Talk:Sleight of hand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSleight of Hand
WikiProject iconSleight of hand is within the scope of WikiProject Sleight of hand, which aims to improve articles related to sleight of hand on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Sleight of HandWikipedia:WikiProject Sleight of HandTemplate:WikiProject Sleight of HandSleight of Hand articles

Practical examples[edit]

I would like to ask what contributors think about linking to practical examples of sleight of hand ...such as this, Card tricks and how to palm a card. Is it better to have just a few external references or would it be valuable to actually write separate wiki pages on each trick? Collieman 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: misnomer[edit]

Misdirection is not a misnomer. Misdirection means "direction away". It would be uninformative to call the card sharp's art "direction". To the extent that the observer is directed away from what he intends to observe, he is misdirected.

I agree completely. The sentence about "misdirection" being a misnomer is both erroneous and incomplete. Even if it were a misnomer, it would be important to identify the proper terminology. Chachilongbow 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many "tricks" involve several different aspects of magic. For example, a much platform magic involves a combination of "gimmicks" and "sleight of hand," whereas close-up magic usually combines misdirection and "sleight of hand." I would prefer to see the classes of magic (illusion/stage magic, platform magic, and close-up magic) as separate entities. Then the elements (gimmicks, contraptions, misdirection, sleight of hand, etc.) as a separate class. Thirdly, individual "tricks" as yet another class. When developing the pages for each class, references to and from the other classes and trick examples might be referenced. -Ben Smith

Le Jeu de Main[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the assertation that the word legerdemain is derived from this? I've never heard this before, and it seems a very convoluted explanation for a word that could be explained so much easier as "leger de main" (which indeed is also the direct meaning of the word). The online etymological dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=legerdemain&searchmode=none) has never heard of this explanation either, so unless someone has a source, I'm very inclined to delete it. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Steevm 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources that claim that legerdemain comes from "le jeu de main". I've removed it until someone can back it up. Steevm 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legerdemain does not derive from "Le jeu de main" meaning "the game of the hands." It is a french derivative, but it actually derives from "leger" meaning lightness or nimbleness and "de main" meaning hands: nimbleness of the handsMichaelfeldman (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing Magic Secrets[edit]

As a magician, I don't think it's a good idea to expose magic secrets casually. The magic loses it's entertainment value. Patrick Murrray 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except to those that are entertained by reading the "how to" of it all, no? 140.185.215.122 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SteveSharp[reply]

Personally, understanding how a piece of magic just allows me to better appreciate the skill of the magician in question in their ability to perform it. After all, what is the true definition of magic? To me, it is simply something that is done, the technique of which is unknown. Once the technique is known, the magic then transfers from the "trick" to the magician being able to perform the "trick" so well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.197.44 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pass and Side Steal[edit]

Currently The Pass redirects here: it had its own article, then it was agreed to be merged in, but there's no reference to it in Sleight of hand. Shouldn't a description be included here (nothing too detailed)? Side steal should be similarly redirected here with a brief description of the effect, and outline of the method. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion of having a brief description of The Pass and Side Steal with an outline of the method. I'll work on the additions and will get them up as soon as I can. I would also like to add one or two more examples reflecting sleight of hand in other areas, such as coin magic also.FrankelHuang (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this section go? Ajaf2005 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture or Popular Reference Section?[edit]

I removed some references to Call of Duty or Prison Break, but if there is a desire to have these remain I think it would be appropriate to add a pop culture section. Trellis (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleight of Hand, yes. The Pass, no.[edit]

This article is an instance of misdirection or sleight of hand. There used to be an article about The Pass (which I believe is the classic pass).

"The Pass" redirects here, but is not mentioned and definitely not defined. This redirection is therefore misdirection.

There is, at the bottom, a See Also list that includes other passes such as the Hermann Pass and the Invisible Turnover Pass...but not *Thee Pass*.

DrZygote214 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

This article require serious improvements and copyediting per it's level 4-rating. Being a former sleight of hand artist myself, I will improve the article as best I can. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 02:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Going to nominate it for GA-status. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sleight of hand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to get this reviewed quickly. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status – Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion[edit]

  • This already looks like a quick pass one. But I feel only about the length. A good expansion is needed in all sections, specially in the entomology section and then done. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald, I will do my best to expand the sections of the article and ping you when I'm done. Thank you very much for also taking on this review. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay The Herald, I've expanded each section with about 300 bytes each. I've also some more links and added an external links section. Hope you're satisfied now. Please let me know if there is anything else. :) Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

..its a pass. The article rightly meets the GA requirements and good to go. Nice work by the nominator. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Not sleight of hand[edit]

"The cardsharps" is about cheating, but not about sleight of hand. IMHO it is irrelevant to this article. Gil_mo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sleight_of_hand&oldid=1220970817"