by a different charm, and by a different person(like lupin could have casted it with the other charms he casted.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.127.2 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not supposedly, they did. It's stated, they did. And this isn't the place. Therequiembellishere 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobiliarbus

"levitates and moves a tree"? What a stupid explanation!!!Ornithomimus 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but can you think of a better way to explain exactly what it does? I'll re-phrase, but try not to be so crude, it's hard to keep up with everyone's standards when there is so much vandalism and good faiths edits crushing the page. Therequiembellishere 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


as far as i knew it made the tree walk, althought i am not so sure write the usernamehere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writetheusernamehere (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Langlock/Tongue-Tying Curse

An IP just edited the Tongue-Tying Curse so that the pronuncation was "Langlock." I reverted it, but I'm wondering if it's maybe true after all? They are awfully similar. Can someone shed some light on this? GlassCobra 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that, but left it to see what you guys made of it. We really can't say anything, I'm afraid. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Langlock was supposedly invented by The Prince, so I'm pretty sure they aren't the same. Plus, Langlock is described (HBP) as the tongue sticking to the top of the mouth, and the tongue tying curse was described (DH) as the tongue rolling back on itself...Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last names?

The article is very inconsistent in the fact that it sometimes speaks of characters using their first and last names, and at other times only their first names. I would be willing to comb the article and fix this, but should we use first names only, or use first and last names? Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per MOS:HPP#TITLE, whichever name is most commonly used in canon is generally preferred as a short version or "familiar". So Dumbledore not Albus, Snape not Severus, Crabbe not Vincent, but Harry not Potter, Hermione not Granger, Neville not Longbottom. A lot of Death Eaters are known by their last names (some confusion can occur by the fact that all the Malfoys are known by their last names). A bit of common sense should dictate whether to use the first or last name as the "familiar". Whether to use full name or familiar is a little more subjective. At a maximum, the full name need be given only once per spell (since this is not an article which will be read from top to bottom). There are some characters for whom the use of full name is rarely if ever necessary (Harry, Ron, Hermione, major teachers, Voldemort, etc). I don't think this is something which can be "standardised", but by all means take a sweep for glaring inconsistencies. Happy‑melon 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've started and completed naming all the "Harry Potter" character references to Harry. If anyone else wants to help with this, I suggest using the "find" option (Ctrl+F4 on my Internet Explorer), and changing the names when you find a problem. I'm making a list of names fixed so nobody goes through looking for nothing (if anyone wants to help at all!). Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

List of characters properly renamed:

[edit] Spell differences

[3] View this for some information on the differences on charms, hexes and curses.

Should this be added to both this article and Magic (Harry Potter), or only magic? Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)