Template talk:Magic and illusion

Should we add a Magic Dealers page to this? Buddpaul (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levitations

I think Levitations should not exist alone in the Magic box. Buddpaul (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the box

The size of this box is definitely a serious problem. It has an awful lot of separate entries and when it appears in articles it takes up a hugely disproportionate space. It seems as if the editors working on it are tring to make it into an index for the whole of the magic content of Wikipedia - which, as I understand it, is NOT what these sorts of boxes are supposed to be. There are other ways of ensuring that all magic articles are linked to in a systematic way (eg. categories, "list articles" and broad-subject articles such as Magic (illusion)). These project boxes should just flag up the fact that an article is part of a family of articles and provide a few links to the main or introductory parts of that family.

I might try drafting an alternative but I'll wait a while to see if there are replies to this post (I've also posted on the Magic project page). When Magicbox is cut down in size I think it will be worth using the current content as the basis of one or more list articles (although only where there aren't already list articles for key sections of the magic content) - and where there are existing lists then we should make sure everything here is included. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

This is my comment about the template moved from the User talk:Kismetmagic:

Hi, the link to Eugene Berger from the template doesn't lead to magician and I cannot find any magician of that name on Wikipedia. Can you please either write the article or remove the link? Also, I think Penn and Teller deserve to be mentioned in the template too. However, I think there is too many magicians so only the really really famous ones should be listed (I would also suggest Lennart Green, Michael Ammar and Derren Brown, but there are already too many). 84.42.163.13 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samohyl Jan (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size is definitely an issue. My view is that the template should only link to "meta" type articles (eg. magic (illusion), magic timeline, articles about categories of magic) and NOT to articles that are only about individuals or specific tricks. Magic as a subject is just too big to have comprehensive links in a template like this. And I don't think we can compromise on just including the "most notable" figures as that will always be contested - different people will have different ideas about who are the really big magicians (eg. are they those who are big in the media today, or the historical greats, or the ones who are most highly regarded by magicians even if not by the public?). You just won't get consensus/stability on that.

As a temporary answer to the cumbersome size of the box I have set the state to "collapse" which means whne people view an article initially only the title bar will be seen until they click "show" at which point they will see the whole thing.

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

To adress your concerns, I've split the Magic organizations into their own template I now agree with you that the tricks are an ever expanding list and shouldn't be here in addition to determining who is a "notable figure" is impossible and POV. Epson291 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also split "Famous Magicians," I'm not sure if it can stand on its own though. However, I think the template is much better now, it could maybe use a reogranization though. Epson291 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I think the new template is a significant improvement. I have a coupleof concerns though. Firstly, I'm not so sure about having a separate template for magicians - I like the idea of having one template that connects all the magic-related articles. I'd suggest that the "magic and illusion" template include a link to a "list of magicians" article (or perhaps simply a list to the magicians category).

My other concern is to ensure that things don't get messed up in the changeover. I've noticed you've started going through magic articles and switching the coding for the templates. However, in the meantime, you seem to have disabled the old "Magicbox" template. Wouldn't it be better to have a redirect for "Magicbox" in place until all the affected articles had been edited?

Circusandmagicfan (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Good. The link to the List of magicians is already in the template, see under lists. As for fixing the affected articles, I've already done that, I just need to get those templates deleted and I'm waiting for an administator to get back to me. Epson291 (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Epson291 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

If you are going to redirect, please also change all refs in each article. Otherwise you've deleted this box from every article. -71.184.193.23 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many lowercase problems. I'll let someone else figure it out -71.184.193.23 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, after noticing the problem in a random article and tracking it down to the Magicbox template. If you ever have something like this happen again, put a {{helpme}} template on your user talk page, and someone will come along to sort the problem out. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Epson291 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levitations

I think Levitations should not exist alone in the Magic box. Buddpaul (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so considering that, how about a vote...and where should it be placed? The page it links to isn't really "magical" by the way.Buddpaul (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]