Talk:Potions in Harry Potter

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Merge, 12 December 2020, see discussion.
No consensus, 8 March 2020, see discussion.
keep, 8 June 2016, see discussion.
delete, 8 November 2007, see discussion.

More Potion Ingredients

from the harry potter Trading Card game we find a few other ingredients; bludge eyes and Moon something or other.. help me out here :)--Kincody 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we would like to keep this article more on par with Spells in Harry Potter, which seems logical to me, we might want to limit this to the book only. Portia1780 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I branched this article out from Magical objects in Harry Potter due to article size. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

~~Amortentia and Felix Felicis may be too short for their own articles, shouldn't we add them to this one~~

Done. John Reaves 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amortentia

Amortentia Amortentia (pronounced Ah-more-ten-see-ah) is the strongest love potion in the world. In the first Potions class of Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, Professor Slughorn has a cauldron full of this potion, which is correctly identified by Hermione Granger.

Amortentia can be recognized by its distinctive mother-of-pearl sheen, its steam rising in characteristic spirals and how it smells differently to everybody according to what attracts them. We are told that Harry can smell treacle tart, the woody scent of a broomstick handle, and "something flowery he might have smelled at The Burrow", which the reader can infer by the end of the chapter to be connected to the Weasley family in general, and by the end of the book, with Ginny Weasley in particular (possibly a flower-scented perfume). To Hermione it smells like freshly mown grass, new parchment, and something else that she seemed to have been too embarrassed to reveal in front of the entire Potions class (possibly connected with Ron Weasley).

I've deleted possibly connected with Ron Weasley. No proof of it. It might be something connected about Harry Potter or someone else. So i decided to delete it as it also wasn't influenced much to the article.

Adri K. 08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

~~See Spells in Harry Potter for formatting ideas. Thanks!~~ •Malinaccier• 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was formatted to agree with Spells in Harry Potter. I think it looks better but others will need to fix/add information. Portia1780 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingredients table

Is the ingredients table at the bottom really necessary? The only two things in it are already fully explained in the section on the potion they're used in, and none of the other ingredients are in it. (Yes, I could add them, but the point is it isn't needed...) --StarChaser Tyger 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this a little bit ago. On one hand, it would be easy to expand and may be an interesting read. On the other hand, it extends farther into fancruft and listcruft then the entire article already does. Elimination seems to, currently, be the best option. -- Jelly Soup 08:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could add list of ingredients beneath each spell, when known? Portia1780 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polyjuice potion

While reading the final book, I noticed two scenes concerning polyjuice potion that seem to contradict each other, to wit:

pp. 51

Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, Fleur, and Mundungus drank. All of them gasped and grimaced as the potion hit their throats: At once, alltheir features began to bubble and distort like hot wax. Hermione and Mundungus were shooting upward; Ron, Fred, and George were shrinking; their hair was darkening, Hermione's and Fleur's appearing to shoot backward into their skulls.

pp. 69-70

“So why aren' you checkin' me?” panted Hagrid, still struggling to fit through the door. “You're half-giant,” said Lupin, looking up at Hagrid. “The Polyjuice Potion is designed for human use only.”

Since Fleur is one quarter veela, this scene makes no sense whatsoever. Unless Lupin is wrong or lying, I can't think of any good fanwanks to explain this, has anybody come across a good discussion of this topic? 207.177.231.9 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crud, I just thought of a great fanwank while editing the article: Polyjuice potion can't be used to assume the form of non-humans, but it can be used by anything including non-humans to assume the form of humans only. I wonder if this means that polyjuice potion could be fed to even a normal animal to have it assume the form of a human?

While the stuff in the quotes above are facts straight from the book, the above hypothesis contains too much original research, so I don't know if it ought to go into the article. 207.177.231.9 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that it is referred to as 'fanwank'. It was never intended to be in the article. -- Jelly Soup 01:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this is about Polyjuice Potion, I'd like to bring up something. The article currently states that the potion's taste depends on the person who you are turning into. I don't recall there being any proof, and the fact that they all grimaced on page 51 suggests that the potion tastes awful no matter who you turn into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.15.218 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake Restorative Drought

Doesn't Snape actually brew the potion (something about telling Lockhart that he is the potions master), not Sprout? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.167.17 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serving notice of intent to AfD this article

@Graham87:@Chaheel Riens: This article suffers from effectively the same problems it had eight years ago when it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter). It still fails WP:Plot, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. This was recreated five months ago, with assurances it would be improved. The changes since then ([1]) have failed to resolve any of these issues. In fact, if anything the changes have made it worse, as even more in-universe information has been added. There is also a possibility that much of this information has been lifted from other sources [2][3]. I could nominate the article for deletion now, and it would likely be deleted. I'll give it another month. Those of you who insist this is worthy of an encyclopedia article; now is your chance to prove it (not to mention the months you've already had). As is, it is nothing more than fancruft. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking recently ... we could move magical objects in Harry Potter to "Magical objects and potions in Harry Potter" or something, and merge the content to that article. I don't really care where the content is moved, as long as we keep working links so people can have at least a brief explanation of what a potion is, so people don't have to go digging through article histories for that, as I did. BTW, your pings didn't work because you added them to an already existing message, so I'm pinging @Chaheel Riens: now. Graham87 13:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ping behavior is just bizarre. It should work, period. As to the article; the content IS the problem. There is no encyclopedic treatment in this article whatsoever. Where we put the material is irrelevant. No matter where it is, it will fail WP:PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing

Now this article is through AfD, it really needs to be reworked. A list that is pure plot is not notable, as discussed in the AfD. Other sources were discussed, and so now it would be sensible to rewrite the article in a manner that discusses potions in Harry Potter in an encylopaedic manner. I made a small start to the lead. However that meant I added a citation to the lead so in time we should expand that to a section, move the cited material there and rewrite the lead as a summary. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]