Jump to content

Talk:Magical objects in Harry Potter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Irrelevant Entries in Sweets

For some inane reason, there's a recipe of Acid Pops under it's entry... As is the same for cockroach clusters... 70.242.64.233 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition under Marauder's map

I failed to understand the meaning of this addition...

  • I think it is just an extension of the description of that particular scene regarding the map, meaning that (during that scene): "Professor Snape also was confiscating the map to Harry, but Professor Lupin (just arrived on the scene) receives the map in his hands and promptly takes it with him (maybe avoiding that Snape could use it to investigate about the movements of someone), later giving it back to Harry.". Anyway, in my opinion, the addition does not seem important and could be deleted. Otherwise we could change by the above rewording. What about? 195.110.149.139 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD's

I've merged in the content from Put-Outer & Spellotape after closing the VfD's on those articles as Speedy Merges. Could someone more familiar with the books take a look at those entries and make sure they are in line with the rest of the page? -- Essjay · Talk 09:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Veratiserum

It's clear that Umbridge tries to give Harry Veratiserum by mixing it into a cup of tea but he never drinks it because Moody's paranioa rubbed off on him, so I don't know of anything to suggest that Snape provided a fake potion.

Dumbledore tells Harry Snape provided a fake during his end of year pep talk...If you can't trust Dumbledore who can you trust?

Jarwulf 02:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

Would the Knight Bus and Hogwarts Express be fit to add to the transportation section or are they more vehicles than objects?--Daveswagon 00:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't make another page regarding only magical transportation??Apparition and Hogwarts Express just don't seem to be magical "objects"

Maurauders' middle names

Lupin's middle name is verified here: http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrwbd.shtml I have not added his middle name back in, however, as that sort of detail belongs (and already is) in the Remus Lupin article, not in every single article that ever mentions him. --Icarus 05:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Portkey]] is changed to [[Magical objects in Harry Potter#Portkey|Portkey]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 21 September 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 23:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

{{CoS}}

I think any links to other books need to have at least the partial book title, ie "Chamber of Secrets" and not "CoS", for the sake of clarity. Further, using a template such as {{CoS}} is basically the same as using a redirect, which would be more appropriate as redirects consume less system resources than transcluded templates. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This will need to be the case from now on, as Template:CoS is up for deletion and there is consensus to delete. I've no doubt that the other templates (Template:PoA, Template:GoF etc.) will end up on templates for deletion in due course, and so we should start minimising use of these now. A stitch in time saves nine. Rob Church Talk | FAD 08:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Where should the FORD ANGLIA be added here or at the magical creatures page?

The "Nicholas Flamel" needs to be redirected to "Nicholas Flamel (Harry Potter)". Yauhin 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that this has already been done (cleanup?) -Mayuresh 11:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ford Anglia

What about the Weasley's car?--23prootie 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Map's password

Is there any mention in the books about how Fred and George figured out how to operate the map? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Is it alright if I add information on objects from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Its already been leaked, and certain things can be added without spoilers, such as that the "Put-Outer" is called a Deluminator. Anything that would contain spoilers can be marked appropriately.Firestorm 04:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

moody's eye and harry's cloak

if, being a deathly hallow, harry's cloak gives him "perfect invisibility", how come it is not immune to alastor's magic eye? Andrewb1 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot why, but the reason is mentioned in the book.--Tempest115 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall it being mentioned - it was however mentioned that with Harry's (Hallow) cloak one could go completely undetected from anybody or thing. This may be a soft retcon, as we know that Harry was 'sensed' a number of times when wearing the cloak in previous books... or was he?!? [MUHAHA - the beauty of a retcon!). Tinkstar1985 11:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add "Plot Spoiler"

I'm reading the first Harry Potter. When looking up the Mirror of Erised, I noticed (before I could avert my eyes) details from future books. I would like to suggest a Wikipedia:Spoiler warning be added to the section. I'd add it myself, but first want to get feedback from others; and second, have fear of inadvertently reading more while editing.

My opinion would be that looking up information on in-universe items, you can only expect to find spoilers since the items themselves are, by definition, spoilers. No reason notifying people of this, IMO. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible ways to shorten article

The whole letters and marks section can be removed as they are not really objects. The sweets section is overkill and could be condensed into a simple list or maybe table. Also I know that some of the other items have their own dedicated pages. Csloomis 04:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing objects?

Just wondering why some objects have been excluded?

  • Moody's Magical Eye
  • Memos (at the Ministry of Magic)
  • Fiend Fire
  • Spell checking quill
  • Sirius'/Hagrid's motorbike
  • Weasley's Ford Anglia

Tinkstar1985 11:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they could all be added... Have a go! The Anglia has been suggested elsewhere might be a creature, but it's no more a creature than the Sorting Hat IMO. Andrewa 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the magic tent

I think another object that deserves mention, though Rowling does not give it a specific name, is the magic tent in which Harry, Ron, and Hermione live in for several months in the last novel. When inflated it includes a chair, three beds, a kitchen, and a bathroom (which apparently conjures up its own water), yet it can collapse into Hermione's magic purse when they travel. I think it was one of Rowling's most clever ideas (though possibly inspired by the TARDIS in "Doctor Who") that simultaneously conjures up images of homelessness while allowing the trio to live fairly comfortably. CharlesTheBold 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

well, i dont know if its anything other than just a bewitched tent, like the ministry cars they travel in, they're described to be much bigger on the inside than you can se from the outside ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously an Undetectable Extension Charm, so it is not a magical object at all. •Malinaccier• T/C 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Too long

I notice that this article is currently 66 kilobytes long, and is rightly flagged with a toolong template.

I also note with some amusement that Put-Outer, Spellotape and List of wands in Harry Potter have all, in practice, been merged into this article, each as a result of AfD nominations. I haven't looked up the debates, but it seems to me that the old version of Put-Outer was a useful short article just needing some TLC, and the old version of Spellotape was a useful stub which could in time have been expanded to say just how Spellotape was used on each occasion. So in glorious hindsight, would anyone like to revisit these decisions?

The question of wands is a little more complex, perhaps the list wasn't the best idea, but how about a wands in Harry Potter article or something similar?

What links here shows some other useful stubs (not always flagged as stubs admittedly) have also been merged: Mirror of Erised was very short but could be expanded; Sorting Hat was longer and also plenty of room for expansion. Marauder's Map was already a good read, again with room for expansion, as was Pensieve.

Whether or not we decide to reverse these particular merges, we should also look at other possible splits. Otherwise, we are going to be deleting content. Wikipedia is not paper, so it's a shame to lose content.

Perhaps this article should even become List of magical objects in Harry Potter? Just a thought. Andrewa 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds like a good idea -Mayuresh 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I added an origonal research tag as it seems that a lot of the content of the article seems to be just that. Guest9999 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Can you be specific? The tag doesn't improve the article on its own, its function is to help others to improve the article. Are there particular sentences or phrases that you think need improving, but can't quite find the right changes to make yourself? Andrewa 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Gobstones

The Gobstones article has no notability, and is just a regurgitation of trivia from the various Harry potter books. Should be mentioned here. Judgesurreal777 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont Agree. Gobstones is a game, right? -Mayuresh 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but a non-notable game that involves magical objects that could easily fit in this article. Judgesurreal777 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The The Goblet of Fire image

Is there any chance on using an image that wasn't taken with a camera from someone's TV screen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Marauder's Map

Also has no notability on its own, has a much better notability grouped with the other objects. Judgesurreal777 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It does has notability on its own! ** ko2007 ** 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? explain. Judgesurreal777 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the merge, is better suited here. Gran2 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Merge Complete. Please review -Mayuresh 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two more objects

I cant remember what they are called, but I remember two types of sweets/candy or some sort of sweet that when eaten

  • Allows the user to make animal noises (this is shown in one of the movies when Ron eats one of these and makes the sound of a lion)
  • gives a different flavour everytime (i faintly remember Dumbledore saying that he's always had bad luck with the flavours he gets. He finally has one, but ends up getting and ear-wax flavour) This one is called Every Flavour Beans and has already been covered (Mayuresh 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

Does anyone remember any details around this? -Mayuresh 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rememberall.JPG

Image:Rememberall.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The marauders map.jpg

Image:The marauders map.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Beaded Handbag

I don't think Hermione's beaded handbag should be in the article. It is not a unique magical object, but one bewitched as any other object could be. If nobody responds in a few days, I'll assume that nobody disagrees. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm deleting it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this section still exists, I feel that in addition to the beaded handbag there should be an addition of Harry's moleskin pouch. Another related (non-unique) magical object to possibly mention is Harry's lock picking pocket knife. Druakara 30 October 2008

Fair Warning

there is a lot of uncited information and fancruft in the article. I've removed some and tagged others. I'm going to wait a bit, and hope that a bunch of citations start showing up from reputable sources. If none does, I am going to start cleaning house. If the baby goes with the bathwater, so be it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fictional

Is it really necessary to constantly repeat the word fictional? It is stated in the introduction that this article concerns a work of fiction. OrangeDog (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. "Fictional" appears 70 times on the page after the initial opening, sometimes three times for a single item. I seriously doubt the removal would have people confuse them with a real "remembral" or "sneakoscope". -- Borameer ™ 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the series occasionally mentions objects or creatures that are (or are believed to be) fictional within the story, such as the cryptofauna sought by the Lovegoods. —Tamfang (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an input on this subject? If not, I will remove most instances of the word (except those fictional devices in the book), keeping the initial fictional heading for the books themselves. -- Borameer ™ 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, Tamfang has already done this. Excellent work! -- Borameer ™ 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wizard's Chess

Could Wizard's chess be moved elsewhere here perhaps, or if that's not appropriate create a new page for it. ChessCreator (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as Wizard's chess is a game in the fictional world of Harry Potter therefore it's required in this article with any other magical object. --Jammy (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. More info about the position is here from the composer if you are interested. ChessCreator (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Looked at creating Wizard's Chess as a separate article, but it seems it's not notable itself and would likely be later deleted, will add a little to the existing article. SunCreator (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Uses of Time-Turners

The tactical and strategical uses of Time-Turners should be fairly obvious, but here goes.

Tactical: if Time-Turners can go back only a matter of hours, someone can go back in time equipped with the known position of an enemy at a certain time. The Time-Turner can be used to scout and discover his position if it's not already known (if he can be discovered asleep, so much the better). A bunch of wizards then apparate behind the enemy and let loose the spells of their choice. Can also be used to help friends escape from danger, etc.

Strategical: if Time-Turners can go back decades, pick the enemy of your choice, and prevent his parents from meeting each other (if you have an understandable aversion to killing babies). The ultimate weapon, unanswerable unless the enemy and his friends are also equipped with them. Torve (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's strongly implied in Prisoner that a Time-Turner cannot be used to change known events. —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
They can be used to change known events, otherwise, Hermione's comments about wizards who have messed around with time travel accidentally killing their past or future selves make little sense. Hermione stresses that it's illegal to change the past, not impossible. Notovny (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to change past events, because everything what the user of a time turner did in the past has already done by the user when he turns the time turner. Therefore it is impossible to resurrect dead people or save a house which has been burnt using a turner (no magical spell can save dead people). It is also impossible to a kill a person who is alive when the time turner is turned. He would be dead already. Dead people cannot use time turners, so it is impossible to for the user of time turner to kill his past self. The possibility of killing the user's past self is a white lie to keep the user from attempting something stupid. Sirius and Buckbeak were freed long before Harry and Hermione even thought about using a turner and Harry was saved by a mysterious person using a patronus (future Harry) - before Harry even knew what a time turner is.
Another example: you leave a coin on a table. Someone steals it. You decide to use a time turner to see who stole it. You (future) decide to take the coin away for safety and a while later you realize that the "thief" was yourself. The past was not really changed. --85.156.238.210 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If the past isn't changeable, there's no reason for the secrecy. There's no reason to skulk around hiding from yourself, because you know that you didn't see yourself the first time around, and anything you do is destined to occur. To use the above example, assuming an immutable past, the universe will force me to take the coin, even though my initial intention was just to find out who took it, not to take it myself.
If the past can't be changed, and the characters know it (and that's something that should be mentioned to any user of a time turner), there's no free will involved in the time trip, which is out of step with one of the major themes of the series, that the choices people make are important. While Harry and Hermoine wouldn't have decided "Saving Sirius and Buckbeak is boring, let's go to Hogsmeade and have butterbeer instead", the idea that they could have is important, and also supports the suspense that the time-trip engenders. (There's also no point in making past-changing illegal, come to think of it.)
I imagine the intention was to produce something like the Novikov self-consistency principle, where the time traveller has leeway to change the details he wasn't aware of prior to the time trip. Admittedly, the Patronus Rescue throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the works; it can be made to work with my suppositions, but you have to reach pretty far to do so. But the series isn't really about time travel, so perhaps that's a forgiveable inconsistency. Notovny (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is gary oldman

Gary Oldman said in his biography that he was giong to repraise his role as sirius black in Harry Potter and the deathly holloows and yet he is not on the casting list. Did he have a change of heart about returning to the series or what?Why is his name not there with everybody else's? When does he plan on signing the deathly hollows contract for siriusblack? Pamela a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.33.26 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sirius Black is dead, I doubt he will be in the movies anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.84.240 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol of the Deathly Hallows

There seems to be some confusion as to the actual appearance of the symbol. There are two conflicting images of it on the page, and representations of it from the UK and US editions of the seventh novel, as well as J.K. Rowling's hand drawn illustrations for The Tales of Beedle the Bard point to one over the other. I am going to remove the spurious one, but I invite anyone that finds me at fault for this to discuss it here first. Thanks. Davi Williams (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, than it is strange. Her drawing is in contrast with what she wrote. For I red the seventh book recently I rewrote my article about it in Czech wikipedia, because that drawing does not fits to what she described in the book (when Xenophilius is drawing the symbol).
Can someone please quote here exactly the part whe Xenophilius is drawing the symbol?
--Niusereset 6.VIII. MMVIII, 23:35 CEST — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 6 August 2008

I will be employing emphasis and a tone in the following that may be taken as condescending or rude, I would like to say that in no way am I trying to sound harsh or didactic.

From Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, US Edition, Chapter 21, p. 409 (the emphasis is my own):

" He picked up a quill from a packed table at his elbow, and pulled a torn piece of parchment from between more books. "The Elder Wand," he said, and drew a vertical line upon the parchment. "The Resurrection Stone," he said, and he added a circle on top of the line. "The Cloak of Invisibility," he finished, enclosing both line and circle in a triangle, to make the symbol that so intrigued Hermione. "Together," he said, "the Deathly Hallows." "

Now, in this case a distinction should be made between the notions of something being on top of something else, and something being at the top of or on the top of something else. The circle is not described as being "at the top of" or "on the top of" the vertical line, rather it is described as being "...on top of the line." This description falls in line with the depiction of the symbol that was hand drawn by the author, and as such I feel that it is the correct one. Davi Williams (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Well, than we have a wrong translation. In our version is described the circle as a small circle. But still, the formulation is very confusing. Without thy explanation about "on top" × "on the top" I would still consider it as a wrong illustration of symbol.
On Commoms someone uploaded a very different version of symbol with question "why not like this" and (s)he was following the description from the book.
--Niusereset 7.VIII. MMVIII, 11:55 CEST—Preceding undated comment was added at 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I chalk it up to the oft confusing and quirky English language, in which things can have several meanings depending on any number of slight variations. It is a subtle distinction between "on the top of" and "on top of the", but the distinction is there.

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, US Edition, Ch.16 p. 316 (emphasis my own) the symbol is described as: " ...what looked like a triangular eye, its pupil crossed with a vertical line. "

The triangle is described as the eye itself, it can be assumed that the pupil of that eye is the circle and the "pupil" is crossed by a vertical line. That seems to shed a little more light on the overall look of the symbol. Davi Williams (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It' really easy... the UK cover tells the tail, it has the symbol on it, and JKR wouldn't let a faulty image of that be on the cover. Translations can be very bad, I just looked at the Swedish one (having not read it in Swedish) and it describes it as "over the top or upon the line"... But the UK cover has it, the US chapter art has it. My guesses, the artists of both pictures have asked and got a confirmation about the real look. — chandler — 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


»Davi Williams: Yes, it helps. I gotta admit I was mistaken. And our translator too. In our version (if I translate it back) is the circle on the top of and is small. Thanks for solving.
--Niusereset 7.VIII. MMVIII, 22:17 CEST—Preceding undated comment was added at 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commercial 'floo powder'

It may (or may not) be of interest that an equivalent of "Floo Powder" is available commercially. At any rate, the substance makes the flames sparkle, and go blue/green (though it doesn't allow for transportation!). One brand is called "Mystical Fire", costing about $3 for a 25g sachet. The contents are Cupric Chloride, Cupric Sulfate, and Polyvinyl Chloride; it may be added to any wood, or gas-burning fire. [It's fairly safe to use, but common sense applies when handling chemicals: don't ingest, don't cook over the fire, etc.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gubraithian Fire

I am wondering whether or not Gubraithian Fire should be placed here. Because I do not think fire can be listed as a object. Perhaps changing it to "Branch of Gubraithian Fire". Or just removing altogether, because technically Gubraithian Fire is a spell, is it not? Please discuss. If no one posts within 24 hours, I will change it, and see the general response. Garet Jax 03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ravenclaw's Diadem

I believe that Ravenclaw's diadem should be added to the section Legendary Magical Artifacts. Since it is just as legendary as the sword of Godric Gryffindor. It is magical, in that it grants the wearer boosted intelligence/wisdom. Anyone object to adding it there? Garet Jax 03:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(spoiler alert) required for the whole article!

512upload (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasley clock in American edition

A number of times now, I have added this line to the end of the "Weasley family clock" section:

In the American edition of Chamber of Secrets, a different clock in the Weasley home is described; showing times such as "Time to feed the chickens", "Time to make tea", and "You're late".

It is continually being removed. I would like to ask that it stay there, because it's true, and it's significant, because it's very different from most of the changes that were made in the American edition; most changes that were applied to the American editions were just words that American children could understand, not a completely different description of an object. I've made my case, and would like to request that the line not be removed this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.174.184 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

American edition is not canon. — chandler — 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Those times that you keep adding, they just don't fit in with what we already know are on the clock. So it's very doubtful that even the American edition says that. If it does, it doesn't co-exist with the British edition very well. And we go by the British edition first, so that is why it shouldn't be in the article. Jammy (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, those times (to make tea, to feed the chickens, etc.) are just out of the main objective of the clock. The clock is used to describe the current status of the family members, not to tell the members to do something. The normal uses include "at work, at school, in danger". Also, as Chandler said, the American edition is not considered canon, so that line should not be added. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of people in America. If nothing else, the line should be put there to explain to American readers why the clock is different in its first appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.174.184 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you not understand? The line is good faith, it makes the article unconstructive. Give it up already. Jammy (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the american version has the same as the british one. 98.64.84.240 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The quality of discussion in this section is truly disappointing. Most crucially, it appears the 1st IP probably is trolling or seriously confused. No one offered evidence beyond a smidgeon of what they claimed to have read. At a minimum, this talk section requires mention of the chapter number and/or page being drawn upon in making an assertion (let alone the page count from the start of the chapter, in the editor's edition of choice. That info would support quick confirmation or falsification, and elicit information at least on whether the other edition has relevant info at the same point. As it is, the exchange of 7 messages shows less than 1 good message's progress beyond the first msg, and no credible resolution of the issue.
    New participants, or more from old ones, within the parameters i've suggested, would be valuable.
    --Jerzy•t 08:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • On the second try, i turned up Yr. 2, in the American trade paperback edition. Chapter 3, "The Burrow", comprises pp. 24-41, of which p. 24 has (under the illustration) a bit more than half a page of text, and p. 41 has 3 'graphs, totaling 6 lines. By p. 34 the text has brought Harry to the kitchen, and its first full 'graph describes his observations of cultural artifacts that have a distinctly non-Muggle character. In the first of its 4 sentences, a wall clock is revealed to have a single hand and no numbers (and we are given no reason to assume it is the house's only clock, nor, if it should be, that it is incapable of transforming between two states). The second is clearly the source of the three contested phrases cited above by the abused 71.33.174.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): the first two are interchanged, and they are stated above in quotes rather than the italics of the book, but they are represented verbatim et literatim, and with the same casing. What 71. did not make clear was that they did not select for our edification 3 typical ones: rather they paraphrased by "such as ..." the book's statement that the 3 that it (and 71.) provide were typical of what was "Written around the edge [of the clock]. Further about the clock, the passage saith not.
      Now, i can understand, especially in the face of what appear to be pedanticism from one reg'd user, an AGF offense by another, and blatant OR from a third, that the IP might not think to take the initiative to present the means of verification of their claim. What i don't understand is why none of the three solicited that.
      In any case, the IP made an appeal from a different angle, promptly drew 4 terse (3- to 5-word) clauses -- including an insinuation of stupidity, a sentence (probably garbled in a slip of the pen and not previewed) whose logic and substance i cannot discern, and a dismissive imperative -- and, perhaps being well BITtEn, duly went away 2 days later.
      My point? We've had a fine example of the failure of collegial editing via failure to adhere to WP standards. What's done is done, and what it produced is crap. The 2-'graph subsection in question has one footnote, [HP6], which is inadequate to support verification of anything. The info it conveys is already in the text in the form of the phrase "by the sixth book...", so its presence is nothing more or less than a red herring, giving the casual reader the impression of verifiability. In its place, i'm going thru the section sentence by sentence, placing refs where i have them and {{fact}} tags otherwise. The fact-tagged material is subject to removal per WP policy.
      I happen to believe there is a Weasley clock that eventually shows "mortal peril", and suspect it has 1 hand per Weasley, so i am not anxious to see that removed. But i skimmed Yr. 6, Ch. 16, "A Very Frosty Christmas" (pp. 325-348 in the American hard-cover) looking for evidence and failed. What i am anxious for is due diligence on behalf of either the claim that the single-handed clock does not exist in the British edition, or its contrary. I doubt i can personally pursue that efficiently, but hopefully others who find examining the Yank edn as daunting as i do the UK one will collaborate, and determine what is discussed 60% of the way thru "The Burrow". (My speculation is that there will be more consistency between editions than between volumes (e.g., the clock's "main objective" may differ between Yr 2 and Yr 6) and that we'll have little occasion to squabble much about whether the author's home country's edition, or the one that sold over 3 times as many copies in the first 24 hours, is of more interest to our readers.
      --Jerzy•t 13:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • But as explained, it's not canon if its something in the US version that's not the same in the UK, for example in book for, one time it talks about "one last curse" in the UK about cursing Crouch Sr. but in the US it says "one last murder", but they don't murder Moody for that and we don't include it. chandler • 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, you mean as irrelevantly asserted. WP's standard is established knowledge and what is of value to readers, not any claimed "canon".
          --Jerzy•t 13:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
          • But most importantly, the clock you're talking about is another clock, not what's being referred as "the weasley family clock", and yes canon does matter, that's why we don't say that Wormtail put the imperious on Crouch not killed him, as implied in the US version. chandler • 13:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember there being two clocks in the UK Audiobooks - Stephen Fry's voice saying "time to feed the chickens" and "you're late" It seems like the two clocks have distinct functions - one tells the current location/status of each family member and is the rare artifact Dumbledore admires - the other seems to be less rare/powerful and tells the time(ish). This discussion is the first I've heard of any text differences between US and UK besides philosopher/sorcerer. OK just looked it up in my UK edition of Chamber of Secrets - top of page 31 "The clock on the wall opposite him had only one hand and no numbers at all. Written around the edge were things like 'Time to make tea', 'Time to feed the chickens' and 'You're late'." wall clock - not a grandfather clock. I cant remember/find the first mention of the grandfather clock with mortal peril etc. some interesting stuff here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Weasleys%27_family_clock ☭{{SUBST:sp2}}мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Potions plzzz....

i am going to add a potions part, i believe, that includes some of the more notable ones, like Veritaserum, Polyjuice potion, and Love potions, as well as the Elixir of Life. if anybody objects,change it back. Naturada137 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Naturada

I request that, if someone were to type in "Potions of Harry Potter," looking for the deleted page, it should be redirected to this section. The fact that there is no section devoted to potions, yet there is for just about every other aspect of the Harry Potter universe, is nothing short of an injustice. This should at least be a consolation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Overloaded ToC

There are 79 sections and subsections in the ToC, which renders it pretty awkward to use. This is a sample, for just the first two sections, of how the article could work without the overloaded ToC -- except that the sample sections are enclosed in a greenish box on this talk page, just to distinguish them from talk sections.
Note that:

  1. The top level sections still appear in the automatically generated ToC (at the top of this talk page, or in the usual place on the article page), but their subsections don't appear. (Likewise, the regular sections would appear on the article page's ToC, but the subsections, being implemented as in this sample, would not.)
  2. Those subsections appear on a handbuilt ToC within the respective section, and the links from the h-b ToCs link properly.
  3. Tho i've set up no demonstration of it, the "Howler"-piped link at the end of the first 'graph of Ron_Weasley#Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets, pointing to to Magical objects in Harry Potter#Howler will still target that same point, even if this scheme is applied on the accompanying article page (instead of on this talk page).
  4. This scheme, as shown here, has the shortcoming that users not only don't see the titles of all the intervening subsections distracting them from the section titles, but also are prevented from looking at the ToC at the top of the page to see whether the exact subsection is really in the subsection they expect it to be in. This could be ameliorated by placing a set of links to sections (or subsections) contain info likely to be mistakenly sought in that section. (The pink box just below the section ToC for "Concealers" is meant to suggest one possible approach to formatting such a feature.)

Does it sound and look like an improvement?
--Jerzy•t 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should better use a limit=2 general TOC at the beginning. A small TOC per section is also awkward and kind of useless for sections with only 2 or 3 objects. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bezoar?

At Talk:Bezoar#Harry_Potter there are a few sentences removed (probably correctly) from that article as non-notable there. They'd make a small sub-section, perhaps as the start of one a bit longer (e.g., "these fictional bezoars..." have the most important property formerly attributed to real-world bezoars), on the accompanying article page. My inclination would be to put them not in Magical objects in Harry Potter#Other uncategorized objects, but in (a renamed version of?) Magical objects in Harry Potter#Potions, if only bcz they seem to me to have been kept in the potion-ingredients storeroom.
As to possible new names for that secn, "Potion" literally means "thing to drink" (and "poison" is a variation, reflecting effective poisons being administered as drinks, or poured onto food). Potions and bezoars (magical or not) for me have in common paralleling the medical concepts of "materia medica" (materials for medication) and "p.o." (per os, by means of the mouth), but i mention these not bcz i think they are secn titles that could work here, but bcz they might jog someone's memory re a more widely used term.
In the event bezoars become a new subsection, i'd argue for a HatNote Dab tag on Bezoar:

This is about the real-world digestive-system objects; for their fictional use, see Bezoars as magical objects in Harry Potter.

--Jerzy•t 07:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger

For merge, article is shorter than the information about it on this page. -Falcon8765 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Spell-Checking Quill

for new edits in this section
for the record, as per available sources, the misspelling of Ron's name is not a practical joke - the books don't specify as such at any rate. it is mentioned that the charm might be wearing off and that is what shall be assumed here. on a different note, i wonder though, how the charm works. its highly likely that Ron would have written his name long ago in the book. perhaps the words change with age, either intentionally or unintentionally. if intentional change, then yes, a practical joke and not beneath the Weasley Twins to do that... anyway Rowling's gotta clarify that... now someone's jus gotta go ask her :P :) ... Krishvanth (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing Cabinet

Why is it that I think that they were used for hiding from unwelcome visitors? --80.175.250.218 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that is what the film said they were used for, it doesn't mean that is true though. These articles only go by J.K Rowling's creations, not Warner Brother's. I don't seem to remember what the purpose for the vanishing cabinets are in the books. Jammy (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem -> Horcrux but also a Magical Object

The diadem is a horcrux as we all know but it is said to possess magical properties that grant the wearer extra wisdom & intelligence (or some similar thing - cant refer book for exact wording as of now) .. .. by virtue of its said magical property, i imagine it ought to be mentioned in this article under the section "Legendary magical artifacts". .. . with a link to the Horcrux article... this link also to be added to the Resurrection Stone section... on the same note, Helga Hufflepuff's Cup and Salazar Slytherin's Locket cannot be mentioned in this article since the book only vaguely mentions they might possess some magical property and not what exactly that property is... for all we know, Rowling might decide they do not have any special properties - so its best not to mention 'em here unless further news/history about them comes out... Hope to have more discussion along this line... else will look into adding Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem myself around Sep 20 assuming somebody else doesn't get it done first... Krishvanth (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wand discrepancy

According to this section on the Elder wand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_wand#Elder_Wand, most wands stay loyal to their original master, which would seem to be a discrepancy with the current last paragraph of the Wand section. There also should probably be a "related article: Elder Wand" in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.185.98 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, chapter 24 "The Wandmaker" (1st edition p.399). Ollivander is speaking to Harry about Draco Malfoy's wand. Quote: In general, however, where a won has been won, its allegiance will change." End quote. Quote: Subtle laws govern wand ownership, but the conquered wand will usually bend to the will of its new master." End Quote.

My issue, however, is with Priori Incantatem. I realise that it is correct, but I think it's misleading since the most common form of Priori Incantatem is merely finding the most recently cast spells and not a result of the twin cores being forced to duel one another. Just thought I'd mention it. SeveTheLachlan (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this about a Dolphin as a portkey?

Where did this come from? We have a few editors putting in things like portkeys can be things like a football or a dolphin? Ccrashh (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea - it seems to be developing now with a further addition regarding people as Portkeys. I've removed it once again but imagine it will be back soon. Is there anything we can do? Nick Ottery (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
After the most recent addition it seems likely that it is mentioned in A Very Potter Musical. Nick Ottery (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On the Dutch Wikipedia there is an entire article about broomsticks. can somebody who speaks English and Dutch translate that page and put it on the English Wikipedia. I liked it on the Dutch page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

this is the link to the Dutch page. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_bezems_uit_Harry_Potter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Quirrell's Harp

I remember near the end of the first book, The three heroes come across a harp that plays music on its own, to tame the three headed dog (or whatever it was) that guarded the next door they needed to pass through. I would add this harp, but I no longer have the first book, and I don't want to go by memory. Can somebody add this? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not necessarily a magical item, it could be a simple Harp, that which Quirell bewitched to never stop playing. --Babar Suhail (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Horcrux Count

I believe that there is an error on this page regarding the Horcruxes. Voldemort originally created one horcrux for each of the Houses at Hogwarts plus his two personal horcuxes: the Cup, the Locket, the Diadem, the Sword, the Diary, and the Ring. Harry became the accidental 7th horcrux/8th piece of Voldemort's soul which caused instability. Both the Diary and the Sword were destroyed as horcruxes in the Chamber of Secrets. This brought the total count down to 5 horcruxes/6 pieces of his soul. Nagini became a horcrux upon the knowledge of the Diary being destroyed. Thus, the total count was back to 6 horcruxes/7 pieces of his soul enabling a rise to power again. 24.250.226.127 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Michael


Gryffindor's Sword was never a Horcrux. The Horcruxes, with their origin are listed below.

1)The Ring: Salazar Slytherin's possesion. 2)The Locket: Another possession of Salazr Slytherin. 3)The Cup: Helga Hufflepuff's possession. 4)The Diadem: Rowena Ravenclaw's possession 5)The Diary: Voldemort's personal possesion, proof of him being Slytherin's Heir 6)Nagini: Voldemort's pet. 7)Harry: Unintended Horcrux, created because Voldemort's soul had become very unstable.

So, there are 7 in total. --Babar Suhail (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as an in-universe note, the ring was never Slytherin's. It belonged to Marvolo Gaunt, grandfather of Voldemort, and presumably inherited it from the Peverell family. The Resurrection Stone was within the ring. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Too big!

Surely this page is far too big, i vote that we seperate the sections into seperate pages on wikipedia, i think this page had enough information to start doing so? Then we can use this page just as a sort of master portal with links to the individual pages, but not with full descriptions of the objects? Thoughts? Lyamardus (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Length alone does not justify split. What we need is to trim the article, removing redundancies, overdetailed descriptions, etc. Separate articles would require to prove strong Wikipedia:Notability before split (in the same way characters like Snape or Dumbledore, or elements like Ministry of Magic and Quidditch have done). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Horcrux plural spelling query

The plural of crux is cruces, just as the plural of index is indices.

So, the plural of 'horcrux' should be 'horcruces'; or does Rowling Anglo-modernise the orthographic convention and use 'horcruxes' in the book?

71.198.146.98 (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince, chapter 23 is called Horcruxes. (WicCaesar (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

Ollivander's statement about the Elder Wand

From the current version of the article: "As stated by Mr. Ollivander the wandmaker, the wand will never fully work for the new user unless he or she directly disarms, stuns or kills (even in Muggle fashion) the previous master."

Where this information comes from? Is it a quote from the film?

In the 24th chapter of the Deathly Hallows, Ollivander was a bit more unsure:

“Whether it needs to pass by murder, I do not know. Its history is bloody, but that may be simply due to the fact that it is such a desirable object, and arouses such passions in wizards. Immensely powerful, dangerous in the wrong hands, and an object of incredible fascination to all of us who study the power of wands.” - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter Twenty-Four: The Wandmaker

--Remaire (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seventh horcrux

It is stated in the section that Voldemort finds the number seven significant, and so there are meant to be seven pieces of his soul, one in each horcrux and the seventh in his own body. However, I think there are meant to be seven horcruxes. Isn't his question that horrifies Slughorn about *making* seven, or performing the spell seven times? His intention is to make a horcrux out of a significant item from each Hogwarts house, and the one that never gets made is from Gryffindor (probably the sword). I think this is discussed in the sixth and seventh books; perhaps someone knows the reference or can track it down. Winter Maiden (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Move Horcrux page

I think that the section 'Horcruxes' should have its own article. The section is very large, and is of much importance to the entire series. If Horcruxes were to receive its own page, it still should be listed under Magical objects in Harry Potter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperskier96 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Until 8 February of last year, it did have its own article, Horcrux, but it was merged with various rationales by User:Lord Opeth, so you would need to achieve consensus to undo this merge and recreate the separate article. I am personally opposed to this. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Horcrux tampered with

The article on Horcruxes has been changed and the reference for the change is "Mentioned by Dumbledore to Harry in Harry Potter and the Death of Burrtitos." If someone could please restore the section to its Jan 22,2012 state. Profharoldhill (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hogwarts Suits of Armour

Would the suits of armor in Hogwarts count as a magical object notable enough to deserve a place in the article? They're mentioned throughout the books as being able to do a variety of magical things including singing in the holidays (albeit off key and not knowing all the words) and protecting the school during times of distress.--96.29.243.67 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Wow, I was just about to comment about that, but it was already suggested! Yeah, the suits of armor actually do alot, like it says in the comment above. The talking makes them magical enough to make it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.23.33 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blood Quill

Is this name actually derived from the books, or from all the fanfiction that has been written since OOTP came out? Because, as far as I can recall, the quill is never given an "official name" in The Order of The Phoenix - it is just referred to as a quill.

If that is the case - should that be pointed out in the article? Or should the section on the quill be retitled to something else?

angelhome 80.192.232.123 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, it is a fan name. -Rrius (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Rememberall

Could someone more knowledgeable in such wonders add this item to the list? I realize it only made one or two appearances, but I find it to have been a memorable item and worthy of a section on this page. Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Polyjuice Potion

The link and redirects for the article "polyjuice potion" are in a loop, but there isn't actually a description anywhere on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Elder Wand

Voldemort turning the Resurrection Stone into a horcrux doesn't actually imply proof that he didn't know the Elder Wand for what it was. If he "simply believe[d] it to be a powerful wand", he could have just taken it from Dumbledore's grave to begin with. He was searching for the Elder Wand specifically, interrogating Ollivander, Gregorovitch, and eventually Grindelwald to find it. All three of those people knew it was the Elder Wand. He also understands how the Elder Wand passes from person to person, otherwise he would not have killed Snape in an effort to gain the Wand. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I've read the books, so I'm not going to alter the text of the article until I verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.230.178 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubly going to check, in that I just noticed these two contradictory sentences in the same paragraph: "In the final book, Voldemort learns about the wand and goes on a search for it... " / "Voldemort never realises that the wand is one of the Hallows..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.230.178 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All potions removed

Someone took out the Potions section, without bothering to put the info somewhere else. It should probably be re-added, but I'll leave it here for now. 2.101.80.203 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The potions were removed because a potion is not a "magical object" in the same sense as any of the other items in the list. There is no point in listing them all here in the talkspace when they are available in the article history up to here which is the edit preceding the one when I removed them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
But you haven't put them on another page, and pages like "Polyjuice Potion" still redirect here! Sure, they're not technically objects in the same way, but that just seems pedantic when there isn't another page I can think of where they would fit better.
Then create another page called "Potions in Harry Potter" and fix the redirects. Whatever - they don't belong here because they're not magical objects. It's worse than pedantic to say "keep them here as there's nowhere else for them". Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

on Wizard's chess

Added a brief parenthetical note giving the reason why the Scandinavian Defense was used (because by far the most common response is an immediate capture).

(Irrelevant PS: We can infer that the White player does not really care which pieces get replaced by humans. If not, it would probably have gone for a Trompowsky the moment Ron took the place of the king's knight.) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out again. I'm of the opinion that we don't even need to identify the opening gambit, but seeing as it's in, might as well leave it. To clarify to such detail is excessive, and not needed in an article not directly related to chess. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that if the article doesn't give a reason for it, the reader won't see it as significant and it'll basically be trivia. Annoyingly, while this is really plausible (it is the only good response to 1.e4 that usually results in an immediate chapter), Silman's article doesn't explain the rationale for his choice of opening. So maybe the entire mention of the Scandinavian needs to go... Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I'd agree with that as well. I don't see the relevance importance of specifying the type of opening used... Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Put-Outer

Is there a particular reason why the Deluminator is described as a "Put-Outer"? If there is no reason from the books or films, it seems it would be better to call it "Lights outer" as I don't recall it ever putting out anything besides [lights] in the books or films. [Although it did more than illuminate, it lead Ron back to Harry and Hermione] -- 109.78.242.159 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that two books, Philosopher's Stone and Order of the Phoenix, used this term until it was re-christened as a Deluminator. Elizium23 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
A good Wikipedia article would have had proper references making it clearer what specific chapter terms were used. I checked my ebook and it used put-outer in the Sorcerer's Stone. Can anyone confirm that the same term was used in the British version, the Philosopher's Stone? -- 109.76.83.210 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magical objects in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magical objects in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

phylactery

The concept of a horcrux is very similar to the use of an object called a phylactery by a lich to gain its form of immortality. To explain a horcrux in relation to a pre-exsisting horcrux-type object is very appropriate and appropriate for the lead. Indeed, the only difference between a horcrux and a lich phylactery that I can see is the name. tahc chat 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it is the same. And even if it is, the article is about Harry Potter, so there is no way this should be mentioned at the start of the section. We have not even completely described what a horcrux is, so there is absolutely no point in comparing it to some obscure other device. At most this would be an aside at the end of the section, and I doubt it is even needed there. Meters (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not even discuss phylacteries in the article you linked, lich, so your comparison is completely unsourced. Meters (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd sentence of lich article reads (with emphasis added) "Often such a creature is the result of a transformation, as a powerful magician or king striving for eternal life uses spells or rituals to bind his intellect and soul to his phylactery and thereby achieve a form of immortality." tahc chat 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The source you have added explains the general concept of phylacteries and justifies their mention. I still think it is WP:UNDUE to make the specific comparison to their use in lich and will remove that pending consensus by other editors. Meters (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I've also linked to James George Frazer and his comparative study of mythology and religion, The Golden Bough to give some context. Meters (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this is not only undue - phylactery does not have an associated WP article - but even if it does warrant a mention, then it's certainly not in the very first paragraph. Perhaps a comment at the end of the section? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What is really undue weight?

What it really UNDUE weight is the 99% of the article that describes fictional objects in an in-universe style. What this article needs is a less in-universe style, and points on the phylactery would clearly help this.
Since you have already said "The source you have added [on phylacteries]]... justifies their mention" why did you did just you keep the justified mention in a way that you do prefer? While the mention should near at the top of the horcrux section, if you just move it to the end of the horcrux it would still be an improvement over your currently pure in-universe style, and I would probably just let it go at that. tahc chat 16:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your concern. I tried to make a compromise edit, keeping the comparison to a phylactery that you wanted, and adding links to explain where the concept comes from, rather than your roundabout approach of just linking to lich. The use of phylacteries in Harry Potter does not involve liches, and phylacteries are only briefly mentioned in passing in Lich. I don't think a link to Lich [1] contributes as much to the article as putting phylateries in the context of religion and mythology [2] does. I'm not pushing to keep my version at the beginning of the section, or at all for that matter. If other editors think it should be moved or completely removed I have no objection. That's why we're discussing this here. If you think linking to lich is a better idea then please justify it. Meters (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
1. Thinking that I had been reverted without input was my mistake. I apologize for misreading the auto-notice without checking.
2. The text on "phylactery vs. horcrux" as you have written it makes it sound like Frazer is only one to have this idea, but this is not so. It is discussed many places on the Internet (including elsewhere on Wikipedia) . I mearly looked until I found one in print, and that was 9th International Conference on Digital Storytelling. I is misleading to let it read as if Frazer is the first/only one with the idea.
3. It is not a problem that the lich article only discusses the phylactery in passing; but feel free to add more. I feel it is much more a problem that Magical objects in Harry Potter does discuss horcruxes in such great detail. tahc chat 16:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The text I wrote still mentions phylactery, but in the historical context of mythology and religion as written about in a very well-known analysis of the subject by Frazer. I do not claim that Frazer thought the concept up. The ref you found is nothing but a developer describing why he named his product Phylactery, and referencing the use of the term by Frazer in his book. The original edition of The Golden Boughwas published in 1890. It's a classic book and editions of it are still being published. So, yes, mentioning Frazer and The Golden Bough to explain the concept is warranted. Linking to the fantasy fiction Lich because the article mentions in passing that they happen to use phylacteries not so much. It wouldn't matter if Lich did go into phylateries in depth, it still would not be an appropriate link here, any more than it would be to link Lich to this article.
Your concern about this article being too "in universe" is interesting. Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. I have to wonder why you think removing my "out of universe" description and replacing it with one that is in some other fictional universe would be an improvement.
If you have some other wording you would like to use then please propose it here so that other editors can discuss it. Meters (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Lich is not an article about some other fictional universe... it is an article about a concept in general fiction and folklore. Magical objects in Harry Potter are from fiction and folklore, much more so than "religion". Mythology is not much different than folklore. tahc chat 21:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
True, the concept is not from one particular fictional universe, but it is from fantasy fiction in general. Why would we want to link to an article about liches (which are not used in Harry Potter) rather than directly to an academic source that discussed the concept of phylateries? Again, If you have some other wording you would like to use then please propose it here so that other editors can discuss it. Meters (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
How about:

tahc chat 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Harry Potter is one particular fictional universe, not mythlogy, etc.
2. Lich(es) are in Harry Potter. Rowling just doesn't use that term for Voldemort and what he becomes. If you disagree feel free to let them know your view at List of liches.
3. Since the Wikipedia article on The Golden Bough, says nothing about phylateries, the real question would be "Why would we want to link to an article about The Golden Bough, about comparative religions (Harry Potter is fantasy fiction, not comparative religion) rather than directly to page that does discuss both the concept of phylateries and the concept of liches?"
4 I did; see above. You just did not give me time to post it. tahc chat 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, after four days you've given us something to look at. I'll wait for other editors to look and this and give their opinions. By the way, it's not considered good talk page etiquette to modify your response after it has already been replied to. I asked for your preferred wording almost 24 hours ago. You replied without giving it, so I asked again. You don't get to go back and retroactively insert a response before my reply. I've moved it to the appropriate place in the thread. Meters (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magical objects in Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Horcrux - Phylactery - The Golden Bough

Excising the following passage:

The concept of a Horcrux is similar to that of the phylactery described by James George Frazer in his comparative study of mythology and religion, The Golden Bough.[3]

References

  1. ^ Interactive Storytelling: 9th International Conference on Digital Storytelling, edited by Frank Nack, Andrew S. Gordon, page 404 https://books.google.com/books?id=nup0DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA404&dq=phylactery+horcrux&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN7Nq4y_rVAhVjiVQKHT8sA6QQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=phylactery%20horcrux&f=false
  2. ^ The concept of a horcrux is very similar to that of the phylactery described by James George Frazer in his comparative study of mythology and religion, The Golden Bough.
  3. ^ Frank Nack; Andrew S. Gordon, eds. (8 November 2016). Interactive Storytelling: 9th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2016, Los Angeles, CA, USA, November 15–18, 2016, Proceedings. Springer. p. 404. ISBN 978-3-319-48279-8.

Someone should have suspected something fishy when the reference source used was a work purportedly quoting The Golden Bough by Fraser (sic) instead of TGB itself. This particular use of the word "phylactery" is very modern and has to do with D&D liches. The quote used in Interactive Storytelling concerning a "phylactery" as "a magical object that stores a piece of one's soul" doesn't appear at all in the work.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Frazer does talk about the concept of an "external soul" in appropriately named chapters in vol 2 of the 1st ed., vol 3 of the 2nd, vol. 11 of the 3rd and in ch. 66,67 of the abridged 1922 edition on Wikisource. --Tifnzbzaz (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted to revision 943857240

I think you should justify your cancellation according to the rules of the project, or return the article to my version. — Ирука13 16:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why your earlier additions should be reverted, or with that comment, but you are adding images without giving them captions. However it's easy to add captions. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Just seems to be an excessive number of images, so much so that they're being pushed into other sections. Also, is there not some kind of NFCC issue with them all being used in the article? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The only one under NFCC was that of Dumbledore, which Iruka had removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe that with my level of English it is better not to add any descriptions than to add. In addition, the images are placed by me directly with the described object, so there should be no confusion. Regarding the image with the Deluminator: the static image with Dumbledore is uninformative (as the image of the Deluminator separately; only it is free, unlike the first). — Ирука13 06:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Rowena Ravenclaw's diadem

I've marked as "dubious" the final sentence in the paragraph describing where Voldemort hid Rowena Ravenclaw's diadem:

Because Voldemort believed himself to be the only one to have discovered the Room, he never placed any curses around the diadem.

The writer who inserted this explanation correctly recognized the perplexing apparent absence of deadly protective spells on the horcrux-diadem, but the reason given carries a logical fallacy: Voldemort could not possibly have failed to recognize that the hiding-place version of the Room of Requirement had been found by many students before him. It was, after all, full of accumulated incriminating junk students had left there. Some other explanation must apply.

Among those explanations I would suggest are that the diadem may have been another trap / weapon, like the diary-horcrux – after all, it was placed somewhere that it could only be come across by people who were desperate to hide something and perhaps vulnerable to some variety of corruption. And Rolling doesn't actually write out in the story that the diadem is not guarded by charms or not dangerous. As I recall, none of the characters who comes across it tries to wear it, and nobody directly threatens it: The diadem-horcrux is destroyed when a fiendfyre curse gets out of control – by accident, not by intent. It might just have wound up being burned before any protective charm on it was triggered.
107.116.93.41 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Past and present tense

Fiction should be in the present tense. Here, sometimes it is and sometimes it's in the past tense. Yet another thing to clean up. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter/Archive_1&oldid=1239705391"