Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic

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

Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.
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)[reply]

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.

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next?

Template:RFCpolicy

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#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)[reply]

The former - putting the removed secret on the talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Unsourced secrets to be removed from article page.
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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed Epson291 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

It looks good. Epson291 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]