Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Gangleri's submissions to the project 2 Exposure 3 Disagreeing 4 TFD on {{magic-spoiler}} 5 Extreme card manipulation 6 vandalism anyone? 7 New template for marketed/professional items 8 Notability 9 Proposal re. magic methods 10 Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 11 New articles 12 Project Directory 13 Mess at List of magicians

[edit] Gangleri's submissions to the project

User_talk:MacGyverMagic/WikiMagic/Gangleri

[edit] Exposure

Exposure Should be limited to the most basic effects, for instance, an Article on the Balducci Levitation would say something like, Method: This Magical effect is an Example of a Levitation, to see methods for accomplishing Levitations, please go to {Levitation(Illusion)}.

Come to think of it, why not have a template for every magical effect, so that they type of effect could just be typed and the template would fill in the template for you

Also, on the pages where a magical effect is revealed(for instance levitation) I think the spoiler should be improved. It should say something like:

A Magical Effect Follows, This means that the Magicians Oath Applies. The Magicians Oath is :"(The oath goes here)" If you would like to follow the oath, or do not want to know the secret to this effect, please skip the following section.

..

Personally I'd love to see more information on magic in the 'pedia. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to add it, being as I am somewhat ignorant of the field. My only problem is with this proposal:

"As little exposure as possible will be performed"

What a horrible idea! Why would you try to limit the amount of useful information in an article?—Rory ☺ 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

(response posted on user's user page)

I'm not sure whether I responded, so I will do it now. (Sorry, if I did so previously) As you might have noticed, since I started the project, I'm more knowledgeable on magic. The problem with exposure is that lots of tricks are copyrighted and you're unlikely to get permission from magicians to include those effects (tricks) in Wikipedia. We need to keep in check with guidelines whatever we do. Also, the current stuff we have on exposure adss a definite negative connotation to magic, and I want that cleared first. I'm not against exposure in principle, but we should be really careful with our decision in that respect. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think these pages should become a giant repository for exposure, for one thing that would just be inviting magicians to vandalize the pages to remove it. I think a great goal would be as informative as possible, and if the reader wants to take thing to the next step then these pages should also be able to guide them where to go for more --BathTub 17:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And indeed such a vandalism happened today (07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)) by 69.231.38.3 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). The thing is, it's not really vandalism since it's probably just someone trying to preserve his livelihood. I don't even know whether to revert his blanking or not. Collabi 07:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I am beginner in magic, i think exposure is not a big problem, because there are so many effects, and with a good effect and presentation it's impossible to immediately realize what method was used, unless you think about magic 24/7, as most people don't. That of course doesn't mean you should tell people how you did that afterwards. But I consider openness beneficial, because it allows many people to improve upon it. Anyway, as a compromise, I would prefer, if there has to be an exposure, to:

1. Move it to wikibooks to some more or less complete book about magic tricks (people will bother less to read an entire book to find a method for single effect).
2. Write it so that someone can eventually learn the trick (that's actually only case when exposure really makes sense).

Samohyl Jan 11:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreeing

(Moved from the main page)

I completely disagree with the explanation of the method in the articles, with or without the "Magician's Oath". It is contributing to putting many people (including myself) out of work. As the effects can be bought, it is also negatively affecting the sales of magic effects.

User:Alan Morgan -- 00:57, 19 Jun 2005

Similarly, writing about programming will put programmers out of work and the sale of software will decline since people will just write their own. =p There is a level of skill and presentation involved which is still in the hands of professionals. Look elsewhere for reasons for the industry decline, as it is not found with spoilers. If I read a script, I'll still go to see the movie. This is no different. Besides, such a disagreement is a much larger topic which should probably go to the committee for an official ruling, and certainly not on the article page itself. -- Sy / ^(talk) 17:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the time, programmers do not care if people know how their programs work. The entire point of magic is that people have no idea how something is happening. If people know how an effect is done, it isn't amazing magic anymore, it's just sleight of hand, or a neat trick. I am both a programmer and a magician myself, and there is no relation. --Greeney 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has photographed three live performances during the last three days, I must say that it's not the illusion but the illusionist that makes the magic entertaining. Knowing the secret won't spoil a brilliant performance. Speaking of photography, please list article illustration requests. I have friends in the community who may allow me to publish their photos (though as per my own policy, I won't publish spoilers or gaffs).

Does that also imply that if I sing in a karaoke bar I won't sound as good as Tony Bennett or Rachelle Ferrell? I am crushed.

But seriously, those who do not perform themselves will rarely appreciate that behind the smile and the appearance of effortless grace is a mountain of hard work and dedication. It's painful to hear a great song butchered, and it's painful to see a great magic effect butchered. The difference is, once the magic is exposed, the members of the audience will never be able to enjoy it with innocent eyes; some of the magic is forever lost. --KSmrq^T 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFD on {{magic-spoiler}}

The template magic-spoiler has been nominated for deletion.

If you wish to vote or comment on this issue please visit its entry on TFD.

Dragons flight 07:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme card manipulation

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)

I now don't think it should be classified as magic, even though it came from it. I think there is a precedent in juggling. Juggling is also sometimes used by magicians, but standalone it's definitely not magic. And if a juggler says I am also a magician, does it make juggling magic? I think the best category here for XCM is Category:Circus skills, although it sounds a bit strange. Also, I think XCM is now not so POV (or not at all) as it was when I saw it first created. The guys are definitely famous, so they deserve mention here (for instance I knew about them before from another magician). But maybe there could be Category:Flourishes. Samohyl Jan 07:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jan and 'Selfpublicitysucks'{?!} - I am partially in agreement with both of you. This so-called XCM is already listed at Wiki under flourish - I hereby propose that XCM is moved into and subsumed by the other category. There is a danger of subcategories to subcategories being created almost entirely it seems to me to feed egos. Also - it is becoming obssessional this planting of flags onto any corner which can be described plausibly as being a section of its own. Taken to its logical extreme we will have BILLIONS of articles in Wiki each a self-invented category with its own coterie of supporters. Wikipedia should NOT be abused like this. As 'Selfpublicitysucks' has done i have used search engines to map the beginnings of the fixation in question - it is blatantly apparent that ALL of the so-called XCM 'stars' have been diligent in erecting mythologies around themselves and their skills. On the other hand there are even MORE artists than credited by XCM who have 'extreme' skills with cards. It is facile, trite and self serving to limit the definition of XCM to those who 'don't do magic'. Ricky Jay, Lennart Green, aladin, Jeff Sheridan have each got supernormal skills with cards which have no practical application (and not utilised by them in their 'magic' performances); I very much doubt any of them would be supportive of the idea of an XCM category. Next we will have a category for people who can draw VERY VERY thin lines with a sable paint brush - and who do not practice 'art' otherwise. I think it is time we removed the XCM listing too as it would set an absurd precedent and become an open invitation to litter Wikipedia with myriad spurious categories. Shazzamm 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am too not for creation of XCM category, but rather for creation of Flourishes and perhaps (later) Card flourishes categories, where should these moves (those important ones that someone will describe in article) probably go. Maybe there could be list of flourishes, and the current list on flourish should go under card section (because there are other objects too) - I am an inclusionist and wouldn't like to see it deleted (but there could be descriptions, maybe). Samohyl Jan 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that XCM is just flourishing. Though I do believe it has a place in magic, an example would be the flipback vanish (You can find a video of it with google easily). Pretty good effect and it can easily be considered as a magic effect. I've created the list of flourishes just by copy and pasting a few lists from google so it's far from complete or legit. I added in the explanation for card spring a long while back and it seems no one has taken the liberty to add more explanations for other flourishes. I'll be adding an explanation for ribbon spread and twin peaks when I get to it but I urge you guys to help expand it. LegendsEnd 16:52, 02 October 2005 (GMT-5)

[edit] vandalism anyone?

I just spotted this at the base of the page on Magic (illusion), above the Categories section - should we delete it and block the perpetrator? as usual it is somebody without an account. here is what it says:

See illusion. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy. 67.165.91.60

Delete it, but don't discount it. Some distinction should be made that "trick" implies less talent, or mischievous deception, rather than something elaborately planned and requiring a greater degree of vision and skill. Sam Freedom 10:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

makes the page suck.thegirlinwhite 23:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New template for marketed/professional items

I have just created a new template for tagging tricks that are currently marketed and/or used by professional magicians. I realize that describing how to do magic tricks is a violation of the Wikipedia principle that Wikipedia is not a manual or "how to", but it still seems appropriate and fun to include some tricks (such as the ones I recently added to the List of magic tricks). However, it might make sense to leave out the methods for some of the tricks that are currently being used by businesses and magicians to make their living. For example, the King levitation is still a fairly new trick and is currently sold by Ellusionist, so I'm sure that they would prefer for the secret not to be exposed.

How does everyone feel about this? If there are no objections within the next week or two, I will start with the King levitation.

Kleg 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Kleg

I don't see the need for it. The current {{Magic-spoiler}} template links to Exposure (magic) and Intellectual rights to magic methods. Both articles explain the situation better than the proposed template. It's not the aim of Wikipedia to tell readers whether or not to expose magic tricks. -- Krash 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The spoiler warning is to protect the reader from information they may not want to read. I was suggesting protection, for some tricks, of the owner, from the public exposure of information that they may not want exposed. The two templates would serve different purposes. Given that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "manual" or "how to", it seems that a case could be made that no magic tricks should be explained, although that's not the case I am making. I'm only suggesting that those which are still being marketed or used by professionals go unexplained. Kleg 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The matter of whether wikipedia should censor this information has been dealt with at great length here and at talk pages such as Talk:Out of This World (card trick). There is an overwhelming consensus amongst wikipedians that this information should remain, and the vandals who have ignored this consensus have been (quite rightly) treated as vandals and their deletions immediately reverted. This template is an attempt to legitimise such vandalism, but won't work. The template has now been nominated for deletion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I'm wondering what kind of notability and relevency we can apply to articles about magic trix – why we're including a specific trick, why it should have its own article, etc. This line of thinking was recently inspired by the new articles added to List of magicians: Twenty One Card Trick, Mentalo, Reading The Cards, Spelling Bee (card trick), The Four Burglars, The Three Aces, Blackstone's Card Trick Without Cards, The Acme of Control, The Circus Card Trick.

These three public domain (unknown origins) tricks:Twenty One Card Trick,Reading The Cards,The Four Burglars, has a certain notability as beeing the three tricks most spread among people who are not magicians. I.e. if someone says he knows one single card-trick, it is a safe bet that it is one of those three. That is the case in both USA and Europe. Don't know about Asia. "Reading the cards" might be the wrong title for that piece (it might not even have a name). The remaining pieces seem to be small variations to public domain material, for beginners books, and I wouldn't call any of it notable, except The Three Aces, but that has more to do with the book it comes from than the piece itself. The following:The Circus Card Trick is credited to Clayton Rawson, but whoever posted it has stripped away everything but the bare bones of Rawson's piece, to the degree that it isn't the same piece anymore, and what is left should really be filed under, as an example of, "Key-card" (I'm quite certain that Rawson himself would be horrified over seing his name in connection to the description here)--TStone 12:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have, unfortunately, not been able to check out any of the cited books in the above articles (I'm dying to do so as soon as I can). But it would seem that the titles of these articles are taken from names of specific tricks found in these books – tricks that are either called by a different name elsewhere and/or are a combination or improvement on another trick. On some, I recognize the technique but I've never heard the trick specifically called that before. I'm not claiming to be an expert in the field and I'm quite sure that there's plenty that I don't know, but it seems that things could get a bit out of hand if every packet trick, trick deck, gimmick, trick-out-of-some-book, and anything else gets its own article.

Wikipedia is not a magic encyclopedia. Some tricks are so widely-known that the argument could be made that they need their own article (Cups and balls, Scotch and Soda, Invisible deck). Other dubious tricks could do without their own article lest each one ends up reading like the description from the back of the packet. And I'm not really sure if a book on how to do magic tricks is a good single source for an article. I think magic articles need to not only explain the what and how but also why. Why is this trick important? Who invented it? et cetera et cetera.

Yes exactly! That is the first reasonable statement ever I've seen here. I'm grateful to hear that. What's the point of having an encyclopedia, if it's randomly decided that one area doesn't need verification and notability, while all other's do? That only casts doubt on the whole place. I mean, first thing I did when I found this place was to check the areas in which I have some expertise.. and just saw myths, thefts, misattributed material, uncredited pieces, false and misleading information... Well, as it is, I don't trust a single thing the wikipedia says in all the fields I don't have expertise. For all I know, it's probably the same unreliable mess there also.. well that is an exaggeration, but not a big one --TStone 12:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "levitation series" is a good example of how bad a situation can become. All of these articles and the exhaustive list found at Levitation could simply be lumped into one Levitation (illusion) article.

I guess what I'm asking is shouldn't there be some guidelines with respect to notability? This, I think, is very true with articles about tricks and magicians and I'm wondering what other people think about this. I will be the first to admit that I'm pretty much the opposite of an inclusionist, but I also know that there's gotta be some middle ground somewhere. -- Krash 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Circus Card Trick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mentalo -- Krash 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal re. magic methods

See the proposal: Policy for magic methods --TStone 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods. --cesarb 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on magic? Articles like Bullet catch are what we're looking for. Featured articles would also be great. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt that you will find very many. The people most qualified to write good articles on magic are magicians, and they tend to be driven away from Wikipedia by the lack of respect that their art receives here. Kleg 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Re, Bullet catch Be careful with any information coming from William Poundstone's book, as that is known to cointain his own theories, and not always facts. And a cursory check on copyright-issues might not hurt either, as there's quite a lot of info from rather few books. I've no reason to believe text has been copies, but still... Most articles here are a mess, and many seems to take the idea of proper sourcing as a personal insult --TStone 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your help.--Shanel 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Hiya, I've been creating several articles lately on Magic-related subjects/people:

• Magic conventions
• Whit Haydn
• Oscar Munoz
• Abbott's Get Together
• Midwest Magic Jubilee
• TAOM

(etc).

Is there anyplace in particular that you'd like me to list new articles, to help with Project maintenance? Or should I just make sure that they're all tagged with {{magic}}? --Elonka 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess at List of magicians

This list is a real mess, and seems to be a magnet for any local high-school juggler to come in and add their name as a way of trying to self-promote. The list currently seems to have more redlinks than real articles, and today I noticed that it was missing plenty of "real" magicians, such as Whit Haydn. I've added in a few names, but I'd like to go through the whole thing from top to bottom, removing all red links, and then double-checking the names that are linked, to make sure that they're to real bios, and not just to self-promotional ads. Is this alright with everyone, or are there any redlinked names there that you think should really stay? If so, let's at least make stub articles for them, with a link to at least one bonafide reference that proves notability. --Elonka 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks are our friends if they remind us of worthwhile articles yet to be written. Don't kill them just because they are red. --KSmrq^T 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about if I pull the redlinks off of List of Magicians page, but add them to the WikiProject, as "articles to be created"? --Elonka 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really really unhelpful, frankly. Redlinks are a key part of growing the encyclopedia. If I see a redlink I might think "Oh, I'll fill in that articled." Taking them away, as seems to have happened via the discussion page, denies someone of the opportunity to grow a new article. The list is chronically bad - there's no Bill Malone, Daryl (aka Daryl Martinez aka Daryl Easton), Lubor Fielder, Pat Page, Hans Moretti and many other A-list performers. Please please put the most deserving candidates back in. 82.43.137.103 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks can be helpful within an article, but the list is a list of magicians with articles, not a list of magicians in general. IrishGuy ^talk 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The list is entitled "List of magicians" not "List of magicians with articles". If List of magic tricks can have redlinks in it (as in fact do the huge majority of other Wiki lists - random examples: List_of_book_titles_taken_from_literature, List_of_open_source_software_packages) then why not List of magicians? That's inconsistent. Davidbod 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited to add: My understanding of the criteria for adding redlinks is that they should be worthy of a seperate article. I'm not saying that every magician in the world should be on here, but if they're notable to have an article but someone hasn't written it yet, it should be on here to help grow the encyclopedia. Davidbod 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)