![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)