Talk:Card flourish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magic hat Card flourish is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[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:

== 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)


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)
Unfortunatly, I'm not. :-/ --GraemeL (talk) 17:49, 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)

This has become a list with no real reason for existing. As noted above, very few on this list even have articles. I will begin to clean it up, first by removing the list of flourishers as none of them seem to have articles. IrishGuy talk 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about writing?

Came here looking for information on flourishes such as those added to the ends of signatures, and found nothing on the subject whatsoever... 71.198.127.97 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non card flourishes

Came here looking for flourishes on anything, like swordplay, maybe notes could be added? --86.16.123.192 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Disambiguation Page

There's certainly enough material out there to make a wikipedia article on Card Flourishing. However, yes... A flourish doesn't necessarily mean a card flourish. As has been suggested in the discussion, flourishes such as those used when signing your name with a pen (note the signature of John Hancock) or those used in swordplay. I think a disambiguation page would be appropriate, as well as a clean-up involving card flourishing (the interest that brought me here in the first place).

I don't think that "Florysche" which directs you to "Association for Renaissance Martial Arts" is appropriate for a merger. However, I do believe it's more than appropriate for a disambiguation.

Other thoughts? Thanks!

--Protocoldroid (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved this article to 'card flourish' so the article flourish is now a redirect and available to be mad a disambiguation page. RJFJR (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent move *thumbs up* --Protocoldroid (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added References

Note on photograph: This was moved from the card magic article. More photographs for our selection would be favorable. I looked up the flourish here and gave reference for the term only. This reference is not in defense of the photograph, but, an explanation thereof.

I tried to flesh out the definition and used Tarr's book to try to back it up. I requested the "fact" flag on the terms "cardistry" and "extreme card manipulation" because A. I'm quite curious to know where these terms originated (I know they're in general use as jargon), and B. this will make the article more legitimate.

--Protocoldroid (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the changes made after these references were added for these reasons:
A. No sources were cited, and the definition I improved used a source.
B. The whole definition was made bold, and compromised the visual style of the page, which follows wiki guidelines.
C. The POV is skewed, we all know there's a debate amongst pure flourishing artists and magicians, especially if you read decknique/theory11/handlordz. So let's keep that debate away from this article, and use references.

However, I encourage the author to return with references. Thank you!

--Protocoldroid (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The image has now been removed, due to it being used for self promotion by another wikipedia editor. I'm keeping the reference here [1] in case I cite the book again. Do not use this page for self promotion, please see the talk under Wikiproject Magic about notability and self promotion guide lines.

--Protocoldroid (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)