Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is archived by MiszaBot_II. Any sections where all posts are older than 28 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic/Archive_1.

Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

[edit] Notability guidelines?

It occurs to me that it would be good to have some notability guidelines for magic articles. Although Wikipedia's general notability policies provide the main guidance for establishing whether a person deserves a dedicated article, many wikiprojects have additional criteria for how that should be interpreted within their specific subject area. In the past I had the experience of writing a biography of someone who I thought was a notable performer and then seeing it deleted because several people with no obvious interest in magic decided she was non-notable - I even had the irony of one of those people telling me my article failed notability criteria while his own fan piece on some obscure porn star was OK because it crept within criteria that were set up by a porn biography project.

I'd suggest the following as indicators of notability for people in the magic business:

  • Winners of awards from major magic organisations (eg. The Magic Circle, IBM, and so on)
  • A performing appearance on a national network TV show ("performing appearance" means not a brief mention on a news or review show - I'm thinking of people who've had their own shows, people who've been selected to be part of things like World's Greatest Magic, or people who have been guests on shows like Letterman)
  • People who have been the subject of feature or cover articles in established magic publications (eg. MAGIC, The Linking Ring and so on)
  • Innovators credited with devising an illusion or trick that's gone on to become a "standard" in the magic repertoire.
  • Innovators credited with creating a unique trick or illusion that is widely recognised as having a place in magic history (eg. Selbit, Harbin, Alan Wakeling and so on)
  • Major promoters of magic (eg, Gary Ouellet)
  • People who are outstanding through being the first to do something significant or being unusual in some substantial achievement (eg. doing a stunt at a remarkably young or old age.)

I'd like to hear suggestions for additions or alterations to this list. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Excellent thoughts, circus'nmagicfan. It strikes me that there are two areas of notability - one for a stand-alone entry, another for being included in a list within an already existing article, such as 'famous escapalogists' or 'some famous card manipulators' etc. The criteria for the first is different (and lower) than the second and we ought to have some basic guidelines for what makes a notable notable, as these lists tend to attract vanity entries the fastest. I suggest that being called an expert in one's field by at least three INDEPENDENT and unconnected sources would keep these lists from rambling.
As far as the basic notability guidelines go, an appearance on TV can often be a self-promotion exercise. We should also be wary of TV competitions and try not to be culturally (ie US and/or UK) miopic. My biggest beef, however, is self-promotion, where all references to a performer seem to originate from their own website, including local media clips and testaments. Often it feels as if inclusion in wikipedia is part of a media career plan. Web presence. I would add publications as an indicator, although there's a difference between a pamphlet or lecture notes and, say, Tamariz' Mnemonica, so multiple or non-self-published might be a good indicator of notability.

--Kosmoshiva (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points guys. At very least -- we need to require a couple references. We're having a bit of a problem in this vein over in the card magic article. Which I'm trying to gather some sources to clean this article (and especially the notable card magicians section) up. It's a shame that the card magic's article has a notability section which includes User talk: Bradboulton (some random wikipedia editor) and not Dai Vernon (the man who fried Houdini with an ACR). However, the funniest article in this vein would have to be Magic Dude Bone.
Thanks for bringing this up! --Protocoldroid (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Some good points there. With regard to TV appearances I agree we need to filter out the simple self-promotion exercises and the local media (although a self-promotion exercise that's effectie enough to get someone recognised nationally has some merit). Also, I agree we need to be careful not to be US/UK-centric.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I would say for TV appearances: If they are the main magician, then notability is assured. If they make one guest appearance in one programme, this is not enough. If they make a minumum of (for the sake of argument) 3 guest appearances on one show, or one guest appearance on three shows, then they are notable.
With DVDs and lecture notes/book writers, I would say that if they have received substantial reviews in multiple recognised sources (not Magic Cafe, but things like Abra, Genii, Linking Ring, etc) they should be included.
How about other forms of magical writers? Elizabeth Warlock, for example, has written a regular column in The Linking Ring for years - would that make her notable?
Presidencies of certian magic societies might make people notable. Well, things like The Magic Circle would, I would guess. Having said that, I would suspect that the people selected for these posts would probably alreadt be notable (thinking of Alan Shaxon and Donald Beven here - both would easily pass notability cases. Being a president of a local club is not enough - we should have a think about where to draw the line here. Or maybe not have a presidency term as sufficient notability, but allow it to count towards to their notability claim?
Anyway, thanks for bringing up the topic, and all your suggestions have been well thought out. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Card magic needs your help.

The card magic (termed card manipulation as the title) and card flourish articles need your help. If you have sources for these articles -- they're needed horribly. These pages are being targeted by those with interest in "XCM" only, and not the history and definition of card magic, and card flourish.

  • We need badly in the card magic article is to define: manipulation. I think of manipulation like, Channing Pollock (doves and cards), Jeff McBride (masks and cards), even the goofy (and brilliant) Tom Mullica (with tobacco products). But, I can't yet find a source.
  • I believe there's a point of view issue happening because of De'Vo von Schattenreich's marketing tactics. I don't dislike De'Vo. In fact, he's an inspiration to me. The problem is that his DVD's and website are very persuasive and he sells his flourishes and manipulations as being something completely different from magic. Great marketing campaign, bad news for the wikipedia articles, because it adds confusion.

I can't explain why else the editors don't want to have a card magic article, they want to turn the card magic and card flourish articles into an XCM article -- a marketing term coined by De'Vo to see his products).

  • The "notable manipulators" section is purely ridiculous. Or at least it was this morning when I woke up and read a list of random names, with no sources. I'd be putting Dai Vernon on the list, but, not until I find a few good sources and reasons too (I know in my heart that Vernon belongs there, but, "my heart" isn't good enough for wikipedia -- sources are, and I'm holding it down until I have those), however... People continually put these un-sourced.
  • If we can't all agree, we need to split the article into two different spots: "Card Magic" and "Flourishing only stuff"
  • Lastly, I plan to move "Card manipulation" to "Card magic" after I can define "manipulation" and then break the article into multiple sections (e.g. self working card magic, sleight of hand card magic, card manipulation [ala channing pollock, cardini] sections)

I'd be very grateful to anyone who can help out on these two articles.

--Protocoldroid (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


I think that that is an excellent idea. I have a hard time with the "Extreme Card Manipulation" thing. Whatever, its either an effect, a flourish, or a manipulation.

I will certainly try and help out, though. I will search my library for some good sources too. N8pilot16 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next?

The guidelines on the main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Special Guidelines) give instruction about what magic secrets can and cannot be on wikipedia. In a nutshell - unsourced secrets can be removed, and a note on the talk page to inform editors of why it was removed. This has been agreed, and is not up for comment here.

However, the content of the note on the talk page is for discussion. Is it sufficient for the note announcing that the secret was removed to state just why it was removed, or should the removed secret also be included?

A discussion has already taken place (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic/Archive 1#Removing the method - what next?), but no concensus has been established. 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to be clear about what you're asking for here. Do you want to know if it is required to move the deleted material to the talk page pending sourcing, or do you want permission to take the – very unusual – step of removing the material if it is placed on the talk page by other editors? The former is generally seen as a courtesy rather than a necessity; the latter – which involves redacting the signed comments of other editors, and makes it more difficult to edit, expand, or restore the material at issue – is far outside normal Wikipedia practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The former - putting the removed secret on the talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I cannot claim to be entirely neutral as I am Stephen's admin coach (but he has not asked me to come here.) As such, I haven't weighed in on this discussion before because I think you both have solid arguments and both can defend your position based upon policy and guidelines. As such, I am not surprised that this has ended up at RfC. Having read the discussions, I lean towards removing the secret completely unless it can be sourced. I lean this way because while talk pages do have a lower threshold for verifiability and even allows for speculation, they are still subject to rules related to RS/V/OR. And I have concerns that secrets revealed on talk pages will be accepted as factual even when wrong.

Having said that, I think I have a better idea... create a new template to go at the top of magic articles. This template will explain that unless adequately sourced, "secrets" revealed on talk pages may or may not be correct. That readers should not rely on the "secret" as it may simply be speculation or conjecture or even deliberately misleading!Balloonman (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Been rather quiet here... I deliberately held off putting in my comments here for a bit, mainly because I wanted to hear what other people had to say - I didn't want to be posting my views and having all the people who agreed with my stance just saying "I agree!". I was hoping that these people would justify their stance in their own words.
This is of course assuming that I have a following of people who will blindly agree with what I say. I suspect I may just have delusions of adequacy. But I digress
My chief concerns with having the secrets posted in the talk page are as follows:
  • Secrets should be just that - a secret. I am a magician, and am naturally biased in that way. However I will follow Wiki guidelines by leaving sourced secrets on the page. (Just please don't expect me to add sources to the unsourced secrets...)
  • Potential for causing edit wars. The history page of Out of This World (card trick) shows an edit war taking place between Wiki editors and someone who claimed to be Paul Curry's son (Paul being the inventor of the trick). He was claiming copyright violation (rightly or wrongly, I couldn't say), and was continually removing the secret. I did eventually remove the secret by citing the WikiProject Magic guidelines on removal of unsourced secrets. My fear is that by placing a secret on the talk page, it is just going to transfer the edit war onto that page. In many ways, removing the secret from a talk page is harder, as by deleting it you are editing someone elses comments, and that is a HUGE no-no.
  • Of lesser concern to me, but still a concern, is the content of the secrets being posted (on the article or on the talk page). Take for example the secret I took off of The Bullet Catch. I have been doing magic for nearly 15 years, and whilst I don't claim to know everything, I can honestly say I have never heard of wax bullets being used. I suspect it is an example of WP:HOAX, or possibly someone's idea of how it might be done. I'm not suggesting it should be removed in case someone tries it out themselves (anyone who does that deserves to win a Darwin award...), it bugs me more I think because I am also an engineer and I absolutely LOATHE inaccurate information - it really does rankle me.
As a side issue here, I want to raise my concern about copyright violation. I know copyrighted information should be removed immediately, but it isn't always done. Take the above case of Out of the World: someone was stating Copyright Violation - and yet people were still putting it back in - edit war, and block threats were the outcome. I think the problem is often that as we (the Wiki-editors who wish to protect Wikipedia) don't always have the sources to hand and so cannot say for certain that there has been a violation. Rather than follow it up, I suspect the default setting for editors is to revert the deleted text. I am not saying that this is what was happening in the specific case of OOTW, it is just the general impression I get. As a request to anyone who does encounter removal because of claimed copyright violation, please read WP:DOLT. Anyway, this isn't what this RFC is about (I just wanted to get this off my chest), I'll get back on topic. If anyone wants to counter my concerns, please feel free to do so in a separate section (unless it is to do with this RFC).
An idea that had crossed my mind was the use of archives in the talk pages. I know these are generally used in busier articles, but the thought of having posts with secrets on removed after a period of time (and still accessible) does appeal to me. Although there is a danger that someone may put the secret back on the article without realising that this had been removed because of OR. Ok, maybe not such a hot idea - ignire this paragraph, I was just thinking aloud.
Balloonman's suggestion has some merit (and I'm not saying that just because he is my coach) in that it does kinda take the edge off of the secret, thus addressing my concern about the content of the secret. It might also add doubt in the mind of the reader, and that sort of thing is always good in the mind of a magician (not so to an engineer, which probably explains a good many of my personal quirks...)
Those are my thoughts - feel free to dissect! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My view is that deleted text shouldn't generally be re-posted on the talk page. The main reason is that there is simply no need - if editors want to see what has been removed they can look at old versions of the page via the edit history. If there's no need for something and if that something is a source of edit wars then why do it? It is perfectly possible to make reference to what has been removed without reproducing the deleted text in full.
I said "shouldn't generally be re-posted" because I'm prepared accept there might be exceptions I haven't thought of - but such exceptions really aren't obvious to me. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I agree that there is no point in saving unsourced and/or innaccurate materials to the talk pages. The wax bullet argument (or should we say 'magic' bullet?!) is an example where erring on the side of inclusivity without sources can lead. I particularly like Balloonman's proposal for a template - is there a good image or glyph out there that could get the idea across succinctly? --Kosmoshiva (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given this a little more thought. And here is my proposal. 1) Remove unsourced secrets from the article, but do not place it on the talk page. 2) If somebody adds unsourced "secrets" on the talk page, do not remove it. 3) Add a template warning to talk pages that the "secrets" on the talk page may be wrong (possibly even dangerous.)Balloonman (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure that a template warning is necessary, though—it's already well-covered by Wikipedia's standard disclaimers, and none of Wikipedia's talk pages ought to be considered a reliable source for any information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the template would be helpful here as it would help avoid future wikidrama and it would be a bold reminder you can't trust the talk pages... it would also be a way to put in a "do not try this at home" type message as some magic tricks can be dangerous---especially if done wrong.Balloonman (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sample of what the template may look like:

Magic Secrets are closely guarded. Many of the secrets of older tricks are well known in the magic community. But only those secrets with reliable sources are shared in the article. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, they are removed from the article. Any secret revealed on the talk page may or may not be accurate. They may constitute speculation, be erroneous, or even deliberate deception. Do not rely upon it and, in the case of dangerous secrets, do not try them at home.
Great stuff, Balloonman! How about : (just some grammatical and tautological clean-up)
Magic secrets are closely guarded; many are well known outside the magic community, but only those with reliable sources are shared in this article. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article. A secret revealed through discussion on this talk page may not be accurate. It may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception. Do not rely upon it and, in the case of dangerous effects, do not try without outside consultation.
I think the edits are self-explanatory. Yeah, I know the phrase is "kids, don't try this at home", but as youtube and the effect 'spiked' has shown, it's the performance of ill-prepped dangerous stunts IN PUBLIC that's the true menace (!) --Kosmoshiva (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised per Kosmoshiva:

Magic secrets are closely guarded; many are well known outside the magic community, but only those with reliable sources are shared in this article. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article. A secret revealed through discussion on this talk page may not be accurate. It may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception. Do not rely upon it and, in the case of dangerous effects, do not try without outside consultation.
That's much better. Can I suggest that as you are paraphrasing from the guidelines on the main project page, you include a link to the guidelines on removing secrets? Maybe something like this: "If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article (see the Special Guidelines for full details)." StephenBuxton (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I think this is looking good. Here's my suggestion for a few tweaks, including a link to the project page guideline:
Magic secrets are closely guarded; many are well known outside the magic community, but, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines only those with reliable sources can be include in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article.

Warning: A "secret" revealed through discussion on this talk page may not be accurate. It may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception. Do not rely upon it and, in the case of dangerous effects, do not try without consulting experienced professionals.
Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Much better. I think the first sentence is a bit over-long, so I had a play around with it too.
Magic secrets are closely guarded, although many are well known outside the magic community. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines only those with reliable and cited sources can be include in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article.

Warning: A "secret" revealed through discussion on this talk page may not be accurate. It may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception. Do not rely upon it and, in the case of dangerous effects, do not try without consulting experienced professionals.
Howzat? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opening sentences are definitely an improvement. As for the warning section, I've been prompted into a rethink - but I've posted my views on that in the relevant section below. What about just using the "Magic secrets" section? Circusandmagicfan (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
The points are well made regarding general disclaimers. I think a template warning is still needed - after all, templates are there to save writing out the same message over and over again. How about this one instead?:
Magic secrets are closely guarded, although many are well known outside the magic community. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines only those with reliable and cited sources can be include in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it is removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberate deception.
The disclaimer part has been removed, but the explanation as to why secrets are removed from the article space is still there. The lack of accuracy of unsourced secrets in the talk space is highlighted. Any better? StephenBuxton (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of actions

Whilst the template is being honed, I thought it might be an idea to summarise what are hopefully the agreed actions that we should take when removing secrets.

  1. Unsourced secrets to be removed from article page.
  2. Note in talk page to state why secret was removed.
    1. Optional for editor include: Link to edit history showing secret that was removed
    2. Optional for editor to include: Text of removed secret
  3. If secret is posted on talk page, then template to be placed at top of talk page.

A separate instruction could also be given that should an editor find a secret being disclosed on a talk page, then the magic secret template should be added.

How does that sound to you all? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You might want to get some input about your proposed template from individuals who are more experienced with that sort of thing. The dark side of having a warning template is that some readers will assume that the absence of a warning template implies an absence of risk.
The template is also redundant with the existing Wikipedia disclaimers. I know that in the past there has been extreme reluctance and resistance to the placement of content-specific disclaimers on article pages; I don't know how thoroughly the practice has been discussed with respect to talk pages but you really ought to run it past some of the high-traffic discussion boards. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Wikipedia disclaimers seems to cover a lot of it in general terms. Having been prompted to rethink the need for a template I wonder if we're getting into what I'd call the "disclaimer neurosis" that seems to beset the world these days (or at least the parts of it which have lawyers). The bottom line is people have to be responsible for their own actions - if someone wants to try a trick and uses info from Wiki as a manual then that's their responsibility - including their responsibility to verify sources. We're not responsible for preventing people from being idiots.
Having said this, if the consensus is to go ahead with the template (and if experienced Wikipedians from elsewhere don't object) then I won't stand in the way of it. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
I still think a template is necessary to save on the typing - how about the one I've just posted above? As for getting input, where would you suggest? I originally asked for comment at the Village pump before taking this to RFC, but got zero input. I'm open to suggestions. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the latest version. I've asked an admin who is familiar with Templates to come over and take a look at the discussion.Balloonman (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
After reading through all of the options, I also think that the latest version is the best. The wording on the versions with the specific "warning" section seems too harsh; this version does a better job at assuming good faith while sill getting the message across. --CapitalR (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Capital---Capital was the admin that I mentioned who specializes in Template work.Balloonman (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the draft template has had a pretty fair gestation and you've done all you can to give people a chance to comment. Perhaps it's now time to apply WP:BOLD and just give it a try. Insert the template at the top of talk pages for magic trick articles and see if anyone objects.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I just created an actual template for this: {{Template:Magic secrets}}Balloonman (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice job - thanks! I've gone through all my secret removal edits from earlier this year and added the template on all the talk pages. The next task, as I see it, is to agree the amended wording to the policy guidelines on the main talk page, and then to go on and check all the articles out there for magic effects and edit accordingly. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised wording to Rapid action

If a method is added to an article but no reference is provided the following from WP:Attribution will apply:

"Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Given the sections above about controversial material and original research this can be applied immediately and overrides the practice of tagging information as unsourced and then waiting for a period to see whether citations are subsequently provided. A request for sources for a method should be placed on the talk page. Only when a full citation can be provided can the method be added to the article. It is recommended that a link to these guidelines be included in the message.

The editor placing a note on the talk page may also include a link to the edit difference that removed the secret. The editor may also include the removed secret as part of the post on the talk page. If the latter action is taken, then the {{Magic secrets}} template must be added at the top of the talk page, just below the {{Magic}} template.

[edit] New section: Action for secrets exposed on article talk pages

Secrets are sometimes discussed on the talk pages which may or may not be accurate. Do not delete these, as this is classed as editing other people's words, and is not permitted. Instead, add the {{Magic secrets}} template at the top of the talk page, just below the {{Magic}} template. The only exception where removing a secret from the talk page is permissible is where there is a copyright violation.

Well, there you go - this is a first draft, feel free to edit it/approve it/disagree with it/etc. I think it could do with a link to Wiki policy that describes why you musn't edit other people's posts on the talk pages, but I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to see if I can find it, but if anyone does know it, please can you add it? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Found it! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone very quiet - I'll go around all the RFC participants and drop a note asking for input. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached sanity. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As it has been a few days without comment, I have assumed that all parties are happy with it and have updated the main project page accordingly. When I get a minute or two to spare, I'll drop a note on everyone's page letting them know that it has been changed. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magicbox template

Was it really necessary to re-direct the Magicbox template to a completely new one named "Magic footer"? I don't object to WP:BOLD in principle but it would have been better if User:Epson291 had just edited the existing template (and also it would have been helpful if there had been some warning here). Creating a new template and re-directing leaves the history split between two locations and also means it no longer matches the project page entry, which refers to "Magicbox". It seems to me this could lead to problems further down the line if some articles end up with "Magicbox" in their source code and some have "Magic footer".

I guess this might be a good time for a discussion about what the structure of the box should be and what should be in it. I feel the new version with large lists of tricks is not appropriate to the original point of the footer box. I think the main objectives of the box should be to mark the article as part of the set of Magic articles and to provide links to the main themes or sub-sections within the topic (main articles such as "Magic (Illusion)", "Timeline of magic", "List of magic tricks]]", general topics such as "List of conjuring terms" plus the various main categories such as "Professional magicians", "Magic organisations", "Magic publications", and so on).

Just my thoughts. I'll wait and see if there is much response here and then I might apply WP:BOLD myself. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I'm with you. I do like the new look and feel of this new magic box, however... I'm not so fond of the list of magic tricks, partially because the articles aren't as solid as the few ones on the simple list we had before. I do like the breakdown with stage/close-up. Also, at the moment, I'm glad there's not a list of magicians on there yet -- while it could be appropriate, we know there's room for abuse.
--Protocoldroid (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put a list of magicians in the box, that might be asking for problems. I'll fix the page history problem. Epson291 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Epson291 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not a fan of listing the effects in the box - it makes it look like an attempt at being definitive and ends up being trivial because there's no way all effects could be listed -- nor in the correct categories ... square/circle a close up effect? etc ... I don't think there's enough solid encyclopedic material in Projectmagic to warrant such links. I am in agreement with Circusandmagicfan and Protocoldroid to make the links broader and stronger. History. Timeline. Terms. That kind of thing. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has proposed deleting Don Wayne Magic. Feel free to look at that to see if it's notable. As for the template, I like a structured template, and, by listing the different effects, it encourages more traffic to them, though prehaps it's too liberally applied. Epson291 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Don Wayne Magic

I hope I've averted the deletion issue with Don Wayne Magic. I've switched the article back to being a biography for Don Wayne and done some work to try to format it and add material and references to make it meet Wikipedia guidelines.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I had browsed the article a while back and it looked OK (I didn't scrutinize it), however, I took a peek last night and it's lookin' a-ok. Thanks for the attention to it. --Protocoldroid (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. Epson291 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)