Talk: Magical Theory

Archive
The talk page has the following archives: Archive 1 Archive 2

Article clarifications

So I'm going to try and refocus the discussion on the article itself. Kates39's comment on which revision "This one supported by WIOK, or this current version by RW" this one is a good starting point. Personally, I think there are elements of the more expanded version that could be kept but some points need better explanation. The articles have a "Notes and references" section for a reason which allows for Notes as to what exactly is being referenced or how various points are bring brought together.

• "Teachers at Hogwarts were also known to assign lengthy written essays on magical theory as homework, and end-of-year evaluation also had an important theoretical component." What is the source for these two claims?
• "Filius Flitwick, arguably the best and most knowledgeable Charms teacher in the world,[13] opted to hold largely theoretical lessons for first year students twice a week for nearly two months before he judged them ready to try their hand at their first spells such as levitating a feather.[14]" Where is the source that says this work was on theory? Flitwick only mentions "don’t forget that nice wrist movement we’ve been practicing! and "saying the magic words properly is very important, too" in PS|10 so it could be entirely just working of hand-motions and pronunciation for the two months previously.
• "By their fifth year of schooling, Ministry-trained educational experts expected the average Hogwarts student to achieve adequate results when casting new spells on their first try, granted they possessed a sufficient grasp on their theoretical aspects alone,[15]..." What exactly is being referred to that requires an understanding of theory? Being able to drive any given car based on past driving experience doesn't mean one has to have a grasp of hydraulics, combustion, friction, and the whole theory of physics involved with driving.
• "Magic at its deepest and most impenetrable was produced by certain, incalculably powerful acts,..." This seems just to say that magical theory likely played a role in the investigations of the department of mysteries given their focus on the magical aspects of topics such time, love, etc, but the exact extent is unknown. It helps to clarify what is known, presumed, and not known.

With these vague topics, it helps to break down each sentence make sure they have a source and often some explanatory note making the connection clear so the reader can follow. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I would just like to express my relief and gratitude that you are helping us sort this one out once and for all, Ironyak1. Thank you so much! :-D

• "Teachers at Hogwarts were also known to assign lengthy written essays on magical theory as homework, and end-of-year evaluation also had an important theoretical component."

• • Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 8 (The Potions Master) comes to mind, when Harry notes that "there was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your wand and saying a few funny words", and this is further emphasised in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 12 (Professor Umbridge), when Umbridge says that "it is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be more than sufficient to get you through your examination, which, after all, is what school is all about.", and that "as long as you have studied the theory hard enough, there is no reason why you should not be able to perform the spells under carefully controlled examination conditions", as in, the theory behind the nature, function and using the spells they would be demonstrating on the exam. This, mind you, cannot be anything but true. The Ministry's agenda of preventing students from learning defensive and offensive spells to thwart the imagined uprising of Albus Dumbledore aside, anything less would go against the Ministry's narrative of trying to "fix the failing standards" at Hogwarts. Umbridge can't possibly be reported to have "revolutionised" DADA teaching by the Prophet, and then this is almost immediately followed by every O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s student failing DADA because Umbridge didn't let them practice spells in class and their failure to use spells adequately in their practical exam pulled their test score down to a failing mark. That would completely invalidate their whole excuse to interfere at Hogwarts in the first place, and the Ministry would look bad. If an outcry of public discontent could force Cornelius Fudge, countless angry parents would give Fudge every incentive to scrap the whole "trying to wrestle control from the Ministry" scheme, the DADA jinx notwithstanding.

Furthermore, in said chapter in book 1, McGonagall is said to have assigned Harry's class "them a huge pile of homework". A "huge pile" implies that they're asked to do more than let's say read a chapter on their textbook or practice the wand movement for a spell they are learning in class between lessons. the lesson plan for First Years deals with a reference frame known as a transfiguration alphabet, which seems to be used to learn about related theoretical concepts, or wrapping one's head around how those conceptual description/formula of how transfiguration spells specifically applies to the spell they are learning in class. The former is also further emphasized in book 5, when Umbridge states - in Harry's first DADA class that year - that Fifth Year students should be able to produce serviceable results with a given spell on their practical exams granted they've studied the theory behind it properly. (This would necessarily have to be accurate, as anything else would go against the Ministry's narrative of trying to "fix the failing standards" at Hogwarts. If Umbridge was reported to have "revolutionised" DADA teaching by the Prophet, and this was then immediately followed by every O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s student failing DADA because Umbridge didn't let them practice spells in class, their whole excuse to interfere at Hogwarts would be invalidated, and the Ministry would look bad. The Ministry wanted to prevent students from defending themselves properly so as not to use that skill against the Ministry, not for them to fail their exams).

• "it could be entirely just working of hand-motions and pronunciation for the two months previously."

• • Hypothetically yes, but evidently no, as it would make no sense for First Years to be required to buy and bring a textbook to school if there was to it. In addition to the fact that said book goes into detail about the differences between what makes a Charm different from a Transfiguration spell, which already goes a bit beyond just working on hand-motion and pronunciation, if that was all there was to it, then the book is redundant. Why the textbook? Why not just jot down the name, incantation and wand movement of a spell as Flitwick mentions it on a scroll of parchment and memorize it? Because there are more to magic than waving your wand and saying a few strange words. They need a textbook full of information about the magic they are learning how to use.

Furthermore, in said chapter in book 1, McGonagall is said to have assigned Harry's class "them a huge pile of homework". A "huge pile" implies that they're asked to do more than let's say read a chapter on their textbook or practice the wand movement for a spell they are learning in class between lessons. the lesson plan for First Years deals with a reference frame known as a transfiguration alphabet, which seems to be used to learn about related theoretical concepts, or wrapping one's head around how those conceptual description/formula of how transfiguration spells specifically applies to the spell they are learning in class. The former is also further emphasized in book 5, when Umbridge states - in Harry's first DADA class that year - that Fifth Year students should be able to produce serviceable results with a given spell on their practical exams granted they've studied the theory behind it properly. (This would necessarily have to be accurate, as anything else would go against the Ministry's narrative of trying to "fix the failing standards" at Hogwarts. If Umbridge was reported to have "revolutionised" DADA teaching by the Prophet, and this was then immediately followed by every O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s student failing DADA because Umbridge didn't let them practice spells in class, their whole excuse to interfere at Hogwarts would be invalidated, and the Ministry would look bad. The Ministry wanted to prevent students from defending themselves properly so as not to use that skill against the Ministry, not for them to fail their exams).

• "What exactly is being referred to that requires an understanding of theory? Being able to drive any given car based on past driving experience doesn't mean one has to have a grasp of hydraulics, combustion, friction, and the whole theory of physics involved with driving."

• • True, but I'm not entirely sure this is an apt comparison. Not only is casting spells different from driving a car, (knowing the whole theory of physics involved with driving don't make you a better driver, but there are examples in canon where somebody learning the theory behind how spells work makes them better at using them), but when Umbridge was confronted with students concerned about passing the practical exam if they were not allowed to practice the spells they would have to cast beforehand, Umbridge specifically replied that "as long as you have studied the theory hard enough, there is no reason why you should not be able to

perform the spells under care-fully controlled examination conditions", as in, the theory of the spells they would be using. She didn't handwave it away with a "You have used spells successfully in the past, Miss Patil, so we know that you can do so in the future too, if you put your mind to it. Memorize the incantation, practice the wand-movement, and the rest is up to you."

• "This seems just to say that magical theory likely played a role in the investigations of the department of mysteries given their focus on the magical aspects of topics such time, love, etc, but the exact extent is unknown. It helps to clarify what is known, presumed, and not known."
  • Well, Magical Theory is the study of magic itself and how it works, so it's not so much that it "likely plays a part" in the investigations of the Department of Mysteries as it is that it necessarily have to. Otherwise, the Unspeakables would have no foundation to work from when trying to understand how magic impacts/shapes these things. But as you said, the exact extent is unknown, so it seems to me like it was intended as a generalized example of one way the field of Magical Theory is practiced in-universe and nothing more than that. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No one disputes that theory studies are essential in all subjects.
But one should bear in mind (your reference to HP Book 5) that the Daily Prophet only writes what the Ministry demands and prescribes, such as the vituperative writings about Harry and Dumbledore, which lack foundation.
At the end of the school year, the Prophet writes it the other way around.
Besides, after all, half of Harry's year class is in the DA, practising the spells practically, they certainly won't fail the O.W.L.s, so no "parent revolt".

I don't know of any "Magical Theory" reference, from the Harry Potter books, that justifies such a (pointless) discussion as is going on here. LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the German word (Meinung=opinion).
My paragraphing was meant to clarify which part of the endless discussion I am referring to. LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Trying to be concise:

• Flitwick: We don't know what is in The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 1, outside of PM's brief note, nor even if the class used it for those two months. We don't get to fill in gaps in canon with what we think fits best.
• McGonagall: Again, we don't know what is in that huge pile of homework and cannot just say it must have been Magical Theory. Same goes for "more than ... waving your wand and saying a few funny words" - we know emotional states matter with the Patronus Charm, for instance, but this isn't Magical Theory, just more mechanics on how to cast spells. The Transfiguration alphabet we know nothing about, so saying it too MUST be Magical Theory is a guess. Given it is appear to be an encoding of common letters, it could be a cypher, or mathematics, or many other topics.
• Umbridge: Umbridge's emphasize on theory over practice and the OWLs theory exam components do make sense to note as directly as possible with references. We know casting a spell from theory alone is possible as Hermione brings it up in DH|9 when casting the Memory Charm.
• There are also books worth possibly mentioning such as the New Theory of Numerology.

In general, articles are more about listing with a source what is given directly in canon than trying to synthesize several vague mentions into a grand theory - really a Just the Facts approach. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ayla:

I'm not suggesting that anyone has disputes that theory studies are essential in all subjects either, I was merely trying to provide a source that support a statement in the article, as requested by Ironyak1. As for your point about the Daily Prophet being little more than a mouthpiece for Ministry propaganda in book 5, or that half of Harry's class was in DA, that's a bit beside the point, since I was talking about the Ministry's agenda from an in-universe perspective, not the storyline in the fifth book from that of a reader.

The point I was trying to make was that if the statement "as long as you have studied the theory hard enough, there is no reason why you should not be able to perform the spells under carefully controlled examination conditions" was false, the Ministry would be sabotaging its own attempt to wrestle from Dumbledore control over Hogwarts so thoroughly that there'd be no coming back from it. Let's say for the sake of argument that there was no Dumbledore's Army, that the Battle of the Department of Mysteries never happened, and that Voldemort was therefore not exposed like he was in the book.

If such was the case, Fudge would have had a vested interest in keeping Umbridge at Hogwarts for more than that one year, if the statement had been false, however, because her "revolutionary", theory-based teaching would have been proven woefully ineffective by the Ministry's own Wizarding Examination Authority, the court of public opinion would have come down on Fudge like a ton of bricks, and regardless of anyone's acceptance of Voldemort's return or lack thereof, the Ministry's narrative of Umbridge having been installed at Hogwarts/making her Head Inquisitor to "improve what many call failing standards at Hogwarts" would fall apart completely. A High Inquisitor assessing the teaching staff who were herself a demonstrably inept educator? That wouldn't fly. Hence; for the Ministry's agenda to work, knowing the theoretical intricacies of how a spell works is sufficient to pull it off for a Fifth year student, even if "practice makes perfect" is still a thing.

Ironyak1:

It's not a matter of "filling in gaps in canon with what we think fits best", it's about looking at the tapestry as a whole and not getting hung up on how individual threads looks like. We may not know all there is to know about the content of The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 1 from an in-universe perspective, but at the end of the day, that's really neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that we do know that it is a school textbook, and that "there was a lot more to magic than waving your wand and saying a few funny words". And where do you suppose everything that is between proper wand movements and correct pronunciation of the incantation comes in, if not as part of the theoretical study of magic in textbooks? And that's whether we are talking about Magical Theory in and of itself, (i.e. how spell-casting works) or branches of magic, (i.e. how specific types of spell works/how individual spells of a given category works, like Charms or Transfiguration). WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

WIOK:

A wiki is not there to impose one's own opinions and views. In my opinion, questions such as "what if", "maybe", "could be", "is possible" have no place in an article that refers to verifiable sources. And the HP Wiki refers to verifiable sources. Even if the sources HP books, HP films, HP games often contradict each other.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ayla:

You lost me. "A wiki is not there to impose one's own opinions and views". - Well - no, it's not, but I don't think that's in any way in contention either? What are you talking about? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually it does matter that we don't know what is in the textbook, because it means we don't know what is in the textbook. Could be history, could be wand motion diagrams, could be vocab, could many things; but without a canon source letting us know, all these are just speculation. So if you have a source that The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 1 contains Magical Theory AND a source saying that they used that section of the book in the first two months, then the related line should be added to the article. Otherwise, all we know is that they were at a minimum practicing their wrist movements as Flitwick says. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that you are - though inadvertently, I'm sure - moving the goalposts a bit. I didn't say that "it don't matter if we don't know that is in the textbook", which of course would be ridiculous. What I said was that it doesn't matter if we don't know all the details of what is in the textbook. And there are a subtle, yet significant difference between the two. Because as it happens, we do know the broad strokes of what's in the textbook. It's the theoretical aspects of the branch of magic in question, and the intricacies of the charms that is taught in the book. What does these intricacies entail, specifically? The history of the spells in the book? Wand movement diagrams? Given how they cover the same subject and is written by the same author, if the Book of Spells are any indication, probably a combination of the two, but ultimately, it's a bit trivial, because what we do know enough in knowing the broad strokes of the content.

We know that ""there was a lot more to magic than waving your wand and saying a few funny words", Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 8 (The Potions Master), that "as long as a witch or wizard have studied the theory hard enough, there is no reason why one should not be able to perform the spells", Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 12 (Professor Umbridge), the theory behind "what makes spells work" falls within Magical Theory, Pottermore, and that the theory behind how specific spells work, as described in the relevant textbooks depending on the type of spell it is, (whether the spell is a transfiguration, charm, defensive spell, curse, etc.,), are hence conceptual offshoots of the above, no matter how you cut it. Also, when Harry Potter: Wizards Unite was made, the developers caught onto this fact too, as the in-universe explanation for the player getting better at spells was cited as being because they learned more about the theory behind its use.

That said, though, I have to admit that on a second reading, "Filius Flitwick, arguably the best and most knowledgeable Charms teacher in the world,[13] opted to hold largely theoretical lessons for first year students twice a week for nearly two months before he judged them ready to try their hand at their first spells such as levitating a feather.[14]" reads like "theoretical lessons" is simply meant to say "lessons where they did not actually use any magic". If that is how it was meant, then you are correct, and that particular sentence does not qualify as Flitwick's two months pre- teaching the students "Wingardium Leviosa" learning the "magical theory" behind charms, after all. That does not take away from the actuality of the above, however, and perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it will get the above point across without referring to Flitwick's lessons in particular? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We only know what canon tells us - so outside of the small amount of info given for the textbooks, we don't know anything else, not even in broad strokes. The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 1 may contain little or no info on Magical Theory, or it may be chocked full, or any mix in between - we simply don't know and don't get to fill in this gap in knowledge with what we think makes the most sense. Same goes for the "there is more to magic" and "giant pile of homework" lines - we do not know what else is involved in either statement.

As for better wording, the article should just simply state the facts - For the 1995-1996 school year Umbridge's DADA class focused exclusively on theory, which was deemed sufficient to pass their OWLs, OWLs contains both a Theory and Practical exams, Hermione performed a Memory Charm based on the theory alone in DH|9, and so forth. Not sure what you're pointing out on the WU page, as there is a lot there, but if there are elements there that state a better understanding of magical theory results in a better performance of magic then those specifics should be noted.

What doesn't work is taking very specific examples and trying to abstract them into grand theories about how magic must work or what is being taught. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"Taking specific examples and trying to abstract them into grand theories about how magic must work"...

Who has done that? All I said was that according to the first book, "there is a lot more to magic than waving a wand and saying a few funny words", which is as vague as you get, and I said; 'well, whatever it is that this "more" refers to, it follows from the premise that there is more that a textbook would cover it as part of the theoretical aspect of magic". That's just trivially true, and is likewise about as far away from a "grand theory" as you can get. And where did I say anything about "how magic must work"?

If anything, I think we might be talking a bit past one another right now, because you had me all the way up to "not even in broad strokes", but then you lost me again. I would have agreed with you if we had been talking about something like Merlin's book, which we don't know anything about apart from the fact that it is written in runes and that the content is unknown. It could be anything, really. In the case of The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 1, however, we quite literally can't help but know the broad strokes of what contains. Its a textbook with information about basic spells, in this case, Charms. We know the broad strokes of just about every piece of academic literature presented throughout the entirety of canon, as the titles of the books themselves and the context in which they are used informs us what, broadly speaking, they're about X, Y and Z.

My personal incredulity aside, though, I'll make a revised version of Seth's edit based on your feedback, etc, above and see if it goes over better, and if it doesn't, I won't edit war over it if somebody reverts it. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Bump. If we must get a "wiki-wide consensus" to bypass RW98's complaining, can we start one, then? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wiki-wide" consensus isn't really possible, but as I've mentioned a vote could be had on a particular revision, or some of the canon supported elements discussed above could be added in with small edits that can be discussed as needed. What won't work is the previous method of broadly interpreting multiple unknowns as "obviously" being Magical Theory. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Along with Talk:Aesop Sharp, I'd also suggest archiving this talk page, since Hogwarts Legacy will likely introduce more about Magical Theory as well due to Eleazar Fig. MalchonC (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Bump. If anything here is not yet resolved, now would be a good time to do so, before Hogwarts Legacy drops with new info of Magical Theory. MalchonC (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Archiving would be a wonderful idea. And considering Hogwarts Legacy is soon coming out, I would welcome any more specific information that source provides (as it's an actual source of information), rather than self-researched assumptions this article has prior been subjected to. That's only if the game elaborates on the subject and/or makes it an actual class that can be attended. I just hope the gaming coming out is not another excuse for flooding the article with speculation. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I've never flooded the article with speculation in the first place, and have no intention of doing so either, that shouldn't really be a problem. That said, however, since it has been pointed out by an Administrator that your so-called "trimming down" of the article constituted such a massive removal of information that Seth Cooper approved of, there should've been a consensus for it before it was carried out, now that we know that the reference to Prof. Fig as the "Magical Theory" professor didn't actually play into the narrative in any way and was just thrown in as a passing explanation for why Fig was at Hogwarts to be our mentor, I think that unless there's any legitimate objections, I will be going to find that middle ground between what Seth approved of and the slight trimming down we agreed on being prudent further up later this week. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again claiming that you're not adding speculation to an article but then restoring the verbatim text before that's been rejected and objected to by nobody else - amazing. Again there was no agreement here (but that rarely matters...) and tons of bogus references so I've reported this as well. And Flitwick doesn't even have anything to do with this. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I had already archived this section when I came across Ironyak1's opinion above that says facts such as "For the 1995-1996 school year Umbridge's DADA class focused exclusively on theory, which was deemed sufficient to pass their OWLs, OWLs contains both a Theory and Practical exams, Hermione performed a Memory Charm based on the theory alone in DH|9, and so forth" should be added to the article, and since that discussion is not quite finished & I personally would add that I object to this, I'm reviving this section.

The reason I would object is that in my mind, "Magical Theory" does not equal "the theory of magic" or "the theoretical side of magic", so to me there seems to be no proven relation between these facts and the subject of Magical Theory. Incantations and wand movements of known spells can of course be classified as theory, but what Magical Theory can study about them is limited, just like theoretical mathematics doesn't repeatedly study basic addition and subtraction, theoretical physics doesn't repeatedly verify if F equals ma under simple non-relativistic circumstances, etc. We have even seen some of the theoretical O.W.L. questions, whether in the books or Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, and they are just testing the students' knowledge of names, definitions, incantations, effects, etc, which can hardly be put on a par with the studies of theoreticians like Adalbert Waffling.

Therefore, I don't see the need of adding the theoretical side of other subjects into the article about the Magical Theory subject. I recently had a discussion with WeaseleyIsOurKing89 about this article and kept some of their recent additions since I did consider them to be relevant to Magical Theory, but the edit can be discussed too if needed. MalchonC (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several different items that are all being discussed on this one article, partly because of how it was more recently moved, which seems to be confounding what should or should not be added. There is "magical theory", the general subject, "Magical Theory" the class, "Magical Theory" the book, and "magical theoreticians", those who study and sometimes teach magical theory possibly in Magical Theory using Magical Theory (clear yet? ;)

This article has increasingly become not about "Magical Theory" (the presumed formal topic of the Magical Theory book and class) but "magical theory", that is the theoretic component of magic and as such should include other mentions of related theory such as Umbridge's focus on just they theory of magic for DADA including the Defensive Magical Theory book, the theory side of the OWL exams such as Theory of Charms, Hermione doing the Memory Charm from only knowing the theory, Quirinus Quirrell being "Learned in the theory of Defensive Magic, less adept in the practise", and so forth. In this arrangement, Magical Theory (the formal topic of the book & class of the same name which we know little to nothing about (we don't really know what formally is in Magical Theory, we just presume various magical laws & theories fit the definition)) is just one aspect of magical theory, but there are other many other mentions of magical theory as well that should be captured. I hope this distinction is more clear. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think there're still things on this article that aren't really proved to be a part of Magical Theory, then I would much prefer removing them from the page rather than adding other things that only concern the lowercase magical theory, since it's just not a real defined thing that warrants an entry in an encyclopaedia. MalchonC (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry if I cross some kind of line here, because I know I weren't part of this long, long discussion and everything, but Icouldn't help but notice this discussion on the "recent changes" page. Not to butt or anything, but after skimming the talk- and history pages, I do have some thoughts about this, if you'd like to hear them:

Referring to what User:Ironyak1 just said above about the need to tighten the focus on the article since it focuses too much on "magical theory" rather than "Magical Theory". With what User:Kates39 said about sock puppetry, I realise this might be an unpopular opinion, but they rewrote the article back in early February. I noticed that it was removed because it was speculative, and after reading it, I can't for the life of me see how, because thrces seem consistent to me. (Then again, I didn't even know there was a subject called Magical Theory until today, so you'd probably know the details better than me anyway), but at least it focuses on the subject itself and the book, as far as I can see, anyway. Maybe it could still be used as a jumping off point for a less speculative version, if nothing else? Auraldi (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw: For some reason, when I write, the text appears on the line between the marker. Is this a bug? Does this happen to anyone else? Auraldi (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@MalchonC - The burden of proof goes the other way though - please provide a source for what topics are covered in either the Magical Theory class or book, if this article is supposed to be only about that capitalized formal topic presumably covered by that class or book. For instance, how do we know that Principle of Artificianimate Quasi-Dominance is part of Magical Theory but the contents of Defensive Magical Theory are not? How do you decide what is inside or outside the boundary of the Magical Theory concept or categorization?

As for magical theory, or perhaps the theory component of magic, I've already linked to several articles that have sources for their appearances. How does every direct mention of theory related to magic not warrent an entry in the wiki, but us presuming the specific contents of a undefined formal topic is ok? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was kind of obvious that formulated laws and principles could be part of Magical Theory, but in the strictest sense, I can't prove it, so if we're going in that direction, I would gladly remove anything that isn't proven to be part of Magical Theory from the page. Us presuming the specific contents of an undefined formal topic is indeed not OK. MalchonC (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to break course guys but it is quite apparent to me and others that Auraldi is in fact WeaseleyIsOurKing89 trying to add another voice to this conversation to support a change. Totally invalid. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@MalchonC - why is it obvious? Because anything with the words Law and Principle involved appear to related to the meaning of the words "Magical" and "Theory"? But this is like saying the Theory of Transubstantiation surely belongs in "Theoretical Physics" because it is a theory about physical changes. The plain meaning of the words only allows for us to presume various relationships, but we don't have any actual sources to back us up as to what does or does not belong as we are never given a definition, or even examples, of Magical Theory.

To extend your comparison above, we would probably not include a discussion of balls rolling down ramps in the topic of "Theoretical Physics", but we would include in in an article about physics theory as it is literally part of how the theory of Newton's First Law of Motion was developed.

Similarly, we know nothing about the formal topic "Magical Theory", but we have a lot of mentions of "magical theory" because those are just the words with plain meaning we can work with and cite all the examples given. As such, a magical theory article allows us to talk about all those Laws and Principles, as well as the related tests, books, individuals, etc, whereas the current "Magical Theory" article is based on nothing but presumptions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ironyak1, I can understand you desire to perhaps increase the breadth of this article, but in no way would I support bringing part the text of WISOK89 as that was far too speculative and overwritten. If new content is added, it should be concise and well-written. I actually think the current article is acceptably written, since we do not much about it formally. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said to bring back in what WIOK has written. I have already provided several examples of examples where "magical theory" is mentioned. Outside of these mentions we don't have any text to work with so we just note the mentions of the theory component of magic and move on. You're objecting to something I am not suggesting.

Also you've already said that you cannot provide any source that supports the current content as being identified as part of Magical Theory. So the current content has no sources to back its inclusion as "Magical Theory" but you're ok with that? As it stands, the entire article needs to be gutted as we've already established that we know nothing about the formal topic of Magical Theory. However all these topics could be included under "magical theory" as they are theoretic components of magic. Sorry if this distinction isn't clear, but we've retread this several times and I'm not there is progress to be had here other than just making the changes and seeing what everyone thinks. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If we are to repurpose this article to cover everything about the theory of magic and rename it to the non-proper noun "Magical theory", I'm not going to be in the way, but I can't say that I agree with or encourage it. MalchonC (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but as there are zero sources for what belongs on "Magical Theory", there really isn't any justification being offered as to why to keep the article as it is either. If this general topic article is renamed "Theory of magic" (based on Theory of Charms and the "the theory of Defensive Magic" type of statements) we can also move Magical Theory (book) back to "Magical Theory" so all the interlanguage links actually line up again properly (all their articles are about the book, but they link to this article about the topic). Anywho, I'll see if anyone else has a canon-based method for supporting the article as it is, elsewise, I'll gather up the theory mentions from the sources and make the changes in a couple days. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)