Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic/Archive 1

Gangleri's submissions to the project

User_talk:MacGyverMagic/WikiMagic/Gangleri

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Card magic needs its own page

I think that card magic redirecting to card manipulation is misleading. Card manipulation is, as it says on the page, about unmagical handling of cards. Card magic is a completely different topic, one which I think should have its own page. Also, I think that flourish should be moved to the card manipulation page, as both are virtually the same thing. Any thoughts? Nsmith 84 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that some distinction can be made between "card magic" and "card manipulation" I think there is a problem in that some practitioners do both and there isn't a sharp divide between the fields. "card magic" often requires "card manipulation" skills even if it also uses gaffed decks or other methods.

I think it might be better to keep the re-direct and develop sub-sections within that entry.

Circusandmagicfan 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Guidelines on use of {{Magicbox}}

What are opinions on how this should be used? For myself, I've been adding it to articles that are about magical techniques, but not to actual biographies. Does this sound like a good practice, or do we want to add it to all magic-related articles, including bios? --Elonka 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the box should be added to all magic-related articles. Although it might seem clumsy to add the box to all biographies I think that if they're going to be regarded as part of this project then it would be helpful to mark them as such.

Circusandmagicfan 12:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Editing {{Magicbox}}

Following on from the above discussion about use of the Magicbox, what are the guidelines for editing the content of the box? For example, I notice it has a list of magic sub-types that consists of "Parlor magic", "Street magic", "Mentalism", and "Coin magic". This is a rather limited selection. Examples of entries that might usefully be added are:

• "Grand illusion"
• "Stage magic" (there might be some debate about where this overlaps Grand illusion
• Escapology
• Card magic (currently referred to as "Card manipulation")

I'm a newcomer here so I look to those who've worked on this project for a while (although I couldn't see any specific debate on this in the discussion page) Circusandmagicfan 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

In the absence of a response to the above I have applied WP:BOLD

Circusandmagicfan 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

New articles - suggestion for how to write about tricks

I've recently created a couple of new articles on specific illusions and I think they might illustrate a general approach to writing about tricks without getting into the issue of exposure, which generates a lot of controversy. What I've done is concentrate on a description of the illusion and its origins and history. I think this gives the possibility of a substantial and worthwhile entry while temporarily avoiding the exposure issue. The articles in question are

• The Radium Girl
• The Aztec Lady

I would really appreciate any general feedback and comments on these because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning some of the rules. I am not saying we should back down on the publication of methods. I am actually among those who dispute the lines on "exposure" and "rights" that are often put about by the magic "establishment". I do, however, believe there might be better ways to handle the publication of methods in Wikipedia than those used so far. Circusandmagicfan 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

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 · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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)

See new proposals further down on Methods/Exposure - New proposals

Circusandmagicfan 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

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)

The above was marked as "inactive" some time ago.

See new proposals further down on Methods/Exposure - New proposals

Circusandmagicfan 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Something for all

Israel Regardie wrote in the introduction to the voluminous Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic that any aspiring magician should consolidate his work by submitting to some form of Reichian psychotherapy. The basis if this is outlined in an article which I have put up, Sex economy (essay), which details an essay written by Ola Raknes, Norwegian vegetotherapist and author of Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy. This is an acute introduction to the theory of sex economy which all Reichian, and indeed neo-Reichian, therapies are based on. This should be of great interest to many people that are preoccupied with more than the mere trappings of magicianship. However, this article that I have put up may not remain a Wikipedia article for long, since it has already been proposed informally for deletion. Maybe an interest taken by some of the folks frequenting this forum could be significant in saving this article for Wikipedia. __meco 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I can see that article has no relevance to this project. Circusandmagicfan 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I agree, however what I assert is that it deals with a subject which by an aothoritative figure (Regardie) has been posited as instrumental to the success of anyone wanting to practice magick (and surely magic in a more general term as well), a pre-requisite if you will. Therefore I boldly take the liberty of informing you all of this. There should be no grounds for any action being taken by this project per se. __meco 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noticing now that this project exclusively appears to be absorbed in so-called "sleight-of-hand magic" and not the magic of magicians (esoteric practice), I realize that I probably have indeed misjudged my audience. __meco 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Methods/Exposure - New proposals

Discussion also posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The issue of publishing magic methods seems to be a recurrent source of controversy but the various attempts to achieve a clear policy seem to keep fizzling out. Having recently begun writing articles in the hope of injecting some new life into the Magic WikiProject I would hate for the whole thing to become diverted into (and bogged down by) another round of edit wars.

Because there are people in the magic community who hold vehement views on what they call "exposure", which they consider immoral, there is clearly a risk of any article that contains details of methods being targeted by sustained campaigns. I disagree with these people and I do not think Wikipedia should be bullied into following the selective norms of a specialist community. However I also think it is important to try to understand the criticisms that are being made of Wikipedia and to try to respond in a rational way rather than just saying "sod these people we're just going to ignore them". We also need to be practical. If we simply carry on as things are then every so often the Magic project will get bogged down in fighting vandalism, with the result that effort will be diverted away from the more important business of expanding and improving the articles.

I therefore propose the following:

Strict application of WP:Attribution

Because the publication of magic methods is controversial it is especially important that any attempt to do so should adhere strictly to the established policies and guidelines that are Wikipedia's foundation. In particular I think WP:Attribution is significant. If information about a method is quoted from another freely available source then it becomes more difficult for magicians to argue that Wikipedia is the point at which exposure is occurring. I would add here that some articles contain methods that are unsourced and seem speculative and inaccurate, which undermines the quality of the Magic Project generally and contravenes WP:NOR

If a method is added to an article but no reference is provided we should apply the section of WP:Attribution that says: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Normally I would add an "unreferenced" tag and leave the text for a while to see if someone could add a source, however because this is a controversial issue I think the material should be kept out of the article until it can be properly referenced.

Intellectual property law

Because the concept of intellectual property often forms part of arguments about exposure of methods and because magicians have occasionally resorted to the courts in an attempt to suppress publication of methods it is important that attention is paid to relevant areas of law. The Wikipedia policy on Copyright problems deals with part of this but there might also be additional issues to do with information that is covered by laws on confidentiality (eg. this might be because it is covered by a Non-disclosure agreement but could also be because, in some jurisdictions such as the UK, there are laws that automatically give certain information a confidential quality). The article on Intellectual rights to magic methods is good but is not yet comprehensive - in particular it should be noted that, even though international treaties have resulted in a certain amount of commonality, intellectual property law does vary from one country to another - the current entry has an American focus.

In any case I am not trying to pre-empt proper legal advice, which Wikipedia already has provisions for. I certainly don't want this to be taken as an argument in favour of prior restraint. It is merely intended as cautionary advice. What I suggest is that, before adding material concerning methods, contributors should take reasonable steps to confirm the material is not covered by copyright or confidentiality. Obviously there is a debate to be had about what constitutes "reasonable steps", but to some extent the solution again resides with application of WP:Attribution.

Circusandmagicfan 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Re: Legal position on publication of methods. Can anyone get hold of the wording of any judgement or ruling in the case LA Superior Court BC190153, Robert J. Gurtler aka Andre Kole v. Nash Entertainment, Bruce Nash, Fox Broadcasting Co. This apparently dealt with publication on television of a method to an illusion and might be a firm source for the legal position. I can find a listing for it in the Entertainment Law Digest but I have no access to the content. Circusandmagicfan 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

See Trade secret for a good non-technical discussion. A key portion in this context is " a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered." DGG 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another key passage appears to be: ...With sufficient effort or through illegal acts (such as break and enter), competitors can usually obtain trade secrets. However, so long as the owner of the trade secret can prove that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information confidential, the information remains a trade secret and generally remains legally protected as such.

Circusandmagicfan 09:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

• While exposure can generally attributed to a source, the problem is that those sources are violating intellectual property law by sharing material that isn't theirs. It's technically not copyright violation, but that doesn't make it acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're broadly in the same territory. I'm uncomfortable with wholesale posting of methods for the sake of it

My argument is twofold. First that some of the methods that have been added to articles are actually inaccurate - which is a quality issue. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about addressing that sort of thing by requiring properly cited references. Second, there's more to "intellectual property" than just copyright - breach of confidence and breach of contract torts being two potential pitfalls.

On the other hand one has to be careful when talking about people publishing knowledge that isn't "theirs". The posting above seems to be saying in one sentence that something is illegal and in the following sentence that it's not illegal. Something is either legal or it's not.

I think it's dangerous to start trying to assign some sort of moral rights that apply only to magic. The law is society's method of codifying morality. We may not always like it but it's kind of the bottom line hammered out by society. If the law says no one "owns" or has "rights" to a piece of knowledge then there's no reason why it shouldn't be published. Magicians sometimes overstep the mark in claiming or assigning "rights". Just because it is commonly thought amongst magicians that a particular method is associated with a particular performer or publisher does not mean that person necessarily holds legal rights like those conferred by a patent. Quite apart from the limitations of copyright, it is perfectly possible there might be what is sometimes referred to as "prior art". Many magic methods are variations or rediscoveries of tricks that date back a long way. Just because someone discovers or reinvents one of those ideas and makes it part of their act or publishes a book on it doesn't mean they own the underlying concept. They might have copyright over the particular act or form of words they use and they might be able to protect their knowledge as a trade secret by taking reasonable steps to keep it confidential, but magicians are are not above the law and do not have extra rights that the rest of humanity doesn't have. Again, citing of sources should help to ensure Wikipedia remains on firm ground.

Circusandmagicfan 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

In my opinion, the best way to proceed on this, is to propose a guideline page either directly on the WikiProject page or perhaps as a subpage of the Magic WikiProject, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/Guidelines. On that page, include not just information about intellectual property, but all of the thises and thatses that go into formatting a magic article. Which templates to use, which categories we recommend, what format to use for an article about a trick, etc. And also include a paragraph similar to what you've got above, about how secrets should not be released unless they can be firmly cited to an outside source, and even then should be prefaced with {{magic-spoiler}}. Once the guideline page is written, we provide a link to it here, and if there's consensus to "make it so," then there's something easy to refer to if any questions come up on other articles. For an example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. --Elonka 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another good "example" wikiproject is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. They've got elaborate instructions there on improving and standardizing articles. My own current pet project (non-magic at the moment) is an article on the Knights Templar, which I've put though the MilHist Peer Review, and is now at official Good Article status. My ultimate goal is to get it to Featured Article status, and then to Wikipedia's mainpage for a day of glory in October of this year. One thing that might help motivation here at the Magic WikiProject, is to identify which magic-related articles (if any) have achieved Good or Featured status, and listing them on the page. And if we don't have one at that level yet, then we should definitely pick a subject that's well-documented (such as Harry Houdini perhaps), and push it through to GA status. It's a good team-builder, a great way to educate folks on the most exacting of Wikipedia standards, and will definitely be a source of pride. It's a real rush to see an article that you've worked on, show up on Wikipedia's mainpage as "Today's Featured Article." :) --Elonka 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The current policy on exposure seems to turn off most people who know enough about magic to create well written and well referenced articles, making it difficult for a magic page to get to Good Article status. Kleg 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm continuing this thread in a new section below (see Re-booting the project). Circusandmagicfan 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Ditching magic collaboration of the week

I propose we delete this feature of the project. As far as I can tell from its page this feature has been inactive since at least 2005. The level of activity on the project as a whole is currently pretty low. Most of the editing seems to be a case of occasional and infrequent visits by people who take an interest in specific articles. There appear to be only a very small number of editors taking an interest in the project as a whole. Even if the full efforts of all these people could be focused for a week it would not be sufficient to make a huge amount of progress. I don't mean to belittle anyone's efforts (because this "little and occasional" approach is one of the things Wikipedia harnesses to useful effect). What I am saying is that with project activity at its current level and with effective limits on the frequency and duration of editing activity that can be expected from anyone, a week amounts to rather a short length of time. Even if we changed to "Collaboration of the month" it might still be too short a timeframe to see big transformations.

As an alternative we should have a seies of project strands that are given varying priority levels based on need for content or improvement. Initially at least these could be based around the elements in the "Magicbox" template. For example:

• Magicians' biographies
• History of magic
• Stage illusions
• Card magic
• Mentalism
• Street magic
• Escapology

...and so on.

I will leave this for a couple of weeks to see if anyone has comments or objections and if so to see if a consensus can be achieved. Beyond that I will feel free to apply WP:BOLD

Circusandmagicfan 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

• I already posted to Circusandmagicfan's talk page, but I think it's a good idea to mark it inactive instead of going through deletion. It makes revival a lot easier should the need ever arise. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough - I agree we should keep the template "in reserve"

Circusandmagicfan 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

"Collaboration of the week" is definitely not effective. However, it might be worth renaming it as "current collaboration," putting a date on it, and adding a note saying that it's okay to changing the "current collaboration" to some other article if it appears to have had no new activity for a certain period of time (maybe a week?). --Elonka 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "current collaboration" is a good suggestion. I'm not sure about the time span though - a week is definitely too short. Maybe a month? Circusandmagicfan 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I'm continuing this thread in a new section below (see Re-booting the project). Circusandmagicfan 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

National categories for professional magicians

I've noticed an anonymous user removing the category "British magician" from a lot of bios and replacing it with "English magician". Whilst I don't have a problem with people being described as English if that is indeed an identifier they use, I am arguing that we should retain the "British" category. Same goes for british magicians who use the identifiers Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. There are several reasons

1. "British" is a useful category for search purposes, especially for people, such as those from outside the UK, who might only know of a performer as British rather than English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.
2. If you are English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish your formal nationality is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is usually shortened to British.
3. The main national magic organisations, the best known being The Magic Circle, tend to span all of the UK rather than being exclusive to one of its parts. To quote the Wikipedia article: "The Magic Circle is a British organisation dedicated to magic..."
4. Some people prefer to describe themselves as British rather than English, Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. Other people might lay claim to multiple nationalities - eg. someone of Scottish parentage born and raised in England might consider themselves both Scottish and English, and quite possibly British, Scottish and English. In all of these cases it is helpful for us to retain the British classification.
5. Following on from the above point, there is a risk that some people have been or might be wrongly classified on the basis of data about their birth location. eg. It is possible that some subjects have been classified as English because they were born in England when, in fact, they might consider themselves Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish. "British" is a more reliable and more easily verified classification.

The only significant exception I can think of is that some people from Northern Ireland might consider themselves Irish and object to being classified as British. I don't have any problem with classifying them that way if there's a citable source that verifies their stated position.

I'd be interested to hear other views on the British/English thing.

Also, does anyone know about similar issues with other countries. eg. Puerto Rico/US or Canada/Quebec or Greenland/Denmark.

Circusandmagicfan 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I would say to just pick one category, be it British or English, rather than using both. The general rules on categories are to pick the category for which someone is best known, so look at what articles or books are saying. Do they call him an "English magician" or a "British magician"? It is also generally to be avoided to choose multiple categories that are "related" to each other. For example, "Category:English magicians" is a subcategory of "Category:British magicians". See Wikipedia:Categorization for more info. --Elonka 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. The problem is that, as I outlined, it is not straightforward to determine whether someone should be classified as English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish. Published sources can be contradictory (sometimes descriptions depend upon the context in which an article is written). In many cases there might be no specific published statement about nationality. It seems the classification in some articles has been done on the basis of place of birth, but, as I mentioned, that is not a completely reliable determinant when it comes to making someone English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish. It is at least a little more reliable as an indicator that someone should be classified as British (especially when combined with other data). Given all these factors, my view is that British is preferable as a category. If needs be we should delete the sub-categories "English magicians", "Northern Irish magicians" and "Scottish magicians". I do not see that they are very useful. There might be some grounds for retaining the "Scottish magicians" category as there are a few people (eg. Jerry Sadowitz) who are clearly known as and billed as Scots. The Northern Ireland category is much more problematic (it could be argued that it shouldn't be a sub-category of "British magicians" because some Northern Irish people identify as specifically Irish and not British). In any case, at the moment, there is only one Northern Irish magician listed- and he is actually much better known as an American! Finally, magicians who are categorised as English are very unlikely to object to being categorised as British (although I don't want this to become a politics forum it is worth noting that even extreme nationalists tend to call themselves British nationalists rather than English nationalists).

I will re-classify all English magicians as British for the time being on the basis that it is the safest default option which avoids an article being in both a main and sub-categories. If someone can make a solid case for classifying a magician as English then that can be argued out and we can re-classify if neccessary.

Circusandmagicfan 08:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

So that you can push your own agenda? Why are you taking it upon yourself to do this? There is no consensus for you to act upon this. It is complete unacceptable to remove the English Magicians category, whilst leaving the Scottish Magicians category. You should not have gone ahead with depopulating that category without a consensus. No one is saying to get rid of the British Magicians category, the others are subcategories. 172.188.40.58 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason for the English sub-category (see above arguments). As for consensus, it is difficult to determine what qualifies as consensus when activity/involvelement is very low. If one posts proposals and no one posts responses what is to be inferred? If the lack of responses is because few or no users are giving any attention to the pages or project in question it becomes nonsensical to expect consensus to be achieved in the form of a mass of endorsing posts. This project has seen very little activity for the last year or so - especially in terms of input on the project talk page (even posting on Wikipedia's announcements areas has produced no new input to the debate about re-booting the project). There is a need for the project to be tidied up and given some new direction if it is not to be moribund. In these circumstance it seems reasonable to apply WP:BOLD, which is what I have done.

I do not have any agenda other than improving the Magic wikiproject and I do not seek to impose my ideas regardless of other views. If there is reasoned argument for use of the "English magicians" category and if that outweighs the arguments I have set out then I'm happy for that sub-category to be used.

I would prefer to get rid of the Scottish and Northern Irish sub-categories also. I have not removed the Scottish category because, as I indicated, I am aware of potential arguments for its retention. However the option to lose those categories still remains and we should consider implementing it unless there are objections. (Also, I have not deleted the "English magicians" category; it still exists, it's just not currently in use. What I have done is to go through the "English" magic biographies and check out the references and re-categorise to British on the basis of what I found.)

Having had my actions queried, I have some counter queries.

1. A study of the histories of some of the magic biographies seems to show that a person or people have been editing to alter biographies that described subjects as British to instead show them as English. This is not always easy to spot because edit summaries are lacking. It seems to have been done even where the only evidence of Englishness is birth location, which, as I've said before, is not conclusive. Where is the justification or consensus for this action? (At least I pointed out what I was doing by giving edit summaries and posting here with detailed justification.)
2. What is the point of the "English magician" category? By this I mean, how does it add useful information or aid in searching or use of Wikipedia? (I've argued that "British magician" is a better categorisation because it is less prone to error. I also argue that there is little point in distinguishing between English and British magicians because English people tend to regard themselves as British. Sub-divisions for Scots, Welsh and Irish have a little more foundation in as much as some people who formally have UK nationality prefer to be described in that way because they have nationalist feelings.)
3. Why does the person who made the previous post (and presumably also the posts on my talk page and various reverts to articles) use an anonymous IP address? If you have some commitment or involvement in relation to this issue why do you not sign up with a user name so that we can at least see it is the same person all the time and see your edit history?

Circusandmagicfan 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I notice someone with a similar anonymous IP as before has waded back in since my last post and repeated some edits to classify people as English without any response to any of the arguments here. Whoever it was seems to be aware of the posts here because they appear to have posted above, however they have not addressed any of my arguments. If this anonymous person (who seems to me to be a vandal) repeats their edits again they would, by my reckoning, be in danger of breaking the three revert rule. However, This person seems set on a straight tit-for-tat edit war but, as an anonymous IP, they seem to be trying to avoid the rules.

Circusandmagicfan 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Following further investigation I believe someone using anon IPs is behaving in a way that is possibly a subtle form of vandalism and/or trolling and possibly also trying to insert a POV (maybe for political reasons?). All the IP addresses involved begin 172 and are traceable to AOL.

As far as I can tell the latest bout of activity began on or around 15 April when the anonymous user went into at least one article and replaced existing consensus descriptions and catgorisations with "English" (without edit summary or other explanation). This then led to the series of events in the previous posts (above).

I have also found that a user with a similar AOL IP vandalised at least one magic biography in January this year. Obviously this isn't conclusive evidence that it was the same person who inserted the "English" POV, because AOL is a big ISP with a lot of users. But it does illustrate why anon users who want to engage in tit-for-tat reverts should sign up and get a full ID - ie. so we can see their edit history and get some assurance that they are constructive editors and not habitual trolls or vandals.

Circusandmagicfan 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I want to get this right and I'm trying to do it properly by the book. I have put in a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to merge British magicians and its sub-categories into a single category. Circusandmagicfan 13:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Re-booting the project

Following Elonka's suggestion I'm drafting a proper set of guidelines for the project. Also, further to other discussion about the structure of the project, it seems the most useful thing to do is to incorporate the guidelines into a re-vamped project page. Having looked around at articles and categories it's apparent that a bit of work needs to be done on sorting out categories, as these have a significant impact on the structure of the project. At the moment there are some anomalies and inconsistencies - I aim to work on sorting these out and I will incorporate that strand of work into a section of the new project page dealing with structure. If anyone has comments or thoughts on how the category structure should work please post here a.s.a.p. My intention is to put up a draft version of the new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/draft magic project page and if there are no major objections I will then swap it into the existing project page. I hope to have something ready within the next week to ten days.

Circusandmagicfan 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I have now completed the draft for the new project page and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/draft magic project page for consultation. I have tried to retain as much of the essence of the old page as possible while adding elements that reflect recent discussion here. I have then tried to build that into a better structure drawing on the example of WikiProject Military history. So what do you think?

Circusandmagicfan 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

The Draft has been up for almost a month with little response. The original project founder has looked at it and made a minor alteration but that is about all in terms of actions or posts. Having left messages for the listed project members who remain active Wikipedians and having posted at the Village Pump I feel I've made reasonable efforts to notify anyone with an interest. Given the above I will leave it until May 3 and if there have been no specific posts in opposition I will assume consensus to replace the existing project page with the draft.Circusandmagicfan 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

New project page is now in place as per above. I have moved the old page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/old project page archived as an archive. If this is inappropriate I assume it can just be deleted.

Circusandmagicfan 10:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Request for comment

Additional opinions as to a magician's notability are requested at Talk:Tom Stone (magician). --Elonka 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I just created this userbox that I thought some of you might like. If anyone wants I will also create a userbox for this Wikiproject. This userbox will also put you in the new category, Wikipedians interested in magic. This userbox is{{User:Deflagro/Userboxes/Magic}}Deflagro 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is a magician

Magic spoiler template

Seems like the template has stopped working. I know there was some discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia about abolishing or severely curtailing use of spoilers but I wasn't aware of anything being deleted. Does anyone know what's happened? Circusandmagicfan 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Yes. See long discussion in archives at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler. Samohyl Jan 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Card trick

How is it done please? She lays out piles of cards looking at the top card in each and then counting. an ace will lead to her adding 13 cards, a 2 will cause her to add 12 etc. She then instructs me to remove all piles except 3. Then to reveal the top card of any two piles. Say I reveal 2 and 3. she then merges the discarded cards and counts them (there are 16). She then tells me the remaining hidden top card is an ace. How does she know this? - Pharrar 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid repetition, here is the answer I gave this new user (not yet greeted!) on the mathematics reference desk:

---

Sorry, can't help. There are many ways of performing a magic trick to produce essentially the same effect. A magician watching the performance may notice details that suggest the method, but non-magicians tend to give grossly inadequate descriptions. That's no accident; many a trick depends on viewers overlooking subtle details. Beyond that, those who know the most about magic are sometimes willing to teach those who want to learn magic for the purpose of performing, but find it counterproductive (and bad for business) to satisfy idle curiosity.

You can find many, many books written about card magic, either in local magic shops, online shops, your public library, or at a local magic club. Wikipedia has a magic project with its own talk page; you might try asking there. It is quite possible the trick you saw appears in Karl Fulves' Self-Working Card Tricks or another of his books. These books are very inexpensive to buy (Amazon even gives you a free peek), and his tricks typically use no special apparatus or difficult sleight of hand. --KSmrq^T 07:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

This is the first magic question I can recall seeing there. I am open to suggestions for more appropriate responses to give in such circumstances, should they arise again. --KSmrq^T 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Flourish and Card Manipulation

There needs to be some clean up with these two terms.

A card flourish is something flashy, and sort of show-off like, but not exactly magical. A flourish may, sometimes, be used during a trick, but has no magical effect itself. Some good examples of a flourish; One Handed Shuffle, Multiple packet cuts (What The Hell Happened Sybil? Hollywood Speedtrap, or anthing by Brian Tudor), Fans, Card Flinging, or any variety of One Handed Cut.

A manipulation should be considered magic. In fact, that should be its own section of magic: Manipulation. Just look at Jeff McBride, Peter Marvey, Topaz, and a whole host of others. Manipulation doesn't just deal with cards (hence the need for its own section), it can be with Doves (or any other type of bird), Cards, Fire, Billiard Balls, Straws, Bells, or anything really.

We need to decide how to define these two terms cause I'm getting tired of seeing "Extreme Card Manipulation." Its either a Flourish or a Manipulation, simple as that.N8pilot16 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Portal:Illusion ?

Ok, so we are included on Portal:Drama which is really a link to Portal:Arts, however... There's portals for all kinds of important vast topics, such as Portal:Psychology or Portal:Mathematics. Then, there's portals for things that seem to have a more limited scope, like Portal:24 (the TV show), or Portal:Star Wars.

I think, we might have a winner with Illusion. It's more vast than a TV show, and maybe lesser in scope than say Mathematics.

Is anyone else interested in trying to start an Illusion portal? I'm going to be reading up on the guidelines for starting a portal and am curious if anyone else is interested in starting an Illusion portal article. *thumbs up*
--Protocoldroid (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

---

A couple links from my quick look-up for those interested:

• Portal Instructions
• Portal Guidelines
• Portal:List of portals

--Protocoldroid (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

removing of methods

As per the guidelines on the article, I have been working my way through the listed magic tricks removing the method, and adding a message on the talk page. Still loads to do - anyone want to give me a hand? I think the edit summary and message I've been using is nicely concise - you can see an example on Talk:Asrah levitation and with this edit summary here. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Method to be removed on:

• Snap change

Non-notable?

• Magic Dude Bone (Not that I don't think this article is -hilarious-, haha)

(Please add to or move entries to this list when methods are removed)

--Protocoldroid (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing the method - what next?

I've started going around removing the unsourced methods from the effects, and dropping a note like this on the talk page. Following on from my actions User:TenOfAllTrades has put an additional note, including the magical method, along with encouragement to go and seek out a verifiable source.

I have my reservations about putting the secret in the talk area for a few reasons:

1. Natural bias - I am a semi-pro magician, and do not believe that Wikipedia should be exposing secrets, and posting unsourced secrets in the talk page is almost as bad (not quite as bad - Google doesn't pick it up) as having it in the article.
2. I am worried that magicians may visit and start deleting text in the talk page. This is wrong, as this can be construed as vandalism, where as it may be trying to remove a method protected by copyright. Yes, blocks can be issued, but this will invariably lead to bad feeling, and will put off someone who might have otherwise contributed greatly to the project.

One possible compromise is this note I left here. Anyway, what do you all think? StephenBuxton (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To the first point, I have some sympathy. Nevertheless, we must all acknowledge that when we come to Wikipedia we must be encyclopedia editors first, and don our other hats second. (As a scientist, I assure you that there are bits of Wikipedia that have me pulling my rapidly-thinning hair.) Having the method on the article talk page makes it much easier for editors to locate sources—it gives some idea of what to look for. It also allows editors the opportunity to review, correct, and update the content, and to discuss alternate drafts of the text, even before it is restored to the main article body—something not possible if the content is only present as a historical diff link. It is a fairly standard and widely-accepted practice on Wikipedia that a courteous editor will move unsourced content to a talk page pending a search for sources. The exceptions to this practice are generally narrow—we do discard material that is defamatory, material likely to be a copyright violation (see below), and ranting or soapboxing.

Except under very rare (buggy) conditions, Google and other major search engines do not index Wikipedia article talk pages; the average reader of Wikipedia is unlikely in the extreme to come across a talk page through a typical internet search or by following links from external sites. Shuffled off to the talk page, the material is already about as 'hidden' as it can get while still being on the internet.

I should also note that the methods in question fall into two rough categories.

1. Methods that are essentially correct. In order to give appropriate credit and to verify their correctness, these methods should not be restored to articles until sourced, but they are legitimate Wikipedia article content once sourced—even according to this WikiProject's guidelines. While inclusion of these methods may rankle some, each editor must decide for him or herself if he can make peace with the already-established consensus of the Wikipedia community.
2. Methods that are badly flawed or completely incorrect. There's no need to worry about the secrecy of these methods. Either they don't work and they thereby don't give anything away, or they represent novel inventions by Wikipedia editors, in which case those inventors are free to do as they please with their creations—including give them away. (While such methods don't belong in articles, there's no significant harm to the magic community to having them on the talk page. The material on the talk page is clearly marked as unsourced and potentially inaccurate.)

I addressed the copyright issue in my previous comments to Stephen, but here it goes again. I fully support removing material from Wikipedia that violates someone else's copyright. I find the notion of lifting another writer's words without attribution reprehensible. As an administrator on Wikipedia, I treat such violations harshly.

However, we do not preemptively remove material as a possible copyright violation in the absence of any credible claim to that effect. I encouraged Stephen – and I encourage any other editor, too – to remove any copyrighted material for which a source can be linked to or cited. (In other words, a statement to the effect that "This material was copied essentially verbatim from page 212 of Bob's Big Book of Magic" or "This material was taken directly from www.bobsmagic.com/the_old_copying_trick.") I also indicated that material added by editors with a demonstrated history of copyright violations could be removed as a precautionary measure.

Finally, issues turning on copyright questions can be referred to an appropriate venue for broader consideration. Wikipedia:Copyright problems (shortcut WP:CP) provides instructions to both editors and copyright holders on appropriate ways to deal with possible infringements. Mature and reasonable individuals need not engage in edit warring, nor will they be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that without references, only magicians know which methods are essentially correct and which ones are badly flawed, and right now we have very few magicians contributing to Wikipedia. Kleg (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As a magician first and Wikieditor second (sorry, I've tried to think differently, but that's the reality) I find myself retreating more and more from the arguments. Surely someone could go searching through the history pages if they're really after the methods. Most of them are there. Then they'd have to decide for themselves whether or not the method(s) posted (and unposted) are correct or not. Just as they would when reading them on either the main page or the discussion page. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, by its very nature, unreliable. To make matters worse, there are many differing versions of effects out there, with as many differing methods. To state categorically that 'this is how something is done' you're better of saying something along the lines of 'this is how my Uncle Bob does it'. Both the effect AND the method need to be sourced for accuracy. My ire starts rising when I see more space devoted to the 'how it's done' than the history and names involved in an effect's development, which points to an immature foundation for including the article in the first place. I am in favour of oblique referencing, pointing people in the right direction to find things out for themselves in the real world, which maintains a basic respect for the fraternity which, in turn, is likely to encourage participation. Many magicians are avid historians and would be valuable assets to the development of this encyclopedia if only they could contribute without violating their vows. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the history of magic is fascinating and it is important that it is reflected in articles. Even those who are obsessed with methods should take an interest in the history and the people involved. It is ridiculous to assume there is always a single un-varying method behind a particular effect. Methods often evolve over time - different magicians successively improve upon an idea, and sometimes a technique from one area of magic is applied to another to create a new effect. Also, as has been stated, we must be wiki editors first and foremost, which means trying to improve the factual quality of articles - which in turn means paying attention to sourcing and references. I therefore support the approach of quoting a source for a method and stating in the article something along the lines of "this is how Magician X says he does it..."

With regard to the points about copyright, copyright is generally not a block on publication of magic methods. There is no copyright in an idea, there is only copyright in the creative form in which it is expressed. In the case of text that might contravene copyright surely the answer is to re-write the text into an original set of words. Similarly with diagrams, if a copyrighted diagram is found then the answer is to produce an original diagram that shows the same information. I believe the law permits quoting of small parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of review and legitimate research. Presumably that also covers some of the situations people were referring to.

Like Kosmoshiva I have begun to tire of the arguments. I drafted the current project guideline on methods to try to curtail the frequent edit wars and squabbling which were threatening to consume the Magic wikiproject and drive knowledgeable contributors away. It seems to me that since the guideline was established the situation has been a little more peaceful (although I have much less time to edit these days so I might be oblivious to arguments on particular articles). I am encouraged by recent posts here, which seem to indicate a more rational and balanced approach is prevailing. I'd like to record my thanks to those who now seem to be picking up the torch. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I am not questioning the guidelines you prepared for how to deal with unsourced methods in the article mainspace. They are very clear, represent the policies on verifiability and original research, and have also found a good compromise position on exposing/concealing magical secrets on Wikipedia (have you ever throught of getting a job in the diplomatic corp?). What I am after is to get an agreement as to whether or not to post the secret that was removed in the talk space. I have my own views on that, and this is not in agreement with other editors. I will go along with the consensus opinion, whatever is agreed. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My vote is don't keep them. Kleg (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really been a huge amount of comment here, not enough to record concensus. The few of us that have commented are rather biased, being magicians as well as Wikipedians. I'm going to post a comment at the Water Pump and ask if someone can pop over and give their thoughts. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that the method needs to be inluded. In fact, I'd feel better if it's not. If someone wants to learn magic they can go out and buy the $30 book or the $45 video and learn just like everybody else. my two cents.

N8pilot16 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to include methods where the information is freely available and supported by cited sources. The argument that people should have to buy books is one I've heard many times before and it still seems deeply flawed. Why should a few book publishers have a profitable little monopoly or cartel? It's one thing for people to defend copyrights which they own (that's fair enough) but there are no good grounds for saying only a few people in the magic industry have a right to publish information on magic methods that is not subject to copyright or other legally legitimate restrictions. There are a lot of illusions where the methods are effectively "public domain" because they have been around so long that no one owns them. I believe the ethos and policy of Wikipedia is in favour of publishing this sort of material where it has relevance or notability.

I do recognise that publication of methods is controversial in some quarters. Furthermore I oppose the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for people who are only obsessed with exposure and have no interest in Wiki's aims and philosophy. I'm thinking here of those who add material that has no cited sources and is often of dubious accuracy. These generally contravene NPOV.

For these reasons we need a clear and carefully justified policy on how methods should be dealt with in articles. I agree with StephenBuxton that the relatively small number of contributors here makes for a potentially biased position. Trying to seek input from experience editors elsewhere on Wiki seems like a good move.

17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I suggets we leave it a few more days and see if anyone else comes across from the Village Pump and comments. If not, I'll see about putting a request at WP:RFC.

Just a reminder though that this debate is not about secrets in the article space; it is about the removed unsourced secrets being placed in the Talk Space. Also, could I please ask that you justify your stance? Which ever route we go down is going to be reached from a consencus, but hundreds (tens?) of votes of remove or post is not really going to help. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As no concensus has been reached, I have raised an RFC. StephenBuxton (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

This section has gone very quiet.. anyone else got any comments? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I really feel the size of the "Magicbox" has gone way beyond the point where it is problematic. It has an awful lot of entries and when it appears in articles it takes up a hugely disproportionate space. It seems as if the editors working on it are tring to make it into an index for the whole of the magic content of Wikipedia - which is NOT what these sorts of boxes are supposed to be. There are other ways of ensuring that all magic articles are linked to in a systematic way (eg. categories, "list articles" and broad-subject articles such as Magic (illusion)). These project boxes should just flag up the fact that an article is part of a family of articles and provide a few links to the main or introductory parts of that family. I'll wait a few days for active editors to chip in and to see if anyone can come up with a way of reducing the existing box down to seomething sensible. If there's no response then I'll have a go at drafting something myself.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Yes, PLEASE reduce it. Your suggestions are great. The box ought to be something that isn't out-of-date every five minutes, nor (as I see it) an attempt to circumnavigate issues that are still in flux by presenting them in a faux definitive manner (eg categories or 'types' of magic, etc). There's a lot of doubling up, too.--Kosmoshiva (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would get rid of everything but the "Magic" section. As for the "Historical Magicians," that can be split to its own template if its notable/agreeable enough (I don't know), and move the rest to List of magic tricks. Epson291 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Proposed amendments

The guidelines violate general WIkipedia guidelines. As it's now come to my attention, because of the removal of the previously sourced information on King levitation, I'm proposing deletion of the template, as well as adjustment of the WikiProject guidelines to note that if the secret is published elsewhere, we shouldn't decline to include because of a claim of secrecy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose, at a minimum that

• The "Intellectual property" section needs to be drastically gutted; if there's a published source, and that source does not have a non-disclosure agreement, then we can use it, regardless of any other claims of secrecy.
• Because of previous removal of sourced information by (apparent) magicians who don't appreciate their secrets being published here, even if published elsewhere, I would suggest that any removal of information be noted here, on this page or a recognized subpage, or it can be summarily reverted as probable vandalism.

• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the IP section per the first proposal (assuming that there isn't a valid counter point), but oppose the second one. It completely violates one of our core guidelines. A person who comes here and makes a good faith edit, should NEVER have his/her edits called vandalism simply because some committee decided on a certain practice. The project has established guidelines related to sourced materials and has a greed that if the "secret" is available via a reliable source, then it can be shared here. The example that you are using did not have a source cited and was properly removed, now that a citation has been added, the method will remain. But calling such edits vandalism is a failure to assume good faith and can in itself be seen as vandalism.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I suggest that the "rapid action" should only be taken by experienced editors who verify that the material had not previously been sourced, per the vandalism note above. A vandal could remove the source, and bring the article to the attention of an uninvolved, but unexperienced, editor, who would verify that there is no present source, and remove the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I should note that from June 2007-June 2008, the article had a tag requesting a citation for the method. One was never applied. A reference was added, but a reference does not make a citation. There has never been a citation claiming that the video provided the explanation given in the article. Providing references in a separate reference section is not enough. If it were then, we would have no need for endnotes.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment in the TfD, but I see that it has now been withdrawn, so any comment I make on there is superfluous. When I removed the method from Kings Levitation, I was following guidelines on the magic project page, and OR guidelines. There was no reference on there, so the method was removed. Following on from the lengthy discussion about removing magical methods, I made sure that the magic secrets template was on the talk page, which includes an explanation about getting the method included. I see that the method is now referenced; whilst I cannot verify the legitamacy of the reference, I would no longer remove the method.

I will continue to work through the magic articles removing the methods. Any that have a referenced method, no matter how slight, will be left. For example here I removed the unsourced method, but left the sourced section (I have since restored my edit, following the Twinkle vandalism revert)

I can appreciate that my edits could be construed as vandalism had my edit summaries been blank; but as I am explaining in the summary what I am doing, could you please assume good faith that I am not a vandal? Thank you! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MagicPedia needs WikiProject_Magic's help

Hello everyone working on ProjectMagic.

Let us introduce ourselves, we are MagicPedia http://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. (MagicPedia Team: Richard Kaufman, Joseph Pecore, Lee Asher, and several others.) Think of us as your 'younger brother'.

We built MagicPedia on the same wiki software and principles as Wikipedia, but consider our content strictly geared towards magicians as the audience. It allows us to add more detailed magic related information that doesn't really fit within Wikipedia's guidelines. But there are some areas that intersect, and that's why we are in contact with all of you.

We believe MagicPedia and Wikipedia are not mutually exclusive. It's our belief that leaving quality breadcrumbs for future generations is one of the best ways to make them care about the culture of our rich ancestry and art. It's our job, as the ambassadors of the off-line and online magic world, to build digital bridges to anyone who cares enough to look. We want to use the tools of today, to teach the youth of tomorrow why the magicians of yesterday are worth knowing.

We are proud to announce that we will be assimilating all of our historical content on Magicpedia into Wikipedia.

We need your help.

We need your help to make sure we follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines. We need your help moving the information. MagicPedia would like to work together with MagicProject to significantly improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to magic as a performance art. It's in all of our best interests to work together, as a collective, to make this happen.

For our first act of assimilation, we would like to move over our relevant pages of Biographies that are not already in Wikipedia. For example: Stewart James, Al Baker, Ross Bertram, John Booth, Ken Brooke, T.A. Waters, Winston Freer, Faucett Ross, August Roterberg, Eddie Fields, Frank Garcia, Professor Hoffmann, Al Mann, Bill Amac, Jean Hugard, Fredrick Braue, Han Ping Chien, Michael Skinner, Karrell Fox, Stewart Judah, Joseffy, Carl Hermann, Harold Rice, Jimmy Grippo, Issac Fawkes, Max Holden, Ottokar Fischer, Sid Lorraine, Lafayette, Karl Fulves, Lewis Ganson, Jack Chanin, Milton Kort, U.F. Grant, C. Lang Neil, John Ramsay, Ralph Hull, Tenkai, Peter Kane, Dr. Jacob Daily, Servais LeRoy, Peter Warlock, Dell O' Dell, Edward Victor, Percy Abbott, Ellis Stanyon, David Abbott, Samuel Hooker and Paul LePaul.

Each one of these magicians represents a piece of our rich history, and deserves a spot in Wikipedia.

Our thought is to add general biographical information on Wikipedia about the person, and provide a link back to MagicPedia for the more detailed magic specific information (that most likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia). This is similar to what we do on MagicPedia for Celebrity magicians like http://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php/Dick_Cavett where we include mostly just magic related information about Dick Cavett, but link to Wikipedia for more general information.

We'd also like to add the WikiProject_Magic box in each article, because it's just as important to highlight your organization's efforts as well.

We welcome everyone on the Project_Magic team to use Magicpedia for creating and/or updating any article that you see a need to get more specific about a magic topic that would be too detailed for Wikipedia's audience.

The most significant importance of the internet is that it's our chance to revive the magic culture that our ancestors romanticized about. We hope to work together to achieve this.

Please let us know your thoughts, and the best way for all of us to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeasher (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and many thanks for your offer to contribute to the Magic project.

Obviously it will be great if we had articles on the list of notable magicians that you mentioned. I should point out that I recently started an article on Dell O'Dell so we have her already (I drew upon some material from your entry but I also used other sources and so I think the Wikipedia article has better content).

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

::I have been doing alot of work at wiki project films lately and have not contributed alot to magic project lately however it sounds good I will be willing to participate, I would just like to know what you think about revealing methods to illusions either here (Wikipedia) or magicpedia?.--Theoneintraining (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry I take that back I choose not help you out at the moment, I just want to wait till things settle down on the Lee Asher talk page. All the best though, Hope you understand.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that issue with the Lee Asher article was resolved. Although I don't see what that has to do with this effort. What we would like is help and/or advise in moving biographies over so issues like that will not happen. I personally don't particularly support revealing methods to illusions on either forum. Jpecore (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of collaboration that we all need. I'm tied up in a project right now but will help (or keep an eye out) as much as I am able. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft for show Masters of Illusion

I have started a draft for the new (January 2009) show Masters of Illusion at User:A_More_Perfect_Onion/Sandbox/Masters_of_Illusion_(TV_show). I would greatly appreciate help from WP Magic on making this article, and setting up the disambiguation page. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)

Can someone offer some help and reference this? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Template up for deletion

The template discussed at the top of this page is currently up for deletion if you want to participate, please feel free to join in.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I intended to post the notice here, as well, but thanks. If there's any other individual who should be notified, please go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Debate notice

There is a debate on Talk:Elevator levitation regarding the removing of magic secrets. We would appreciate anyone popping over and joining in the fun! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft for article on Peter Marvey

I saw Peter Marvey perform, and felt that he deserves an article in Wikipedia. So I have started a draft, which is at User:Gautier lebon/Peter Marvey. I would appreciate comments on what I have so far, which still needs work.

Nice start. I've gone through the draft and edited to improve the language (eg. correcting grammar and making the writing style more like Wikipedia style). Also, I corrected some strange coding in the infobox, which seemed to be messed up. There was quite a lot of what I call "PR waffle" - this is the sort of superfluous language one finds in press releases, public relations material and official biographies (eg. lots of superlatives and references to how amazing everything is). This sort of stuff has no place in Wikipedia. I've cut things back more towards a plain factual style. I've also tagged the main places where it would be desirable to add more citations of sources.

I'd suggest you need more factual material in the initial biographical section. In biographies you should expect to find things like place where the subject was born, who his parents were and what they did (especially if it might have had any influence on his career choice). Also a bit more about his education would be desirable (given that you refer to him doing magic while still at school). It needs more fact and explanation around the passage where you say he gave up his studies to concntrate on magic - at what level of education was he when he gave up his studies? Then there needs to be some explanation of what he did in his early magic career, in the seven years before he became well known with the flying illusion. Where did he first find paid work as a magician? What sort of shows was he doing?

I hope this helps. Please carry on working on the article. Actually, I suggest it is ready to be published as a "start class" article on Wiki, which might encourage other people to contribute.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Thank you very much, this is very helpful. I knew that more citations were needed, I will work on that. I also agree that there was too much "fluff" and I thank you for having removed it.

Thank you for suggesting that the article is ready to be published, but I would prefer to improve it before doing that. It is my first article, and I'd like it to be fully conformant with Wikipedia style.

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of magic?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Now back to the question...

(and this one: Is "magic" the right name for the subject?)

The Transhumanist 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment request

Could someone assess and suggest improvements to Derren Brown: The Events? Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation to commons:category:Collaborative work

Dear friends;

I kindly invite you to participate at the development of a new game at commons:category:Collaborative work. Please take a look at the related talk page. You might be interested on some card tricks. Just look at Medias (examples). Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis

There is a big debate going on in the discussion page on Tim Ellis as one editor Doggus is stating he is an "amateur-ish magician" and "there is very little justification for this entry." The only contributions Doggus has made are editing the Tim Ellis page and trying to get it deleted.

What do the editors of WikiProject Magic think?

Have you heard of Tim Ellis? Does he warrant listing? 80.84.55.204 (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but I've never heard of the guy. I read A'LOT OF MAGIC PERIODICALS, too. ....lots of blogs and discussion boards (The Magic Cafe, etc.) I'm a member of the IBM.......just can't say I've ever heard of him, but frankly the article is heavily sourced......jeesh, is it ever!! So, the point being: it doesn't really matter if I've heard of him.....it seems that a'lot of people have and presuming that all the refs are legit, his contributions look notable to me.Buddpaul (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Graphic

I really don't care for the graphic at the top of the page. Can we vote? I vote: Change!!!! Buddpaul (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jereme K on Shadowgraphy

I'd like my article Shadowgraphy to be reviewed please for classification.

JeremeK (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

sponge balls

I searched for sponge balls you know those soft squishy balls magicians like me use in close up magic.Well nothing came up.They are a very important part of magic I think a article should be made for them.i am sorry but I cant write it (i'm not experienced enough to make a good article yet) --River25 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around a bit.....I think they might be somewhere here.......I'll check and report back.Bddmagic (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Frustration from trying to update magic section on Wikipedia

I’m done trying to add creditability to the magic section. When I first saw how bare the magic section was, I thought I would lend my expertise on the subject to help. But, those that are not in the magic industry keep changing everything I have written and making it tough to get a proper feel that only comes from the countless bios in the magic books.

And plus, when a writer has a style, he wants the wording of his sentences to stay as they are. The constant rewording of phrases are annoying. Catching a miss used or miss spelled word is welcomed. But, changing the meaning of a sentence is downright frustrating.

So, the magic will stay the way it is because I’m sure there are others that feel the way I do.

mtpascoe (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2010 (PST)

That's your right, of course. From the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

But perhaps if you changed your viewpoint, It's important to understand that Wikipedia is collaborative. It's not like writing a book or a blog where each individual's writing is sacrosanct except perhaps for copy-editing.

The prose here is essentially written by committee. APL (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Many people with knowledge have tried to increase the level of the magic articles on Wikipedia, and we have pretty much all given up. Between the exposure (often incorrect and sometimes downright dangerous!), the willingness to accept anything with a reference to back it up, no matter how flawed or discredited the reference is in the magic community, and the edits that change the meaning of the article into something false, with no basis in fact to back them up, the situation just seems hopeless.

The problem is that when two editors get into an argument, the editor who has done more editing on Wikipedia is the one who generally wins, because he knows the rules and is more respected on Wikipedia. However, people who are very knowledgeable in a subject got that way by investing time in the subject, instead of editing Wikipedia all day long. The kid who spends all day editing Wikipedia but doesn't know any subject in depth wins the argument against the expert who spends all day studying his subject and occasionally edits Wikipedia. Net result: crap.

The situation is different for subjects that are well covered on the internet, like computers, science, and math, since independent verification is easy. For subjects like magic where the subject is not covered in any meaningful way anywhere online, Wikipedia is doomed. Alas, those are the very subjects for which good Wikipedia articles would be most valuable, since you can't find good information with a Google search. Kleg (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely acceptable to use print sources as reputable sources. Many historical WP topics do so by necessity and many of them are perfectly good articles. For example, Battle of Gettysburg. Many scientific articles are written based on scientific journals, most of which require subscriptions to read, for example Immune System.

Don't think I'm cherry-picking my examples here. Look at the featured articles for the last four days. Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Accurate News and Information Act,Attachment theory, Hawksbill turtle. All of them based entirely on print and journal references.

I seriously question your premise here that it's impossible to make good articles on subjects not covered by the Internet.

APL (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think you're describing a different (perceived) problem than User:mtpascoe. Judging from his editing history, I'd say that he seems to be upset by the way his somewhat flowery, narrative-style prose is being condensed into blander encyclopedic prose. APL (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear everything being said here, loud and clear......all I can say is, Please hang in there!!! I am a devout Wikipedian and a devout amateur magician. I am committed to this project (just check my contributions/edits)......please remember: Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia.Bddmagic (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you find a topic too magic specific and having a hard time getting it accepted here, you might want to take a look at using the magic-themed wiki MagicPedia. Jpecore (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo a no-go?!

I wish that a genius graphic designer would do something with the logo at the top of the project page......it's OK......but a little bit new-agey...............I really like to work hard to differntiate between performance magic and the hoo-doo-voo-doo stuff.Bddmagic (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Until a genius graphic designer shows up, I've made a new one with a different font and color scheme. To me, this one feels more like "Stage Magician" and less like "The Magical Power of Crystals".

Of course, a new logo won't change the fact that this wikiproject is pretty much dieing from lack of participants. APL (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nice!! Thanks! Odd that you'd mention the project is kicking the bucket.....as I was coming back here today to see about rousting the troops!! We need to re-awaken this project! There's a'lot more info that belongs on Wikipedia re: magic.Bddmagic (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzz......

This project really needs to be re-awakened.Bddmagic (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

Hi everyone. I'm working on the Guy Bavli page. Eclipsed (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian magicians

The Indian magicians article has large POV problems. I don't know anything about magic so I was hoping someone could help me revise it.173.128.112.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Magic Collaboration of the Week

The Wikipedia:Magic Collaboration of the Week has been asleep for a few years. Can we revive it? I changed some of the nomination/voting rules to help. Eclipsed (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But so far, not much participation in MCOTW. I think we need to make it MCOTM - Magic Collaboration of the Month. Perhaps that will give people more time to join in?     Eclipsed   ¤     09:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

New User Box

The code {{User WikiProject Magic}} is a new userbox for members to to put on their User pages. Eclipsed (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

David Roth

The article on magician David Roth could really do with some attention. It's been languishing as an unreferenced biography of a living person since July 2008. I've now added a couple of references for awards won but have been unable to find reliable sources for the rest (including the MIMC membership, which I find surprising). If he's as important as the article (and the note on the talk page) suggests, I would hope that someone here with greater knowledge of the area would be able to get the article tidied up and properly sourced. No need to reply. Just drawing it to your attention.--Plad2 (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Sheridan

I just added some references to Jeff Sheridan but was unable to find any online verification for several pertinent facts, such as his involvement with Theatre of the Absurd, or his work for Milton Bradley. I tagged these "citation needed". I am not a member of the Magic community and will not check this board regularly, nor will I necessarily do any more work on this bio. If anyone is aware of books, magazines or other sources which would verify some of the other assertions in this bio, here's hoping you will make the updates....thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Magicbox

The 33 pages listed below transclude this missing template - it looks like a project to add an infobox to (some) magic articles was started but not completed a few years ago. I'm afraid I've not got the background knowledge necessary to make good the problem - is there anyone here who can figure out what the intention was and either finish up the job or undo the partly-completed work ? - TB (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Penn & Teller's Magic and Mystery Tour - Abbott's Get Together - Jacob Philadelphia - Topit - Ryan Joyce - Debbie Leifer - Alan Alan - Mark Wilson's Complete Course In Magic - Battle of the Barrels - Larry Jennings - Needle Through Thumb - Al Baker (magic) - Paul LePaul - Frank Garcia (magic) - Milton Kort - August Roterberg - Jean Hugard - Jack Chanin - Peter Kane (magic) - Lewis Ganson - Frederick Braue - Stewart Judah - Karrell Fox - Karl Fulves - Ralph W. Hull - Edward Victor - Han Ping Chien - Ellis Stanyon - Joseffy - Peter Warlock (magic) - John Ramsay (magic) - Winston Freer - Ottokar Fischer

Not sure, but maybe this evolved into Template:Magic and Illusion and/or Template:Famous Magicians ?     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts for WikiProject Magic

Articles with the WikiProject Magic template are now automatically tracked by AAlertBot. The latest reports will show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic/Article alerts. For more information about article tracking, see Wikipedia:Article alerts. Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     18:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Listing Page

I have created a page where magic-related articles for deletion (AFDs) can be tracked. I have found such a page helpful for other projects I participate in. Please list magic-related AFDs on this page to encourage others to participate in the discussions. For instance, the Gazzo article is currently up for deletion because much of the material on his page is unsourced. The listing page can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Magic. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Seance Magic

Seance Magic is a branch of mentalism that has been recognized by professional magicians around the world for decades. Can we add this as a category? Sgerbic (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dimitrova, Desislava

I've brought this new article up at WP:BLPN - it's a bit of a mess and probably copyvio machine translation from somewhere. If anyone want to try to fix this, it would be great. She looks notable but of course I could be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Association of Magicians

At the moment this is just an unreferenced long list of people who got awards - which would be many times larger if it actually listed everyone. Not only is it open to BLP violations, it isn't a proper article. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian magicians

I've tried to clean this up, including removing copyvio, but someone replaced it. I've done that again and added a list of the Indian magicians that I can find who have articles. The article needs more eyes but I'm not quite sure what it's about. If it's about Indian magicians, should it be a list article? Or should it be about Indian magic (magic in India)? I put the project template on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Magic Barnstar

Have anyone create Magic Barnstar to reward for who contribute in article which magic relation for use all of en, th and other language in wikipedia ? Thank you :) --B20180 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II

Article could use some attention. Possible COI issues, badly written, sourcing problems. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit for Guy Bavli

Hi folks. A draft rewrite/restructuring for the Guy Bavli article is now ready for review. It's available at: User:Eclipsed/Guy Bavli. For discussion, please see the {{Request edit}} on the Guy Bavli talk page. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

John Mulholland

I wrote an article on another John Mulholland, then created John Mulholland (magician) as a translated stub from the German article after seeing a note on the disambig page. He sounds quite interesting, so someone here should be able to beef it up. Fences&Windows 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for biographies

I've queried a couple of sources at WP:RSN, interested parties might want to comment. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of magic

Timeline of magic seems an idiosyncratic and somewhat parochial article that could use some attention. It doesn't seem to have any criteria for inclusion which is a problem. I've just removed some British organisation which has no article and certainly doesn't seem suitable for a timeline, and there are others like this, while surely there should be more outside the English speaking world. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edme-Gilles Guyot / Cups and balls

I've been doing a bit of research into Edme-Gilles Guyot and found a source that credits him with significant influence on the cups and balls trick. As he is not mentioned in that article I wonder how true this is. Any help from people more knowledgeable in this area would be great. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

If the article is not concerned with esoteric and mystical topics, as asserted, then surely it should be headed Conjuring as a performance form, or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStanB (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Magic!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

• Women involved in magic in any way shape or form!

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! -- SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jason Latimer

This is a bio created in good faith by someone affiliated with the subject. I' tagged it as an autobiography, a tag that has been removed by the article's creator - it really should have a COI tag. It would be helpful if some other editors worked on the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

List of magic museums

We are amidst a content dispute that would benefit from input by members of this project. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Harry Kellar article

I keep trying to improve the Kellar article and someone from Eerie keeps changing it. He thinks that it is not reference correctly or is too trivial to be included into wikipedia. I disagree. All of the items mentioned came from my magic library and was not trivial enough for Gibson, Christopher, or Miesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.60.57 (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Circletriangle.gif

image:Circletriangle.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

I've recently created the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Additional help with research, secondary source suggestions, and quality improvement ideas would be appreciated, at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that List of magic tricks, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

All Things Magic Edit-a-thon

• We are looking for volunteers and an expert Wikipedia editor (to help volunteers navigate the ins and outs of Wikipedia guidelines) for the Wikipedia:Meetup/All_Things_Magic_Edit-a-thon_2013 on Saturday September 14th. Jpecore (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about magic - Skysmith (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul Draper

See Talk:Paul W. Draper - new editor planning to edit this in cooperation with the subject. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Benjy Cohen

See [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjy Cohen]] - pretty obvious COI also. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Magic articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Has this project improved any magic-related articles to GA- or FA-status? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Huzza!

Sleight of hand, a level 4-rated article, just passed for GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about magic is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Micromagic

I have requested a move of this page to Close-up magic per WP:COMMONNAME. Please see Talk:Micromagic#Requested move 13 November 2017. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Participant census

I've performed a census of participants to work out who is currently active. Anyone with no contributions for over 12 months has been marked as inactive. This should make it easier to find users who may be able to give help or advice. PriceDL (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes list

I've added a list of recent changes to the see also section of the project page, which I've found useful for the other projects I'm involved with. The list is made using pywikibot so should include any page whose talk page is in Category:WikiProject Magic articles as of today. I need to fix how it deals with extended symbols but this will do for now.

It leads here.

PriceDL (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated today. PriceDL (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DYK

On 6 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The House of Houdini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that visitors to the collection at The House of Houdini can gain admittance only by decoding a secret message on their admission ticket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The House of Houdini. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The House of Houdini), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Category name for alleged magicians?

Short version: I noticed that Category:Magicians and its subcats contain several people who are not illusionists but people who think (or claim) they can do real magic. They should have a separate category, but I do not know what name it should have.

The long version is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, but I guess people here would be interested too. One possibility I suggested there was: Category:Magicians (paranormal) - maybe Category:Magicians should be renamed Category:Magicians (illusion). --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Richard Turner (magician)

The Richard Turner (magician) article is in dire need of improvement. Considering the subject's notability and relatively high profile, it should at least have project ratings. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)