Talk:Magical formula

Items removed from article

• ALIM.
• ARARITA.
• FIAT.
• LVX.
• MVAVM.
• NOX.
• VITRIOL.

The above without any commentary are inapplicable, although I'm sure they all have some meaning (I believe LVX denotes the devil in Latin script). __meco 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Concur. Note; LVX added with comment and analysis on 10 September 2008. It looks like most of these words, if properly analyzed, would be appropriate for this article. --Anxfisa (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for Direction

Aleister Crowley gives quite a list of, "Barbarious Names." If anyone has spent some time analyzing them they would be great to include here with rational for explanation.--Anxfisa (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue with tone of article

This article is written in the tone of an enthusiast in the subject, rather than that of a dictionary. From the first bewildering sentence to the short, arbitrary list of "spells", this article misses the point and should be replaced with a concise explanation of the cultural phenomenon, and not a few specifics, of such formulae.66.30.9.239 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the uninitiated

Properly understood, there is nothing "magical" (in the sense of the word used today) about magical formulas. It is not "cultural phenomenon". It is a way of compressing abstract information. "Casting a spell" is merely reiterating a sequence of informational elements that, when interpreted correctly (the original intended meaning), a higher concept is communicated. You stupid fucks.

Not to be confused with what?

Why shouldn't magical formula be confused with magic word? (which is not to be confused with WP:MAGICWORD)

Should magical formula be confused with WP:MAGICWORD in a sense? Perhaps WP:MAGICWORDs are examples.

This and neighboring articles need determination where it is appropriate to link magic spell or incantation (where the "charm" disambig and "enchantment" redirect also lead).

Meanwhile, should magic spell be confused with incantation? Reading our articles it's easy to do. The incantation article seems to say that that is a spell in words, but the spell article seems to presume words so that all spells are incantations along those lines.

Our pages spellcasting and spellcaster do not help here so I replaced them, now in lead parentheses. --P64 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magical formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220200810/http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruA.html to http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose this article be merged into Magic word. This appears to be a completely redundant article.GideonF (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes from Dec 2021 New Page Patrol review

The statement that it should be unmerged looks credible and much work and sourcing has been added. Thanks for your work! North8000 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000:: Based on my work in the subject area, it appears that historically there were at least two different groups competing to make their views predominant in various magical articles. Each group had a mediawiki site that apparently passed for sources in the early days. What was left visible after the dust settled wasn't always the best, most complete, or best cited version. One has to dig deeper for those. It seems none of those players are around anymore... Skyerise (talk)