Talk:Chinese linking rings

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magic

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagicWikipedia:WikiProject MagicTemplate:WikiProject MagicMagic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be included in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it will be removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberately deceptive.

Untitled

I'm removing the scrolling to the Magician's Oath and further scrolling to details about magic tricks. In my opinion, there is not enough information here for someone to actually learn how to do the trick, and knowing the psychological principles behind an illusion does not necessarily spoil a performance, since a good performer should be able to cause the audience to suspend belief, and surprise the audience with what happens next. It is actually more surprising when someone thinks they know how it's done, and the magician invents a new technique that appears to contradict it. GUllman 04:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please take a look at Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment. Bovlb 2005-07-06 04:42:41 (UTC)

Get rid of theses sections exposure is bad??!?!??!?!?!??!?!

An encyclopedia's job is to inform, not to keep secrets. The spoiler warnings are more than sufficient. Hiding magic secrets is as unencyclopedic as hiding Scientology secrets or using censorship. As soon as we start being cowed by interest groups in what we will or won't include in our encyclopedia, Wikipedia immediately loses all credibility. -Silence 18:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No key ring?

I've been wondering if the illusion could be preserved without a key ring. Hackwrench 16:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do a routine with no key ring. I would link them by in and out flexing of the metal. They would appear to be in a cluster ball of linked rings but they would not actually be linked inside out but would appear that they were. It involved a special set I can't find anymore (stolen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.24.113 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Links to Other Language Wikis

I noticed that the link of this page to the Chinese and Japanese pages is not quite right. This is a page about a magic trick, but the Chinese and Japanese articles linked here are about a ancient puzzle that involves some (usually nine) metal rings and taking them all out of a metal bar which they are chained to. Although both these articles are about rings and both are of Chinese origin, they are not the same! Please de-link those pages from here, so as to not confuse people. I'm not sure what are the correct articles they should link to, but it's definitely not this one.

Hikari no sakura 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're true. They are talking about entirely different things. I'll remove the cross language links. AbelCheung (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Method Erroneous

The 'method' was not only badly written and confusing, but also made erroneous assumptions, speculation and was full of original research (OO and C rings, indeed!). I've removed repetitions and overly complex explanations that serve no one. If Wikipedia insists on publishing exposure of magical effects, at least get it right! Kosmoshiva 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newer method

The Method that I just added is the method most commonly used by magicians today. Most magicians do not use other methods because they are too obvious.

Radio controlled rings? Where can I buy a set? Can they fly, too? --Kosmoshiva 04:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This set is readily available at most magic stores in Europe and the United States. You can check out these stores if you would like proof, here are only a few (mind you of course they do not reveal the secret but I have bought the trick from browsers den and they are built like I described with mechanisms and no remote).

http://www.abra4magic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=V017

http://www.browsersden.com/welcome.htm

http://www.stevensmagic.com/featuredstory/capaul/ps3.asp

These rings that I have bought that use remote controls:

http://www.hanklee.org/xcart/product.php?productid=9157&cat=0&page=3

Also I would like you to know that I have been performing for magic semi-professionally for 30 years. I only came across this set about 6 months ago. The reason this set works so well is because of how ridiculous the explanation sounds. You said it yourself. The method that you describe, although it has merit in the fact the gimmicked rings are easy to acquire, is far too obvious. The set is fine for the beginner, but professional magicians need to move with the times and take advantage of the fact that everybody thinks they know how the trick is done, only to be proven wrong. I have tested this method in restaurants and bars and I have never been caught. Once I even told the fellow I was performing for how the trick was done. He just laughed in my face and thought he was being taken for a chum. He never considered the possibility that I had told him the truth. Finally the rings are not radio controlled as you said, but, rather are remote controlled (using basically the same method as remote control cars. I also forgot to mention that the remote can also be attached to the normal ring so that when they are knocked together at the correct place they link together.

I have to agree with user 209.105.196.19. I own a set of rings with mechanisms like he described. I also must say that I have not seen the older method used for a long time.Jameskgordon

Method removed

I have removed the method from the article as it is unsourced. This is following the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure. If the method can be properly sourced, then it can be re-added. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The material was removed in this diff and contained the following information:

/==A possible method==

One method of performing this illusion would be that the magician appears to show several separate and solid rings, but some of the rings are gimmicked, for example:

A key ring: This ring contains an opening. In simple sets this may be a gap which is concealed by the magician's hand. Professional rings have a diagonal split that opens when tapped correctly by another ring, leaving no obvious 'gap' to be seen by the audience. Most recently some key rings have a secret mechanism for closing the gap mechanically.
Linked rings: two or more solid rings already linked together. They cannot be separated.

The ability to show that the rings are all separate and solid is usually done using a false count. The illusion of the joining and unjoining of the rings is achieved by sleight of hand and optical illusion. Performers strive to make the penetration of one ring by another appear smooth, plain, and clear.

Editors are encouraged to restore the material when they find appropriate sources, or to restore the content if the original removal of the material was in error, and to correct any errors in the method described. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited does not appear to be a treatise dedicated to the subject of Linking Rings, I've been unable to verify the cited source does indeed disclose the entire method described. Has anyone verified it? Would it not be better to include a source that is more easily accessible and dedicated to the subject to provide those seeking tutorial material a decent source? PBMagi (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for verification 8 months ago, none has been provided, therefore I have removed the method. When editing Wikipedia you'll see: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." above your edit box. This citation wasn't verifiable. In accordance with wikipedia's magic rules methods can only be included with a reliable citation. PBMagi (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]