On her site J.K.Rowling said she found a chart which helped her decide/finalise a few major characters' wands, it would be good to get that list in the article. The list was of different ancient trees (used in wands) and which birth months they corresponded to. 18.104.22.168 08:43, August 17 2007
- Correct. Dec 24 - Jan 20 = Birch. Jan 21 - Feb 17 = Rowan. Feb 18 - March 17 = Ash. March 18 - April 14 = Alder. April 15 - May 12 = Willow. May 13 - June 9 = Hawthorn. June 10 - July 7 = Oak. July 8 - Aug 4 = Holly. Aug 5 - Sept 1 = Vine. Sept 30 - Oct 27 = Ivy. Oct 28 - Nov 24 = Reed. November 25 - Dec 23 = Elder 22.214.171.124 04:32, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Guest
Elder Wand's Core
- From J.K. Rowling's website. She posted it in the FAQ section in a recent update. I had to verify it myself since I thought it was fanon myself. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Tales of Beedle the Bard it is stated that Death created the Elder Wand. Should it be said that Death was a Wandmaker? Dumblydoor 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- All he did was pluck a twig off a tree though. He didn't craft anything IMO. Mafalda Hopkirk 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
True, and also Dumbledore believes that the Three Brothers created the wand anyway... Dumblydoor 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What the f?
- Wands used in the Harry Potter films are shown to have clear handles for wizards to hold onto them such as the bone handle of Voldemort's yew wand. The books however do not describe such handles. In fact all the pictures by Mary GrandPré in the American editions depict all wands as thin rods. This is supported by such things as Ron's Slug-Vomiting Charm coming out the "wrong end" of the wand and Harry's feeling that his wand is a "strip of wood" compared to a Dragon.
What exactly is is supported the sentence doesn't make sense, is it supported that they do have handles in the books or not?-- 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The idea that the wands in the books do not have handles is supported by Ron's slug-vomiting charm coming out of the wrong end, making it seem as though the wand must be the same size all around. --Parodist 11:18, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all. In fact, as far as I can see this gives no information about wands having handle's or not. Whether the wand is a long strip of wood or has a handle, there is still a clear "wrong end." A wand isn't supposed to fire magic out of its rear end, which Ron's only did because it's broken. Whether it has a handle or not doesn't change that fact. Either way, Ron clearly had the "front" of the wand pointed toward Malfoy, and thus the "rear" of the wand, the wrong end, would have been aimed at himself. Having a handle wouldn't stop the magic from exiting from this end, especially since the wand was already broken anyway and wouldn't follow "normal" laws. 126.96.36.199 19:56, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually wands in the books are specifically described as having handles. One such example would be when Harry and Mr Weasley are walking to the Ministry together. Arthur's hand is in his pocket, and Harry suspects that it is clamped over the handle of his wand. 188.8.131.52 22:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Pine trees as wand?
In the text it says "Some of the woods used include:" and then it come lots of different wood types, is that the entire list of woods used? Or is there more wood types used that we don´t know of? Like did they make wands of Pine trees?
--184.108.40.206 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- We only know the woods that were used for wands listed in the novels, which is not very many. There could very well be wands made out of other woods, it's just that nobody owned one in the books. So yes, they very well could have made wands out of pine.--Matoro183 (Talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, bowtruckles are a creature known to live in trees whose wood is used to make wands with, which implies that not all trees are used for wand making, otherwise bowtruckles would be found in all trees. --BachLynn23 19:12, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Wand Recognizing New Master
There is a line in the text that suggests that a wand's allegance cannot be won by a wizard removing it from the owner's hand without magic; i.e. physically wrenching it from the owner's grip. This is definately incorrect! Harry used absolutely no spellwork to gain the Elder Wand's allegance. During the events at Malfoy Manor, Harry wrested Draco's own wand and two others out of his grip and then used them to stun Greyback with a triple spell. Just the one action of removing Malfoy's wand from his grip gave Harry the Elder Wand's devotion, and the devotion of Malfoy's own wand as well. Do I have an administrator's permission to change this or am I missing something here?--Yin&Yang 08:51, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
The affects of the dark arts on a wands appearance
Has anyone else noticed that all the wands used by dark wizards have particularly sinister appearances? It's hard to imagine Ollivander making wands like Bellatrix's and Voldemort's. Is it possible that extended use of dark magic can physically warp the appearance of a wand? Jayden Matthews 13:34, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
I think that is just the creative liberty of the filmakers so don't read too much into it. Although your theory about Dark Magic physically disfiguring a wand is interesting, it doesn't tie in with Fleur Delacour's film wand which has an unusual bend to it (shown in 'Goblet of Fire'). Fleur is definitely not a Dark Witch so I think we can rule that idea out.
What I am about to say is something I have said before, and even though it may be far too late to do anything about it now, I'll still stick by my argument. I strongly feel that the wiki policy sets too much store by films and videogames i.e. "canonical" information from sources other than the books. The books contain the true story of Harry Potter, the films along with all other media are just adaptations of that story. I personally disagree with the way some articles imply that the events in the books and the respective films are side-along and part of the same universe. Often, these articles beat around the bush and mince words so as to avoid any contradicting pieces of information from two different sources; that shouldn't have to happen. The books and the films are all composed by totally different people who haven't necessarily agreed on everything together, so how can that lead to consistency? That is, J.K. Rowling isn't asked for permission on every change the directors bring to the story.
If the Dark Wizards' wands are bent or altered in the films it doesn't follow with the books' versions consistently! Ollivander is the only known Wandmaker in Britain and being a very kind and benign man, is not meant to create twisted versions of wands. You might say that the Dark Wizards purposely chose to alter their wands by themselves - but without the necessary knowledge of wandlore, how are they supposed to do that? I have seen countless interviews of film cast members in which they explicitly state that J.K. Rowling herself recognises the books and the films as "two seperate entities", so why can't we? Instead this wiki combines the two/three universes into an unrecognisable and inconsistent storyline. I'm only saying this because I genuinely care about Harry Potter and I do like this wiki (otherwise I wouldn't bother writing anything) so please don't think I'm trying to vandalise the policy.
I think the ideal policy would allow only in-universe sections of articles to relate to the books whereas any article that refers to the films or games, is labeled out-of-universe with its sources mentioned. Excuse my sardonic tone, but "bring on the disagreements, I know there will be plenty".--Yin&Yang 08:28, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
A valid argument. You know, you are allowed to propose changes to a policy if you wish? If J.K. Rowling has indeed said that she considers the films/video games non-canon - then it's definately something that needs to be discussed. Jayden Matthews 12:26, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
I am so glad you agree, and I think I will take this a step further.--Yin&Yang 13:22, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
- I think Yin&Yang has a point, it's a bit too speculative to say the appearance of the wands in the films is anything other than simply a stylistic choice without some kind of reference to back it up, say something in a DVD commentary or behind the scenes featurette where the propmaker says it was a factor in their designs for the wands. Viktor Krum's wand in the GoF movie was also crooked, but he isn't a Dark Wizard. - Nick O'Demus 12:25, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Wand lengths, rigidity and other properties
Just a heads up, we should start updating our info on lengths and rigidity with the info from pottermore (via a rather relaible source). There also some information on shape, which wasn't thought important before, interestingly (basically, straighter wands = more refined magic, more twisted ones represent a more primitive style of magic the owner goes for). —Green Zubat (owl me!). 10:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Same goes for cores and woods (though, I already started with the latter—reckon I have about half of them done, phew!
Cleaning up the "known wands" section?
Right now, all wands that has had multiple owners appear more than once, apparently without much if any order (none that I can pick out, aside from most of the duplicates being in the end). Wouldn't it be... I don't know, cleaner to just have one picture of each wand and note it's owner(s) then and there. Even Hermione's wand get's a second appearance as "Harry's second wand" and that one was only borrowed to Harry while it was still in Hermione's rightful possesion (as far as I know). Any opinions? Aryllia 11:29, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Whomping Willow as Wand Wood
Is it possible for the Whomping Willow to be used as wand wood? If so, what would the properties be like? Emperordmb 21:23, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, willow is a type of wood used in the making of wands. So if you managed to obtain some wood from it, the properties would probably be similar to that of other willows. ProfessorTofty 21:33, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Making wands for a specific witch/wizard
The wand chooses the wizard- but Ollivander made new wands for Luna and Dean in DH after they escaped Malfoy manner. So it seems that a wand can be made for a specific witch/wizard? I think it would be an important thing to note. 220.127.116.11 23:25, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Another wiki states (unsourced) that Dolores Umbridge's wand is rose and unicorn hair (9 inches) and that Nymphadora Tonks' wand is mahogany and phoenix (12 3/4 inches). Does anyone know a source for either of these informations? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 16:53, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
Sibling Wands and Identical Siblings
We know that Harry got a wand that is a "brother" to Voldemort's wand, since their wands' core each have a feather from the same phoenix, Fawkes. What about magicians that are identical twins? Would Fred and George Weasley, or Parvati and Padma Patil, each have a wand that has the same core as the other's wand?Mistystar31 (talk) 21:59, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
New Wands, Especially After Growing Up
Ron got his brother Charlie's old wand, so Charlie got a new one. "The wand chooses the wizard", (and if Charlie didn't win a wand by defeating an opponent), why would another wand choose Charlie? I know there are thousands of wands to choose from just in Great Britain's wand stores, but why would more than one wand choose you? Isn't the theory that, besides defeated opponents' wands changing their allegiance, just one wand is truly yours? Could you go to Ollivander's and get a wand, then go to a different store and have another wand choose you? Also, does growing older, like Charlie, change which wand is best for you?Mistystar31 (talk) 22:16, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
Using Different Wands
In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone, we saw/read how the few wands he tried that didn't choose him blew things off shelves, destroyed things, etc. And we know that wizards get the best results of spells when using their own wands. Let's say that one of those specific wands that didn't choose Harry chose a classmate, and for some reason he used their wand instead. Would this wand do the spell he was attempting good enough, completely backfire (since it definitely ruined stuff in Ollivander's store), or nothing at all?Mistystar31 (talk) 22:32, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
Possible properties of wands section on character's wand pages
I've been making wands irl for a while, and in doing so have been studying the various informaion available on them from pottermore. I was wondering if we should include a section on the potential properties of each wand on a character's wand page (like Harry Potter's wand) when they're not explicetly given. Just the basic information, nothing like "good for charms", but rather "subtle yet powerful magic" for a hypothetical wand of 9" with a dragon heartstring core (shorter wand= more subtle magic, dragon core= most powerful) (in general). If we only use information present in sources like pottermore, and we only use the attributes given for each component, could we do it? Dr. Galenos (talk) 00:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- While I can see the appeal of doing so and I wouldn't directly oppose, personally I feel that simply linking to the respective wood/core pages would be enough. But that just is my opinion. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:14, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- My sentiments are those of Hunnie Bunn's, with an added canonical objection. Ollivander himself makes a caveat regarding his notes: "the following must be seen as general notes on each of the wood types I like to work with best, and ought not to be taken to describe any individual wand" — since the characteristics of a wand are given by the unique conjugation of wood, core, and what the master learns from and teaches the wand. -- 02:00, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
It says Seamus' actor broke eighty wands. It was in fact Daniel Radcliffe who broke eighty (he had a habbit of drumming with them between takes). It's in the Harry Potter 5 special features, as cited, but it was Radcliffe, not Seamus' actor.
- You might want to read the article before posting a question: "No known formal prohibition exists against Muggles possessing a wand; they would be unable to use them anyway since muggles don't possess magic, but a Muggle's possession of a wand could be considered a breach of the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy." --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:57, May 27, 2016 (UTC)