Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Magic Trick Instructions

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Request for Comment: Magic trick instructions

This is my first RFC, so please excuse any mistakes in formatting or conduct I may make. If I screw this whole thing up royally, just let me know and I'll try to fix it.

Firstly, I assume that everyone is familiar with what Wikipedia is not. One of the main points of this policy is that wikipedia cannot give instructions on how things should be done, performed, or made. From the page itself:

"Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks."

Yesterday, I made the following edit to the page Cups and balls: [1]. I simply removed a seven-paragraph section (that was, coincidentally, named "how to perform") that gave explicit, full-length instructions on how to perform a cup and ball trick, and I added hidden text that explained why to dispel anyone from re-adding it.

Earlier today, User:TheHYPO said that he disagreed with my assessment of the article and that the section should remain. [2] I tried to explain that the section was far too long and similar to an instruction manual and that it should remain omitted. [3] He and I continued debating [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], until I realized that nothing I was saying was getting through, and I decided to get the opinion of a third party.

In short, was my removal of what I would consider instructions justified? I have no problem with a simple summary of how the trick works, but we needn't tell people how to perform it. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Both of you need to stop arguing. Right now. Take a step away from your monitors and breathe. You are both being extremely uncivil to each other. Now that I've got that out of the way, how about I actually talk about the topic?

While Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, certain information must be conveyed to simply get the point across. That's what TheHYPO was trying to get across with the examples of the combustion engine and the violin. I think removing the section was a little hasty and I'm concerned the section wasn't actually read thoroughly before being removed. While the first four paragraphs are pretty instruction-y in style, the rest of the section conveys information about the various forms of the trick, which is relevent information. I even feel like, with a little clean-up, the rest of the section would satisfy the basic need for an idea of the trick, but still conform to policy. --13² 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a summary, I just don't think we need a thousand page essay on how to perform it. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal and cleaned the section up as much as I feel I can. It still needs quite a bit of work though. Since I don't really know too terribly much about the trick (only what I saw in a Penn & Teller video on YouTube), information may need to be changed or cleaned up. The pea game also needs to be cleaned up badly, I think it's really wordy as it is, but I don't know anything about this and I won't touch it with a ten foot pole because of it. However, I think I've gotten rid of a lot of the "instruction guide" tone and got it down to the basic elements instead of a step-by-step manual. --13² 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about magic either, but it looks good as is. The 'instruction' tone is definitely gone. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in my opinion, a balancing act here. A magic trick cannot be adequately explained in an encyclopedia article without giving some direction as to how it is done; this should not, however, violate a "how-to" guidelines. Basically, I think what should be aimed at is a general explanation of how a trained magician would perform it; more along the lines of a conversation than a magic guide. For instance, if I were explaining to you how to perform a vanishing cloth trick with a fake thumb, I would say "The magician wears a false thumb. Using misdirection, he distracts the audience, while removing the thumb into his close fist. He then pushes the cloth into the false thumb, and replaces it on his other hand, using sleight of hand, tricking the audience into believing the cloth is gone." --Haemo 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]