Talk:Magic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should magic in Harry Potter be treated separately from magic in fantasy in general??
I see no reason, Why would you ? Harry Potter is just a subset of fantasy magic.
Contents |
[edit] breaking cover
in common usage magic abstractly means any unexplained process. Some uses of this term (and, in fact many other terms) deliberately link to the disambiguation page, and cannot be fixed by linking to a more specific term. The shortest reasonable definition that covers the term should probably be given at the top, and unrelated uses should be sectioned off.
- There is a clear link in the header of Magic (paranormal) linking to Magic (illusion), and via versa. I think readers are best served if they are sent to the parnormal or illusion page, rather than dealing with Magic (film) and Magic (gaming) on the disambiguation page.--Commander Keane 09:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Magick entry
Is it really necessary to put the words Pagan and Satanic together for the term magick? I edited it so that it was just magick. Secos5 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me.--Commander Keane 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General Thoughts.
On second thought, Magic (organizations), which is really a list of Magic organizations (and has been moved to an appropriately named page), isn't something anybody would likely have meant in a search for "Magic." It should really be in a "See also" page under Magic (illusion), if it should be linked anywhere; it's not like there's some group called "Magic" that organizes them. I'd stick it there, if it weren't for the fact that there isn't one. So I'll mention it over on the illusion talk page as a possible See also link to eventually add.
The Magick description still isn't quite satisfying; I'd add something about it being a modern term used by neo-pagans to denote what they believe to be "true" magic, except that it seems that idea was already shot down. Besides, it's claimed that it's actually a ressurected ancient term (I'm not an entymologist, so I can't say if it's true or not), which would lead to problems by mentioning modern, and it's used by other groups which would cause annoyance by mentioning neo-pagans. If there's an accurate yet still sufficiently general description out there, I'd definitely be in favor of using that then the current dry "it's a variant term" description which says nothing of the implications.
Commander Keane, I agree with most of your changes since there were a few things I missed on the first pass. There are a few others I don't quite agree on (like a full sentence for the non-articles on the Magic songs), but that's more a matter for the Manual of Style talk page (which I might just post on later). The one thing I'll mention for now is the use of "Magic" as an experience; I was considering revising it downward as well, but I'm not sure a complete deletion is quite the right way to go. While it's more a matter for Wiktionary, it is a usage of the word. I'd think a simple sentence would work better in this case; something toward the bottom of the list like
- Magic is also used to describe experiences removed from everyday life, usually with a positive connotation (e.g. Seeing the dolphin on the cruise was like magic).
Any thoughts? SnowFire 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dab
I really think such an important word as this should go straight to an article, not a dab page. This is especially true when the usage of the word is vague in the first place. I'm linking from a quote which says "pop music is magic and (person X) is a magician". Where the hell do I point it?! --kingboyk 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like nowhere. If the intent was merely rhetorical, it doens't sound appropriate for a wiki-link anyway. That said, precisely because the usage is vague the main Magic article should be a dab page. 'sides, it's not the end of the world if a vague usage of Magic is redirected to a dab page- that'd probably be the best occurrence in that case anyway. SnowFire 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magic: The Gathering
I changed the word magicians to wizards as it is technically more accurate. --Wirewood Shadow 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magick and Crowley
Re: Myrddin Masery's change on Magick: The origin of the term is disputed. While it's fair to discuss that elsewhere, the disambig page should say something accepted as true to both sides preferably. Notably the claim of magick to be an "older" term than magic is very much in dispute, as it's likely that both spellings were used in very early writing and that the distinction between the two terms came much later. It's not very fulfilling, but merely calling it a "variant term" that was popularized by Crowley (also undisputably true) is unquestionably the case.
I also moved Magic and religion to the See also section. SnowFire 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Section Titles vs. bolded "in."
This is not a huge issue, but I for one prefer the page without section titles. Magic (illusion) really shouldn't go under a paranormal header, and most people coming to this page will want one of illusion or paranormal right away without having to scroll. Plus, the section titles take up more space than the simple bold headers, and the Manual of Style specifically mentions that sub-headers are usually not necessary. If we do go back to section titles, we should also make sure to use the template TOCRight as prescribed by the Manual of Style. Any thoughts as to why Section Titles would be better?
As for the radio station additions, those are already linked from the Magic Radio in England page, so I'm not sure we really need them here, since the smaller affiliates can be found via clicking on that. SnowFire 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent changes.
So people here know, I've debated Jc37 on this issue elsewhere, but the reason I once again removed Black box systems from the "See also" is that this exact meaning is already in Magic (programming). In fact, it should probably be added as a link from that article. SnowFire 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
