Talk: Amycus Carrow's wand

Image of the Wand[]

I saw a video of the new game of harry Potter and the wand is so similar that apears in the Noble Collection

It looks like the Death Eater wand (snake) from the noble collection, but that is the travers's wand, the wand in the vidio game may be te death eater stalion

Length & canon issues[]

So Harry Potter: The Wand Collection has wands from the films with owners and lengths. We're going to need to figure out if we should use the lengths as they are quite long by book standards. Here are some of the more extreme examples: Arthur Weasley - 16 in, McGonagall - 16 in, Prof. Lockhart - 17.5, Harry Potter - 14 in (which is of course is non-canon). Given that "very long wands (over fifteen inches), these are exceptionally rare", and the clear conflicts with known lengths, I'm thinking the prop lengths from this source should NOT be used for articles, but that ownership can be. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:26, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

"Very rare" is one thing, but I think particularly the "a physical peculiarity demanded the excessive wand length" line cements it. I'd lean towards a BTS note mentioning the listed length and the reason why it's not in line with canon. Anything fifteen or less should be fine, though. (Somewhat off-topic, but I recall reading somewhere that the wands were made longer for the films to make them more ergonomic to use. Probably makes them easier to distinctly see on film as well.) -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:41, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

According to Administator User:Seth Cooper,, the information from Harry Potter: The Wand Collection is Tier 3 canon but I do think the wands were made a little bit longer for the films so they could be seen better. I would say unless it's stated else where, it would be ok to use the content from the Wand Collection."--Professor Ambrius (talk) 20:03, December 7, 2017 (UTC)