![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
Regarding things on this page: to what extent should magic techniques be added here as well as complete tricks?
The card force feels out of place, since it isn't a complete trick, but just a technique used as part of a trick. Are we going to have a techniques section?
One small problem is that this could lead to indirect exposures. For instance, the Ambitious card is already exposed on the site, but if it were not (with only the effect being posted) then posting a description of the double lift - even if there were no details on how double lifts are actually done - could easily enable someone to work out the Ambitious card themselves. Likewise, knowing that card forces even exist (even if how they work isn't known) could be applied to exposing a range of tricks. What do people think about these?
If anyone has the time: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9wN8C03cGdsJ:www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7308/copperfield.html+interlude+exposure&hl=en has a good list of tricks.-link doesn't work
I think that this article (and the linked magic tricks) need some really big spoiler warnings. Like:
Any comments? Peter S. 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) -In the future there will be so much information on the internet(including wikipedia) that information which is not vital for the human race, such as magical secrets, will be ignored. Imagine, almost unlimited information, you wouldn't find a magic secret unless you went searching for it. So if magical secrets are protected now, when the internet is growing, magicians can still protect secrets forever.
What's unencyclopedic? A better spoiler warning or spoiling magic tricks?
Do you see the problem? Reading a magic spoiler is much worse than reading a movie spoiler...
Peter S. 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of the links in the fourth section of tricks do not work; they are red; they do not have pages.
Is it incorrect to list the shell game (or, for that matter, three card monte) as a magic trick?
What about taking three volunteers from an audience, and moving them around in such a way that the audience cannot tell which volunteer has the item that is being switched? It's the same principle or technique, but does it count as a magic trick? Certainly, moving objects around on a two dimensional surface can be interesting, but what about moving them around on a three dimensional surface, such as a very large, inflated balloon, and having an item disappear and reappear on the inside of the balloon, or in someone's pocket?
Removed this wikilink because it linked to the powertool rather than the magic trick. If someone can find the correct article, please replace and link properly. Sundaybrunch 07:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Should these early discussions be archived?? Why are there so many red links? A'lot of these so-called illusions I've never heard of. Buddpaul 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
aw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.44.160 ( talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Lots of red links or non-wikified links remain. I personally feel that even lists should have some reference sources. Hmmmmm.....maybe that would be redundant. Bddmagic ( talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed this from the list.....it wasn't wikified and isn't really a proper name for an illusion. Buddpaul ( talk) 23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a few effects from the Guy Bavli page. But I think we should work on categorizing the effects, some may be better in other categories. Eclipsed ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ben Salinas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
Regarding things on this page: to what extent should magic techniques be added here as well as complete tricks?
The card force feels out of place, since it isn't a complete trick, but just a technique used as part of a trick. Are we going to have a techniques section?
One small problem is that this could lead to indirect exposures. For instance, the Ambitious card is already exposed on the site, but if it were not (with only the effect being posted) then posting a description of the double lift - even if there were no details on how double lifts are actually done - could easily enable someone to work out the Ambitious card themselves. Likewise, knowing that card forces even exist (even if how they work isn't known) could be applied to exposing a range of tricks. What do people think about these?
If anyone has the time: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:9wN8C03cGdsJ:www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7308/copperfield.html+interlude+exposure&hl=en has a good list of tricks.-link doesn't work
I think that this article (and the linked magic tricks) need some really big spoiler warnings. Like:
Any comments? Peter S. 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) -In the future there will be so much information on the internet(including wikipedia) that information which is not vital for the human race, such as magical secrets, will be ignored. Imagine, almost unlimited information, you wouldn't find a magic secret unless you went searching for it. So if magical secrets are protected now, when the internet is growing, magicians can still protect secrets forever.
What's unencyclopedic? A better spoiler warning or spoiling magic tricks?
Do you see the problem? Reading a magic spoiler is much worse than reading a movie spoiler...
Peter S. 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of the links in the fourth section of tricks do not work; they are red; they do not have pages.
Is it incorrect to list the shell game (or, for that matter, three card monte) as a magic trick?
What about taking three volunteers from an audience, and moving them around in such a way that the audience cannot tell which volunteer has the item that is being switched? It's the same principle or technique, but does it count as a magic trick? Certainly, moving objects around on a two dimensional surface can be interesting, but what about moving them around on a three dimensional surface, such as a very large, inflated balloon, and having an item disappear and reappear on the inside of the balloon, or in someone's pocket?
Removed this wikilink because it linked to the powertool rather than the magic trick. If someone can find the correct article, please replace and link properly. Sundaybrunch 07:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Should these early discussions be archived?? Why are there so many red links? A'lot of these so-called illusions I've never heard of. Buddpaul 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
aw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.44.160 ( talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Lots of red links or non-wikified links remain. I personally feel that even lists should have some reference sources. Hmmmmm.....maybe that would be redundant. Bddmagic ( talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed this from the list.....it wasn't wikified and isn't really a proper name for an illusion. Buddpaul ( talk) 23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a few effects from the Guy Bavli page. But I think we should work on categorizing the effects, some may be better in other categories. Eclipsed ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ben Salinas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)