Image of wand

How about this: [1] as the picture because it isn't on a funny angle.Lieutenant J.J 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Lieutenant J.J

Thanks alot Lieutenant J.J, Ive bin hoping that someone could get me a pic of old malfoys wand, so now ive edited it, but can anyone tell me how to put it in the wand info box, i couldnt find out how to do it, thanks again, - JACOBSMITH95

Sorry, but where does the information about the wand being made over a thousand years ago and previous masters come from? 21:55, November 28, 2010 (UTC)Charles Estrada189.171.74.232 21:55, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

It comes from an interview with Jason Isaacs (that can be seen here). Have in mind that under this wiki's Canon policy films are a valid canon source, unless contadicted by the books or Rowling herself. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:24, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

uhh...not 2 B redundant, but what is the point of breaking off the handle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Probably to further humiliate Lucius and his family. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:11, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be named Lucius Malfoy's wand, and the fact it a family heirloom be in the article itself? Merlin. 07:22, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

All of this stuff about it being a family heirloom really needs to be cited in the article itself, ASAP and not just the infobox. It's floating a lot of facts that don't come from the books without good sourcing, and that's not a good idea. I may just do it myself when I have the chance if someone else doesn't get to it first. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Actors' comments

This really needs to be standardised or something. Are actors' comments going to be taken as canon or not? We have yes here, but no elsewhere, and it's quite frankly very confusing for me, and presumably for others as well. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:24, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

If the movies had come before the books, I would say "Yes!" without hesitation. As it is, I cant give such a definitive answer. Given the potentially massive implications, it may be that we'll need to address it on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:57, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


I don't think we can consider the film's representation of Lucius' wand to be canon. The books repeatedly describe him as "drawing his wand from the inside of his robes" - the films directly contradict this. Also we know from Pottermore that wands over 15 inches long are extremely rare... I seriously doubt Malfoy's wand is really 18". This is fits in with our earlier discussion about film props not accurately depicting their canon book counterparts. I would also take Jason Isaacs single off-hand comment about the wand being a family heirloom with a pinch of salt! A fun bit of trivia for the BTS section, maybe... but certainly not a canonical statement to be published as fact. - Xanderen signature 10:43, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the wand's length. It was definetly taken from the Noble Collection prop description, and has been perpetuated as fact fgrom there on out. Even when Pottermore revamped their site with character pages, they appear to have borrowed information from this wiki to fill in his wand information. I vote that the length be changed to "unknown."

PS: I feel the same way about Hermione's wand length too, which has never been stated in canon to be 10 3/4 and was also used by the Pottermore revamp team to fill in her info box.

Nightstar5877 (talk) 15:53, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Masters and owners

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

There were once so many masters and owners in the infobox. They were nearly all deleted. Why?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 12:22, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Wizarding World Collection