Before editing, be sure to read the wiki's policies. Please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. Be sure to verify your e-mail address in your preferences. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Hello. Note that we may have articles on both counter-spell (which contains a more generic description) and its sub-types (i.e. Untransfiguration), containing a more specific description. Thanks. -- 13:53, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I always just thought that was a bit redundant, but thanks for the heads-upGreen Zubat 16:42, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
- It's ok, no matter! Have fun editing the Harry Potter Wiki! ;D -- 16:58, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
I think regular users can edit categories... While in edit mode, isn't there a "Categories" tab in the side bar? (by the way, those spells' categories have been taken care of) --18:06, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now. Boy do I feel stupid XD Thanks a bunch though! Green Zubat 20:42, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
RE: An ObservationEdit
- Firstly, this wiki clearly allows speculation to be noted in the articles
To a very limited extent, and ideally only in the "Behind the scenes" sections, where it presented as merely a possibility. Not as basis for new articles, and certainly not on equal footing with what is actually established by canon.
There is a difference between what is actually extablished by canon, and what individual people interpret from and theorize based upon canon. This difference is what defines "original research". This personal interpretation, while it may have some basis in canon, is not in-and-of-itself canon. Original research is generally considered unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia even prohibits it entirely as one of its core policies. While we are not quite as strict, it is still not something to be encouraged. We strive to be as official as possible in the information we present here. I won't deny that things have slipped through from time to time, but adding more is not the solution.
Some of your edits stated that all spells could be divided into four categories: Transfiguration, Charms, "Dark spells", and counter-spells, but where is it offically established that all spells fall into these four? Where does Apparition fit in then? The terms Dark Arts and Dark Magic are used repeatedly, but when is Dark spells? We use conjectural titles for articles as a temporary fill-in when official canon is lacking, but the article's content is still taken from canon. A conjectural title is a far cry from conjectural content.
Incidentally, the article for Magic is NOT currently protected. That protection was done temporarily due to counter-productive edit-warring, and it expired a week ago. I simply forgot to take down the notice.
On another note, please keep in mind that all articles relating to "in-universe" content need to be written from an "in-universe" perspective. This applies to quotes as well. "Out of universe" information needs to be limited to the articles' "Behind the scenes" sections.
If you believe this sounds too much like personal criticism, I apologize, as that is not my intent. I simply feel you need to learn to move away from interpretation and focus on what is actually there. Everyone makes assumptions, but as one my teachers used to say: "Assume' makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me". For example, until a while ago, we had in our articles that Albus Dumbledore had been Head of Gryffindor House and Deputy Headmaster, and that Lily Evans had been a Prefect. Many users here, myself included, believed these were true. But then someone else pointed out that they couldn't find anything in canon that actually stated this, and after checking, no one else was able to either. It was an assumption that I and many other people had made (based on things such as parallels between Dumbledore and McGonagall, and that Lily had been Head Girl even though James Potter proves this is not a requirement). We STILL have people adding these things to their articles even now.
As far as not taking the time to explain my reasoning more clearly before now, again I apologize, but things have been a bit hectic recently, both here on the Wiki (largely due to the increased activity because of the movie and contest) and personally (which I won't go into).
If you still disagree with some of my edits, you may make your case to another administrator for a second opinion. Cavalier One and Seth Cooper are both fairly active right now, and have been editting for a long time.
You have made many other helpful edits to the Wiki, and you obviously have a great deal of enthusiasm for the Harry Potter universe. I hope you will appreciate the level of professionalism we are attempting to build this encyclopedia towards.
Nick O'Demus 07:15, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
It's great to see your enthusiasm on the wiki and the Harry Potter series!
If I got it straight, the main argument seems to be about merging articles on sub-types of magic (say, counter-curse, counter-charm, etc.) into larger articles (such as counter-spell). There's no reason why we cannot have both, as in larger articles that convey general information about the type of spell (in this case, "counter-spell") and then smaller articles with information on the specificities of each sub-type (in this case, "counter-curse", "counter-charm", etc., etc.)
As for the "Dark spell" classification, I'd say Nick has a point. While Rowling does say that jinxes and hexes do have a "connotation of dark magic", she never (and do correct me if I'm entirely wrong) has grouped them as "dark spells". -- 19:02, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- A "fan-made grouping" would be unnaceptable original research at best, blatant fanon at worst. As for "if spells are associated with dark magic are, therefore, dark spells" that's not necessarily like that. The word Rowling uses, "connotation", implies association with the dark arts; not that they are dark spells.
- As for the spell classifications on the "Spell" article, I see no reason to remove the spell subtypes (i.e. "Untransfiguration", etc.) -- 19:26, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. I must've misunderstanded. Seems fine by me, I guess. -- 19:44, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as you pointed out, those quotes would be out of universe and placing them within the article's main body (including quotes) would be in breach of the style section of the general policy. However, information from those quotes can (and should) be included within the text. --18:48, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. -- 19:06, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
Your words on Albus Potter site: Edit
"Actually, can we just have a genral "no pictures over 200 pixels on this page please?"
The Template:Infoboxes are all with 250 pixels. Why should this be shorter? Or do you mean that the Template should generally be shortened to 200 pixels? Harry granger 12:18, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
RE:James Potter & The Hall of Elders CrossingEdit
Personally, I had never heard of it before, but both what you say and the story's website seem to indicate it is of note. I think it wouldn't hurt to have an article with a "This article is not part of the Harry Potter universe" tag in it and placed within the Fandom category (just like Potter Puppet Pals). It's not enough to stress, though, that no elements from these stories are to be taken as canon as they are, for all purposes, a piece of fanfiction. -- 23:04, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Neat. Everything seems to be in order. -- 00:17, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Please do not "blank" (remove all the content from) articles unless they are clearly something that should be deleted like vandalism, spam, or fanon. If you question whether an article is canon-based or fanon, it would be better to bring it up on the article talk page, because "blanking" pages is generally considered disruptive. Thanks. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 16:04, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it came off that I was accusing you of being a vandal. At first glance, on the recent changes list, seeing large amounts of text removed from articles is a classic red flag of vandalism. Of course, those types of edits generally consist of replacing all the content of, say, Albus Dumbledore with a swear word. I realize that your edit was constructive in intent (i.e. trying to reduce fanon/speculation), but on wikis, it's generally considered best to try to fix a problematic article before deleting it, thus why "blanking" is considered something to be avoided.
- I personally see the animate-to-inanimate and inanimate-to-animate transfiguration articles as comparing to the underage magic article. None of these is a clearly defined or named type of magic in the Harry Potter series, but there are enough incidents of spontaneous magic from children and transfiguration of animals to objects etc. in the series to probably warrant articles covering those incidents, as well as whatever other information about the topic is known. I do think the transfiguration articles could use some improvement, especially in the area of cutting down on speculation.
- It should also be noted (in case were not already aware) that the Harry Potter Wiki considers information from the films, games, and other licensed media canonical unless it directly contradicts the books or JKR. Thus, while some of the examples on the transfiguration articles wouldn't be considered canon by the The Lexicon, they are considered canon here. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 16:34, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Cushioning Charm. -- 22:47, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
RE:Molly and Ginny WeasleyEdit
As Seth Cooper has already stated, jinxes and hexes are not automatically Dark Magic. That's really stretching the definition of Dark Arts, and I'm not going to rehash the "Dark Spells" debate again. As far as Molly's duel with Bellatrix, there has, as yet, been no positive identification of what spells she used, either in the book or film. Currently, the two spells at the end are given only conjectural titles: Petrifying curse and Disintegrating curse. And as far as canon, it DOES contradict the book. While the film canon can tell us that these spells exist, book canon tells us that Molly did not use them on Bellatrix during their duel.
As far as Ginny's "Inheritence", as it is currently phrased, it is incorrect. Rowling is referring to a real-life superstition: 7th daughter of a 7th daughter, etc. Ginny is the 7th child, not the 7th daughter. Also, Molly has only two known siblings, both brothers. While this could be used as a reference to Ginny being magically talented in general, it is not a singular skill. Rowling has also mentioned a superstition about red-heads being unlucky (which she disagrees with), but that doesn't mean "Redheaded bad-luck" should be listed as a skill either. Rowling statement about the 7th child superstition has been added to the "Behind the Scenes" section, where it sheds light on JKR's planning for the character.
If you still disagree, you may contact another active administrator for a second opinion, but do not simply revert it again until this has been discussed further.
On a brighter note, you've earned this:
Thank you very much, I will proudly display it on my User Page :) Green Zubat 15:41, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
When adding categories to articles, either make sure the category already exists, or go ahead and create one if it doesn't. Healing spells, Medical Magic, and Dark Magic Artefacts currently are not existing categories, so they'll need to be created.
I'm not sure how much experience you've had so far with category-creation, so I'll do a short tutorial (apologies if you already know some of this). It's just like creating an article. If the subject is X, the category would be titled Category:X. A brief description, one or two sentences, is all that is necessary. Most subjects are actually sub-categories of larger "parent" categories, and some may even be parent categories to smaller sub-categories beneath them. For example, Healing spells would be a sub-category of Spells and Medical Magic. Medical Magic would be a sub-category of Magic and Medicine. Dark Magic Artefacts would be a sub-category of Dark Magic and Objects. So, if you added Dark Magic Artefacts as a category to a page, you would also remove the Dark Magic and Objects categories, since as sub-category, Dark Magic Artefacts already includes both (policy on this is found here).
Hope this helps. - Nick O'Demus 23:51, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so basically remove parent categories, got it. I didn't know that, thanks! Green Zubat 22:08, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
RE:Molly/Ginny Weasley: Magical Skills and AbilitiesEdit
I think it wouldn't harm adding that both Molly and Ginny seemed to be proficent with Dark magic. After all, despite the non-canonicity of her usage of the Petrifying and Disintegrating curses, Molly did kill Bellatrix (alas, the book describes the spell that took her life as a "curse"); and Ginny seemed to be skilled in all manner of jinxes (DH), hexes (HBP) and the Reductor Curse (OPf) -- jinxes and hexes, although a very minor sort of dark magic, do have a connotation of dark magic that Rowling acknowledges. I think, however, that it should be noted that while both of them were knowledgeable in that kind of magic they never actually actively practised nor studied it so they are not listed as Dark witches.
On the second point, I tend to agree with Nick. That statement by Rowling is all about the planning for the character based on real-life superstition, not so much about the actual circumstances surrounding Ginny. Besides, I think it seems a bit out of place to list the "Inheritance" as a "magical ability and/or skill", as that is neither. Perhaps it would be more useful to add it in the "Behind the scenes" section, and as a reference to Ginny being a powerful witch. --01:11, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
House Points GameEdit
Hi Green Zubat! Do you want to restart House Points Game with me? You can be in Hufflepuff! Just a suggestion.04:30, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
They put it on hiatus because of lack of Hufflepuff players I think.04:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea.04:47, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Hi mate, did you ask an administrator?15:50, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Severus Snape Edit
I have a question. How can a double agent, who worked finally for the good side, be already a "dark wizard". And to say it with your own words: Please, "don't lie"! Harry granger 14:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
That is an interesting interpretation. When I look who is called as dark wizard: Lucius Malfoy, The Dark Lord, Bellatrix Lestrange and so on I think it is very easy to misunderstand / misinterpret this word. But you are right in the point that Snape studied the Dark Arts. There is only the question left: Is everyone who studies the Dark Arts also a dark wizard? Harry Potter used the Cruciatus Curse and the Imperius Curse, dark magic. Is he now a dark wizard because of his using? O. k., Snape has also used the dark arts, but changed sides. After your interpretation that is irrelevant. But is it really irrelevant? I find this is a very interesting point of view. What do you think? Harry granger 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
It is right that I am a fan of Severus Snape, but not a Snapewife. For that I am too old. I am not blind. Of course, he has his flaws. Look only, how he treats Harry because of that what Harry's father did. That's not o. k., understandable - perhaps, but not o. k. You are right in the point that Snape loves the Dark Arts. You mentioned Snape killing Dumbledore. But we know now that Dumbledore begged Snape for the death, because otherwise his death would be very painful and he wanted to rescue Draco from doing it. Is the use of the Killing Curse out of mercy or fulfilling a wish a bad thing? Not for me, but o. k., may be arguably.
Another cause to study Dark Arts can be because you want to teach Defence against this. Then I think you must know these Dark Arts.
Every man, woman, child has his character flaws. Everyone makes mistakes. You can only hope, your mistakes are not fatally, likes Snape's, leading to the deaths of James and Lily Potter or hope, when it happens, there is someone who forgives you. Harry granger 15:53, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
RE:Just a question...Edit
The House Points games has been on hiatus for a long time mainly for lack of Hufflepuff players (that made the game a bit unfair), and general lack of interest. I don't know whether there's ever been an attempt to revive it since. --17:17, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Inanimate Deletion Vote Edit
I did vote for their deletion a) as a non-animate object can't be transfigured into the same thing so it's completely useless b) no content c) all around useless d) fanon.
If you see any more nonsense articles OWL me and I'll gradly vote for deletion.
Agreed. After your recent re-classification of spells with canon terms, they seem pretty pointless. I'll delete them myself. --22:41, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
Snape as a Dark Wizard Edit
Please listen to what I have to say. I don't agree that Severus Snape is a dark wizard because he would've been much worse if he was. I wasn't vandalising anything. That isn't fair how I'm getting a warning for changing something that you both are also changing. And I have an account on this wiki like everyone else who is editing here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Severussnape0109 (talk • contribs).
Can't believe you haven't one yet:
Cheers. --00:46, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's awesome! Thanks a lot! I will display it on my userpage with pride :) Green Zubat 00:09, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Zubat, Pokemon??? Edit
- Why yes, yes it is. However, my username is in honour shiny Zubat that I once caught and I still use competitively to this day, and shiny Zubat are green. Hence "Green Zubat". Green Zubat 00:11, August 14, 2011 (UTC).
While not a bad idea, the amount of potential uploads would have to be dealt with. In addition, we would appear to be doubting the user. That said, it may be an adequate compromise until an admin gets early access to verify. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 18:02, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
- With images, each needs to be licensed and sourced correctly. The community is rather lax on this, and I find my time consumed with correcting it. However, I've thought longer about using screenshots and we probably can't do it for legal reasons since we would also be reproducing the text from Pottermore for a public audience, which, since it is in a closed Beta, would probably violate a large amount of copyright laws. With the fair use provision, we skirt round a few issues, but this would not go unnoticed. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:18, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I saw you're suggestion for a template for affected articles to warn readers so I suppose that's a good solution 'til unviversal access.
Order of Merlin Edit
|Order of Merlin (Second Class)|
|The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Nick O'Demus for having over two-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.|
Tah very much—Green Zubat (owl me!). 00:17, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
Re: TL:DR page nameEdit
I like "curse-dependent locking spell" best for the reasons I gave on the article's talk page. "Cursed lock" implies a specific object that has been cursed, as opposed to a spell that can lock any door in conjunction with a curse.
Re: Pottermore spellsEdit
There's a "Spells" menu on Pottermore with panes named after canonical spellbooks. The name of each spell is listed, along with a short description of its effect:
The spell's incantation only appears when you practice it:
At this point, however, not all spells in the "Spells" menu have a practice button, presumably because they need to be unlocked somehow (perhaps through the duelling minigame, which is currently down for maintenance). Thus I currently can't confirm whether the Smokescreen Spell is tied to the incantation Fumos.
The incantation Colloshoo appears when you practice the Stickfast Hex:
The description of the Stickfast Hex is "sticks shoes to floor," and for the Tongue-Tying Spell it's "ties tongue in knot":
Presumably not the same spell as the Tongue-Tying Curse given how the description varies from DH. Maybe the Tongue-Tying Curse prevents you from speaking about a specific thing for an indefinite period of time, whereas the Tongue-Tying Spell only temporarily renders you mute (presumably so you can't cast spells in a duel).
It does say "Your spell: Tongue-Tying Curse" on the practice screen:
This after you've clicked the "Practise" button beside the "Tongue-Tying Spell" in the spells menu. Evidently this is an error/oversight on the part of the site's creators.
The incantation for the Tongue-Tying Curse/Spell is also Mimble wimble, as shown above. Hence it's the same spell that's covered in the article Mimblewimble. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:59, August 28, 2011 (UTC)