Talk:List of magic tricks

Magic Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 22 July 2013 for a period of one week.

Tricks vs. techniques[edit]

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?

Good source of David Copperfield tricks[edit]

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

Spoiler warning big enough?[edit]

I think that this article (and the linked magic tricks) need some really big spoiler warnings. Like:

"Beware, reading about magic tricks will change your way of looking at magic forever. Never again will you be able to be stunned and just blown away by magic. Instead of of being absolutely mesmerized by the spectacle, you will become analytical, always trying to find out the exact works of the next trick. For this reason, magical secrets have been kept secret in the past. In our connected times, this is not possible. In order for magic to not become extinct nowadays, viewer discretion is advised. So please: yes you might be interested in learning about magic tricks, but don't forget that it's a one-way street: Once you know the trickery, you won't even be enchanted by tricks you don't know. Now, take a deep breath, and think for a few minutes about whether you want to change your perception of magic forever. If you want, please proceed."

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.[reply]

Unencyclopedic. POV. Editorial.

For way too much information about spoilers and the conflicts they cause, see: Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers, Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Archive, Template_talk:Spoiler, Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 1

-- Krash 13:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spoiler warnings are, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. There are numerous references from various tak pages I listed above so I won't launch into a tirade on the matter. A good half of the Wikipedia community would probably agree with me. The other half would probably not. And all that's okay.-your logic doesn't make sense

The current spoiler is unobtrusive. If someone were reading an article in which it is used, I don't see how or why they would fail to see it. As such, it gets the job done. If it ain't broke, why turn it into a long rambling paragraph?

I obviously don't see the problem. That you think a magic spoiler is worse than a movie spoiler is your opinion. I'm not going to play superlative with either as I think they're both on the same level.

-- Krash 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not liken this exposure to a movie spoiler, I would liken it to movie piracy as several peoples commercial works are listed and exposed, where they would normally expect monetary compensation in exchange for the secret.

-- Binary 04:33, 28 March 2006

There are many people who agree with you. Oddly enough, it seems that no matter how many people think that there should be less exposure, there is still somehow a "consensus" that all exposure is fine. Go figure. Kleg 21:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Links[edit]

Most of the links in the fourth section of tricks do not work; they are red; they do not have pages.

When is 'sleight of hand' a magic trick?[edit]

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?

It may be appropriate to remove some items from the list. Some aren't actually magic. Some are techniques and not tricks. Unfortunately, the reality of the matter is that there are several wikipedians, who don't even seem to be interested in magic, who have grown extremely hostile to anything being deleted from a web page about magic, even if it is inappropriate, untrue, or unverifiable. (Insert Saint Exupery quote about perfection being achieved when there's nothing left to remove.) Kleg 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the list of "closeup magic" disappear to? Closeup magic is still listed in the main article in the section on types of magic performance. If the tricks formerly listed under closeup magic aren't magic, then what are they? GUllman 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that the version you link to is two months newer than my comment, several things on that version of the page are flourishes, sleights, or gimmicks. These are at times used in tricks, but they are not tricks themselves. Not all tricks involve flourishes, sleights, or gimmicks (consider the Twenty One Card Trick), and not all uses of flourishes, sleights, or gimmicks happen in a magical context (consider casino dealers using the Charlier Cut, card cheats using The Pass, or shoplifters using a Topit). They might be appropriate in a list of thingamajigs that some magicians are interested in and sometimes use, but they don't seem to fit in a list of magic tricks. But if you add them back, I won't delete them. Kleg 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzsaw[edit]

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)[reply]

Archived[edit]

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)[reply]

aw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.44.160 (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikified??[edit]

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)[reply]

Freaky body illusions[edit]

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)[reply]

added some effects...[edit]

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)[reply]

brilliant suggestion....maybe I'll start working on that.Bddmagic (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ben Salinas" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]