Is there a significant difference between this and Fiendfyre? -- 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiendfyre is a curse, whereas a Heliopath is, according to the Lovegoods, a creature under the control of Cornelius Fudge. --BachLynn23 17:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to insert this information in the text. I create a suggestion, what do you think?
"There is a difference between Heliopath and Fiendfyre, whereas a Heliopath is, according to the Lovegoods, a creature under the control of Cornelius Fudge, on the other hand, a Fiendfyre is a curse." Andre G. Dias (talk) 05:03, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Etymology removed?

In this revision the entire Etymology section was removed with the summary given that "online dictionaries are not suitable references of a definition." Is there such a policy somewhere about this or is it an opinion against the Etymology section altogether? Wikipedia has essays about some challenges using dictionaries, but does not suggest that they are not to be used. Given that the OED is online and considered to be the authoritive record of the English language, the summary justification does not seem to make sense IMO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:15, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

The dictionary "reference" that was used is not an authoritative source of definitions (look at the page history to see what site it was). The OED's "online" dictionary doesn't matter in the slightest, because it's the OED and therefore "is" the authoritative source of definitions, regardless if it came from a book or online version of the OED. Consider checking the edit diffs more carefully before assuming that an edit summary "does not make sense", since it's very clear what I meant.
This has nothing to do with a personal opinion about etmyology sections, but because the references provided are highly dubious and not authoritative at all, the section was removed because the whole section's validity is doubtful with those references and also, it was written as a theory and not definitive "fact" and it is not our job to write our theories on the articles.
To be quite honest, the Etmyology on this page just seems like an unnecessary section that was added to make the page longer, especially given that the topic of this page cannot be expanded any further. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, JKR never detailed the meaning behind this word and that it was simply thrown in by her just so Luna and Hermione could have an argument over it. The way the article is presented now is far better and sticks just to the facts and does not theorise meaninglessly on the word's meaning.
I really wish that I could edit and improve this wiki without being persistently questioned about every contribution I make. I am getting a bit fed up of having my contributions unnecessarily critiqued and policies quoted at every possible opportunity. --Sajuuk 14:38, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
Etymology sections are supposed to give some insight into the made-up words in Rowling's universe, or the meanings behind names. It's not necessary to be as strict when it comes to references, as in the rest of the article. While official, straight-from-Rowling quotes are preferred (and should definitely be included), sometimes the etymology of a certain term is fairly obvious (would anyone need a reference from Rowling to say that Archie Aymslowe's surname is a pun?). In this case, the Greek origins of the term are obvious as well (the 'helio-' prefix in English language is a dead giveaway, also present in words such as Heliocentrism, Heliosphere, Heliophysics, etc.).
All in all, the Etymology in the Petunia Dursley article is a good example of how to do them: including both external knowledge about a word, and J.K. Rowling's own reasoning for giving that character the name she did (while, of course, putting more emphasis on Rowling's thoughts).
That said, I do agree that the Etymology section on this article was a bit too wordy and speculative -- the meaning of the morphemes alone should be listed, precisely because we have no other input apart from the word itself. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:30, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that we don't need to be overly strict on the references, but I felt this section was primarily based on definitions obtained from, which is almost certainly not an authoritative source on definitions, so it was better to just remove the section. I have no issue with a section being present if authoritative sources are used to back up the claims. --Sajuuk 15:38, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
In looking at the page history, was added to the Etymology section after the fact. I can look at options to trim down the wording and find a more robust ref before adding back the Etymology. --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:44, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
The Etmyology should not just be added back as it was, however: it should be reworded to match the reference given and it should not attempt to "speculate" reasonings behind it. --Sajuuk 15:52, May 30, 2016 (UTC)