Talk:Wizard (fantasy)/Archive 1

message: As suggested at talk:wizards as a race I merged that page into this one.  However, it's not clear to me that the additional information is encyclopedic ...
or even accurate.  The Istari are better described as incarnate angels than as a race, and I have no knowledge of the other examples given.  Thoughts?  Zack 03:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that paranormal magic is magic in the mystical sense, whereas regular magic is what's practiced by Penn and Teller. Snowspinner 17:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: #"Illustionist" is also a (A)D&D character class of magic (paranormal) users.
#From Magic (illusion): "The practitioners of this mystery art may be called magicians, conjurors, illusionists or prestidigitators."
So one can hardly say 'stage magicians' are "properly termed" 'illusionists' instead. And I don't see the need of lots of examples for stage magicians. Anyone can look them up at the Magic (illusion) article.
TowerDragon 09:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stage magician" vs. "Illusionist"

message: What's the image of the Star Wars guy doing here? He's not a wizard or sorceror; he's a Sith! He doesn't even use magic; he uses the Force.  →  JarlaxleArtemis 00:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. Even if he is a sorcerer, it's borderline. I've removed it.--JiFish 14:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly I a agree that he could be considered a Wizard. However, it never states it specifically in the movies. I don't believe we need to confuse the subject with borderline cases. This is an encyclopedia, not a trivia book. Also, I don't think they have to medieval. Use a clear case of a Wizard in a modern or futuristic setting instead.
Finally, the original objection was online for over ten days. People had more than enough time to justify why it should stay. Nobody responded. ----JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Three reasons not to put it back:  First and most important, the list of fictional wizards and wizard-alikes is already too long.  I'm seriously considering hacking it down to about ten (based on cultural prominence) and dumping the rest into a category, if there isn't already one.  We certainly don't need more images.  Second, it would be ridiculous to list every single Force user from Star Wars canon, and Obi-Wan Kenobi is already mentioned (with better justification for his inclusion, since he is referred to as a "wizard" by Uncle Owen) -- I admit that Yoda is probably the best-known Jedi, but his portrayal in the series bears absolutely no resemblance to the typical wizard archetype.  Third, it's been gone since May!  This horse has shuffled off the mortal coil!  (And editing your comments after the fact is bad form.) -- Zack 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Star Wars'' image 

message: While it really boils down to a matter of opinion, I would like to advise the editor/maintainer of this wiki that the front page image citing "Albus Dumbledore, from the Harry Potter series," as one of the "most well known traditional literary wizards" is a little absurd. While the statement may be true for Harry Potter fans, it doesn't grant Albus Dumbledore a status that is traditional or literary, simply because he has barely been around long enough. If Dumbledore is meant as an example, I would suggest a more "traditional" or "literary" wizard to be on the front page, such as Merlin or Gandalf (thankfully, he is indeed displayed below), or urge the rewording of the citing sentence.
: Agreed.  I've exchanged the Gandalf and Dumbledore images - Gandalf's literary precedence is well established, imo - and moved both Dumbledore and Tim the Enchanter down to the list of fictional wizards.  Zack 22:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, touching this subject, shouldn't Merlin actually be mentioned first? He is the most "traditional" one, since he is present for quite some time... --Arny 13:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbledore reference? 

message: I would love to see this moved to a more general topic of practitioners of magic and then allow it be broken down basically by style. Right now wikipedia is very inconsitent with how it deals with practitioner terms. ie enchanter(he who uses enchantments) takes you to enchantments(the practice of).--J E Bailey 15:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wizard is probably the commonest term, so this one is defensible.  Probably should redirect the other terms.  Goldfritha 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Magic (practitioner)? 

message: This part of the article is an unreadable sewer.  I'm going to clean it up, shortly.  Nandesuka 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Thanks. TowerDragon 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of wizards in fiction 

message: Please note that it is not considered fair use (according to Wikipedia policies) to use images of movies, books, etc., to illustrate articles other than their subjects.  So using the Gandalf image, for example, is fine in an article about Lord of the Rings, but is questionable when used to illustrate the Wizard article.  Therefore, I'll be swapping the Gandalf image for one of Merlin, and removing the Dumbledore image.  I'll look for a suitable public domain image to replace Dumblodore when I have time. Nandesuka 14:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just fine, I believe Merlin deserves to be a representative of wizards here since he is the oldest wizard character among them, and practically the wizard archetype. --Arny 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swapping images due to fair use concerns 

message: There has been a mergeto tag on Mageborn for some time now, but no comments have been made.  Does anyone have an opinion?  I lean towards not merging as the content (or lack of it) in Mageborn doesn't really fit anywhere obvious in this page. Kcordina 12:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mageborn]] merge 

message: I am concerned by a number of recent changes to the lists of wizards in the articles.  Generally speaking, i don't think we should be letting these lists become too long.  In a series of edits starting here and ending here , User:Max rspct added some specific information to the Jehoshua Ben-Pandira entry, and then proceeded to strip out every reference to every non-Christian reference, managing in the process to even blow away John Dee, arguably one of the most well-known "real-life wizard" in history.  Max rspct, can you please explain what in the world is going on here?
On another topic, this article is truly terrible.  Even with all the cutting we've done, the laundry lists take up over half the article.  I would like to propose that we freeze the laundry lists and work instead on expanding the actual text, with an eye towards eventually removing the laundry lists.  Because laundry lists are always bad.  Nandesuka 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your just peeved because I took out your list of cultists. Hindi Sadus are not Wizards and are definately not sourced. John Dee was an Occultist. Go evangelize somewhere ELSE! -- max rspct leave a message  12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, no, I'm not "peeved" and they're not "my" cultists; if I had my way, the entire laundry list would be removed.  As for Dee, the Wikipedia article on John Dee states that "He was by now widely reviled as an evil magician", and confirms that he has a reputation as a magician, so he clearly meets the criteria for that section. In the meantime, please remain civil.  Nandesuka 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various lists of wizards 

message: I have posted an article RFC to try to get some more eyes on this.  Nandesuka 13:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Shouldn't the stereotypical pointy, wide-brimmed hat and long robes and staff be mentioned?
Hi : )
Sounds good to me (probably a sentence after the wise old man paragraph.)  Though a link or two showing examples would be nice.  (Also, please sign your comments on a talk page with four tildes (~).) - Jc37 09:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apperance/Attire 

message: This might be worthwhile if someone wishes to get it: Wizards: A Magical History Tour, By Tim Dedopulos. 123 pp., color illus. on every page, 9" x 11",   •Jim62sch• 12:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Magic (paranormal) has a long section on magic in fiction that treats almost solely fantasy magic (and the rest is historical) and would probably be more appropriate here, since the topic of wizards is not really separable from their wizardry.  Goldfritha 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Split the section to Magic (fantasy) so that it can be a link for several articles. Very good idea, btw : ) - jc37 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magic (paranormal)

message: We have works where these are sex-linked titles for the same types of magic, and works where these indicate that men and women do different magic.  And
:" or perhaps indicating something else entirely."
What is meant by this?  If the terms are used to indicate something else, it should be put in, and if not, this is unneeded.  Goldfritha 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples are innumerable. - jc37 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witch vs. wizard

message: This is a dispute about whether the terminology section should contain discussion of other terms, such as enchantress, sorcerer, or warlock, that are used in fantasy to refer to characters who practice magic.  00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editor may be willing to accept if the article is named differently; see merge proposal comments below to know.  Goldfritha 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: I have been working on a referenced "Wizard (fantasy)" article on my computer for some time, though it's nowhere near a state for posting. However, as I look at it, and look at Wizard (fantasy), and further, as I consider the actual page history (excepting my contributions), I think that I will "give up the ghost" on this article.
Here's what I suggest (in steps - the key one being step 5):
*Step 1: Merge the Wizards in works of fiction and the Fairy Tales, Myths and Legends sections to List of magicians in fantasy, and create a "see also" section in this article with a link to the list.
*Step 2: Remove the Wise Old Man section. Add it to "see also".
*Step 3: Merge all the information in Magicians in fantasy into this article.
*Step 4: Delete Magicians in fantasy
*Step 5: Rename Wizard (fantasy) to Magicians in fantasy
This should take care of my concerns, and should also deal with the varied concerns on this talk page.
It also retains the page history, which I think is rather important in this case.
Once all is done (steps 1-5), but not until then, I also suggest archiving this talk page, to give the article a "fresh start".
I'll give this a day or so, and then start in on the merges. If those who have commented here agree (or disagree) with this, please feel free to comment. - jc37 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's customary to give a proposal like this more than just a day or so, usually at least five days.  I would say that until the other involved editors on this page respond, the proposed changes should remain on hold.  Personally, I won't be able to read this entire thread over until early next week - but it looks like we might be moving in a good direction.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it would work to me.  Goldfritha 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it should redirect to that page; this lets people find it, and preserves history.  Goldfritha 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it.  Goldfritha 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it to Wizard, since there are now quite a few redirects that now will need fixing, and for ease of navigation for readers. - jc37 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ease of naviagation?  If it was pointing here, it should point to the location that the information went to.  Ease of naviagation called for it to point to "Magicians in fantasy."  Goldfritha 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looked at the links.  Which of them do you think more suitable for wizard?  Goldfritha 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how it was referenced. It's possible it could be any of the links in the "Literature" or "Games" sections, for example. Hence the redirect to Wizard. It helps for navigation. Remember that this page was mostly lists of literature and games. - jc37 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for resolution of concerns

message: It is my belife that a section pertaining to the wizards in Harry Potter should be added since they are among the most commonly known in the modern world.
:The question is whether Harry Potter includes such distinctive traits in its wizardry as to make it illuminating in this article.  Goldfritha 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Harry Potter? 

message: It is not necessary to keep the entire contents of this talk page for the redirect discussion.  The page is 145KB in size, which is far too long according to Wikipedia:Article Size.  I don't expect anyone to come over here and read this entire, very long and complicated talk page - and if they want to do so, then they can just as easily check the archive.  As far as I'm concerned, this discussion should be long over.  We'll leave it for now, at your request - but this page needs to be archived sooner rather than later.  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Archiving is needed. Someone can summarise the previous discussion, but anyone wanting to read it should go into the archives. Carcharoth 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to archive all but the most recent and relevant content, but my archival was entirely reverted. .  That's why I posted the above message, which was not even responded to by the editor who undid the archiving.  Dreadlocke  ☥  22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving