Talk:Flourish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Extreme card manipulation
I suggest people look at the discussion pages of WikiProject Magic . There is a possibly spurious entry on extreme card manipulating which arguable should be subsumed by Flourish:
Someone, obviously insider, wrote an article about it. Is it considered magic, or not? How should it be classified? Samohyl Jan 11:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- This stuff is plainly just a branch of flourishes. Just the fact that the author/s need to refer to flourishes is enough for me. You can do flourishes for many reasons - and some Western vaudeville artists just did card flourishes in the first half of the 20th century. There are all sorta geeky, ossessional sub-categories of ANYTHING. Wiki should not allow folks to self-publicise by cornering off a small piece of something and then describing it as a category all of its own - and then conferring some badge of legitimacy to whoever is associated with the new category. Anyhows, the so-called extreme manipulators are only labelling what is already out there - magicians for hundreds of years have been into this muscular thing of showing off their skills at high speed charlier cuts and passes, how many decks they can use simultaneously, how fast they can close a fan one-handed. We should amalgamate these guys into the flourish section and be done - no naming of the guys [you bet there are no girls!] who stuck a flag on it. Speaking of which the flourish section needs expansion. Selfpublicitysucks 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey! I just did a google and hilariously found webtalk which completely subverts the 'Extreme' logic. The stub article tries to make a distinction between magicians and extreme manipulators. However, one of the apparent masters of the genre has gone on record as saying he is a magician. This must be a nail in the coffin for those wanting a separate section. Here is the webtalk, highlighting the names cited as Extreme Manipulation masters[1] Selfpublicitysucks 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Should we take action? Selfpublicitysucks 23:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- What action do you have in mind? Samohyl Jan 09:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- nuclear war should be appropriate --Slashme 12:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AfD on XCM / extreme card manipulation
I have put up XCM or extreme card manipulation up for deletion. In the light of the discussion on the delete page I am making changes to flourish which are in keeping with the balance of the discussion. Grroin 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This is nothing but a list of unsourced types of card flourish with very few links to articles. I would suggest either giving brief descriptions of the individual flourishes, or removing those without articles. --GraemeL (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. Only the well known or published should be listed. But I am not an expert, if you are please go ahead. Samohyl Jan 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be more useful to instead of listing a random number of flourishes (which obviously people have gone in to include their own moves so they'd show up in Wikipedia), it would be nice to simply list the different categories of known moves, maybe highlighting one or two commonly known ones for each. This would give a much better explanation for what a flourish is. I don't think the point of the article is to say that there are 1000's of flourishes. --67.68.49.12 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
