Talk:Glossary of magic (illusion)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hey...does this really belong at Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This looks like a jargon file or fancruft to me.-- Krash 14:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK cos Phillip0 told me to set it up. He's one of the mods or something who does all the RC patrols and things like that, and it's all been approved and officially linked into Project Magic. --MagicValentina 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi. -- Krash 15:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it had been approved and officially linked into Project Magic - I can't do that :-). I simply made a suggestion about creating the article if MagicValentina wanted to add this info to Wikipedia. I think there is much more questionable articles on Wikipedia like inane lists such as List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words. --PhilipO 16:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find questionable is that this is not a list exclusively of subjects, but rather an attempt to be a list of vague definitions. Some of the items on this list are worthy of their own articles (and a few, I've noticed, already do have them). Other entries, though, are confusing, obscure, dubious, crufty. There is no way this list could ever be complete or comprehensive. As such, it's worthless to anyone attempting serious research. Do we include magic tricks? Magicians? Both already have their own lists. I'm not opposed to a list of independent articles, but I am very against lists that exists just for the purpose of making another list of something for its own sake. I'm assuming good faith here, but I feel that the perpetrator of this list is diving into something that is unmaintainable. -- Krash 16:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely isn't just a list for its own sake. I don't know if you are a magician or into magic, and in a sense it doesn't matter, but if you are, you will know that magicians deliberately use a very cryptic language, especially on the internet. This is done in order to stop people understanding what they are saying. However, if one is learning magic or researching magic then one has a need to understand these terms. It's exactly the type of information that someone looking up entries on an encyclopedia is likely to need because her research may take her further into the articles where these terms are used to describe the efects. Or indeed she may be lead to another website where the terms are used. Since the terms are not in any dictionary she'll be frustrated in her research, but for the resource of Wikipedia.

So for someone researching the life and work of Dai Vernon for example might read that he exposed a clumsy "French Drop" in his Cups and Balls routine or that he was the first to use a certain kind of "Pass" then I'd argue that such a resource is very useful. Much more useful than a list of songs whose title includes nonsense words could ever be to anyone. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but there are certain subjects where some ancillary information is necessary to aid research, and I think we have a duty to provide that information to aid that research especially as it is not easily available elsewhwere. In a subject like conjuring this is a very special case, because as I pointed out above, such information is deliberately hidden on many occasions.--MagicValentina 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list this article for deletion

...because it does have potential. There's not one thing that needs fixing...it's a bunch of silly small stuff. The format's bad. And there should be some discrimination. Maybe I should just shut up and start editing...

But let's set up some criteria we can all agree upon:

BIGGEST ONE: Omit anything that you cannot cite from somewhere else. Hanging out with magicians in a magic shop doesn't count. (I only know what I know, but Mechanic and Manipulator are two that I've not heard before.)
Omit tricks and magicians. They have their own lists. (get rid of Ambitious Card Routine, OOTW, SAS, Svengali/Svengali deck, etc)
Omit books. (Bobo's) There are too many to be comprehensive. Not necessarily an invitation to start List of books about conjuring ;-)
Group like-items together. The list is starting to run long and is, thus, confusing. Perhaps: Props, Moves, Jargon...help me think of some more. Moves could be broken further into Coin manipulations, Flourishes, Shuffles, Slight of hand...
Link to articles when applicable. Link to articles that don't exist yet, but should (French drop).
Abbreviations listed in parenthesis after the entry (eg. DL becomes Double Lift (DL))
Omit things that might be confusing to laypeople, even after a lengthy description (eg. Centre tear, Key ring). Merge into appropriate article.
Don't be too specific when a broader description would be better. (eg. Loaded can be used to describe a die, but could also describe a deck of cards...)
Combine double entries (eg. R/S & Rough)
Combine things that are too alike under most common title (eg. Locator and Key under Key; Daub under Magician's wax)
Omit things that are too crufty. (eg. Bikes) This is where things might get disputed. No colloquial jargon. See the first point on this list.

Oh...and I though Penn and Teller 'invented' Invisible Thread and it doesn't really exist? And I thought Muggle was something out of HP?

Also, see if you can't get your hands on Henry Hay's Cyclopedia of Magic. Used; it's OOP. -- Krash 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...The list was originally written on my magic board to help other people navigate their way through the other magic websites where all the terms are used. That's why there are some slightly odd ones in there but I guarantee that these are the terms being commonly used around magicdom by real lie pros and skilled amateurs in books, on the net and in conversation. I know because I read the books and I visit the websites. One of the admins linked it into the magic box which is part of the template for project magic so it presumably has some recognition as a worthwhile page even though I agree it's not in the classic style or the style other articles on effects I'm writing here.

Mechanic and Manipulator are actual terms I promise you.

Eg http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=magic+manipulator&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Although a mechanic is also used to mean a skilled sleight of hand card cheat - see wiki entry on cheating at poker

No Magicians included. Some effects could be omitted but I don't think they should before there is a n entry in place for that effect. Also some effects useful for explaining gimmick or princple eg Zombie.

Only two books included and these really are THE big ones. If you do magic you'll know; they're being discussed endlessly all over the net. Perhaps I could update the card and coin sections on wiki to make sure the meaning of these two book titles are clear, but those sections aren't very well linked in to magic and it's nice to have everything in one place.

Possibly can group items, but if some entries were ditched or combined the list would be a little more manageable and since it's in ABC order, not that bad to search. We could even go back to traditional paragraph and esaay style to expalin all this, but I don't think that would be appropriate for this task. I don't see many more items that need to be added to this list. I know it sounds a bit presumptious but I do know this subject pretty well, and going into any more detail on certain things would be getting just too technical for somebody using as a reference.

Links are cool and I should have put them in

Agree on abbreviations strategy/notation suggested

I can't really judge what would be confusing to laypeople after a short description but some description is better than none at all, surely. Why leave them completely in the dark. Also the idea of a key ring as one with a split in it would be fairly easy to grasp?

I've never ever heard loaded apply to a deck of cards. The correct term would be "stacked"

Agree on combining things under common titles.

Agree on combining double entries.

What is crufty and what is not. Would "silk" be crufty. To a layman it is a material, to a magician it is a handkerchief. Surely people reading magic articles have a right to know without it being explained in the text every time. As for Bikes that could be debatable. But I promise you it's being used all over the place

eg http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:9Ul6u_Xcz4IJ:www.penguinmagic.com/product.php%3FID%3D561+magic+bikes&hl=en

Don't believe what Penn and Teller may have put around about IT. They are out to confuse, hopefully this article is going to make people's life easier. Isn't that what Wiki is about ;-)

Muggle is from JK Rowling and has come into some usage in the conjuring world, but I agree it could be ommitted.

I appreciate your input on these things but before we get into major edits, maybe we could ask the opinion of Mgm who is the project magic coordinator what the general style should be --MagicValentina 23:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on entries: Angles, Black Art, ROV, Sphinx Principle...they're awkward or otherwise confusing.

You are expressing POV when you say what books are the "THE big ones". If you can cite this back to someone saying it, then it's not POV. But then I can cite six other magicians who have their respective twelve other "big" books. And then the list has just too much crap on it. That's why I suggested leaving books off.

"Silk" is not crufty. What I mean by cruft could be one of two things:

Terms so unique/specific/made-up/colloquial/regional/etc. that they are useless slang and aren't worthy to be mentioned. This shouldn't be the vocabulary list for an internet message board or a magicians' convention. Entries should be mainstream enough that they belong in an encyclopedia. Entries should perhaps be listed in a glossary or index in some print book. Verifiability. No neologisms.
Terms that, outside of the context of the trick/article they're used in, are meaningless or obscure (eg. key ring...put the definition in with Chinese linking rings and leave it at that.)

Here's my last gripe: It's not encyclopedic to send people to some glossary when they don't understand a word. Wikilinks take care of that--they send the reader to another article. If a term isn't important enough to merit its own article, it should perhaps have a Wiktionary entry. If it's too crufty for that, perhaps the definition should be an adjective clause following the occurrence (eg. "...next the magician takes a silk, or handkerchief, and rubs it with..."). Ideally, every item on this list should link or reference at least one article.

I'm not going to appeal to anyone's authority. I shall edit as I see fit. Coordinator or not (s)he has no power over me. We're collaborating here. Be bold. Let's get this list up to Featured Article status! -- Krash 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article about ITR reels should be deleted because it publicly exposes a very comonly used gimmic and by including it you are exposing a secret that should only be known to professional magicians sincerely, Magic French Fry

Removed entries

Ambitious Card Routine (ACR) - Card effect where a chosen card keeps on returning to the top of the pack.
Bobo's - Bobo's modern coin magic. 20th C Book reckoned to be one of the most comprehensive on coin magic.
Classic force - Making a spectator choose a card by fanning them and timing the force card to land under their fingers.
Classic palm - Holding an object in the centre of the palm, gripped by the palm muscles lightly. (eg. a coin) (redundant with their non-classic counterparts?)
Effect - A magical happening. The proper word for a trick. Beginners do tricks. Magicians perform effects. Note the word perform. (POV?)
Invisible deck (brainwave deck) - Gimmicked roughed deck enabling the deck to be fanned and any card to be shown face up/face down.
Key Ring - Ring with a split in it as used in the linking rings efect.
OOTW - Out of this World. A popular self working card effect with a stunning finish.
RRTCM - Royal Road to Card Magic. 20th C book by Jean Hugard often cited as the best text for beginning card magic.
SAS - Scotch and Soda. Modern effect where a Centavo gimmick is magnetically locked in a shell dollar causing the disappearence of the Centavo.
Zig Zag - Popular stage illusion where a girl contorts herself in a cabinet giving the illusion she has actually been cut into seperate pieces.

Slicks and Bikes sound like neologisms.

To Quote: "I shall edit as I see fit. Coordinator or not (s)he has no power over me. We're collaborating..." Yes but to collaborate, we need to agree to an extent, otherwise we'll just get into an edit war which will be silly. I can cope with removing the effects and the books, but I do object to the removal of classic force and classic palm. It's not my POV that they are "classic". These are the recognised terms for these particular techniques as I described them. So can we have those back in please or otherwise modified so they are suitable to go in. Also the word "effect" is important. The last 3 sentences can be left out.

Angles, Black Art, ROV, Sphinx Principle... Maybe I will edit these entries so they are a little clearer. Hope that will be OK

You may have noticed I'm adding to the list of tricks (effects). I may need to use some or all of these terms --MagicValentina 01:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bobo and RRTCM should be in there. My reasoning is not that they are the big 2 (though they are) it is that in several magic books or in packet tricks you we see things like "use riffle pass as can be found in RRTCM" or "See Bobo for a full description of the classic palm". On a list medical terms AMD (the American Medical Dictionary) would appear. Schnizzle 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prestige, turn, pledge...

I know these aren't "true" magic tricks; but the three act structure of a magic illusion has become so popular (invented by Christopher Priest; though he may have just invented the "prestige" part) that a lot of magicians even use the terms. So it's pretty much become a real term -- this is how words are made. You don't leave "french fries" out of the dictionary, and ESPECIALLY not out of an encyclopedia, just because fries aren't made by the French. This is how all terms/words start; a lot of times, they originate from an unexpected source.

The three act structure should be included in this article.

Another example would be the three act structure of a screenplay (in motion pictures). The ideas were probably coined by someone who noticed that screenplays tend to have a beginning, middle, and end -- this is the same situation with Priest -- he noticed magic tricks (not always) often times have this three act structure.

Besides; the term/structure/acts have become so popular, you should include them in Wikipedia BECAUSE of that. Notability. 207.12.38.25 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like someone to back up that the term "prestige" has "become so popular"......I've read thousands of magic-related articles and I've never seen this three phrase business until I saw that movie (not a bad movie.....but it takes some serious artistic license). Buddpaul (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Cup

Should this be moved to tricks? It's actually a prop, not really a term. Buddpaul (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So.......so long, Chop Cup. Buddpaul (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and for what it's worth.......the description was gross exposure. Buddpaul (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft

I still say this list is a little crufty. Buddpaul (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]