Talk:Magician

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Neopaganism

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles

Occult

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles

Merge with Magicians?[edit]

Is it worth merging this page with the "Magicians" disambiguation page? Acbsmith (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acbsmith: Could you give a link, I can't figure out what page you're referring to. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm assuming it's The Magicians. I'd say no. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems that it would make sense to have the three tv shows The Magicians (US TV series), The Magicians (UK TV series), and The Magician (TV series) all next to each other would be clearer than having them split over two pages. ACB Smith (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a reasonable merger to me, since the resulting page wouldn't be excessively long. There are already two Magicians films here, one of which isn't in The Magicians. Also, the redirect Magicians points here, not there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: @Jeraphine Gryphon: Additionally, one of the films is mentioned on both pages. I've done a draft of how a merge might look at User:acbsmith/sandbox. ACB Smith (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks acceptable to me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got one too many blue links for the US TV series, but otherwise it looks okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm assuming that "The Magicians (TV series)" and other similar pages would point to the disambiguation page? I'll go ahead and make the move this afternoon- it's going to be a little messy with cleaning up backlinks, so it might take a little bit of time. ACB Smith (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've done my best to clean up all the incoming links. ACB Smith (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magicians episodes[edit]

Alex 21, I have no idea what you're trying to do. Now you've introduced a circular link to the page. What is the purpose of that? -- Fyrael (talk)

The article redirects here due to disambiguation, as it originally did. It therefore needs to be linked here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense and you haven't answered the question: what is the purpose? What user in what situation could possibly get use out of a link on this page that brings them back to this same page?

Edit for clarification: I'm only asking this question to get you to think about why circular links are undesirable. There is no actual question as to their usefulness. They are categorically not useful and I've only ever seen them created by accident. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguated articles have their undisambiguated version, which redirects here, and if the former cannot be linked here, then the latter should be. The articles need to be linked here in some fashion, as should any article that redirects to a disambiguation page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give the actual articles you're referring to that would be helpful because I can't tell which ones you're talking about. As to your second point, that's entirely backwards. There should NEVER be a link to a redirect that points back to the same page. That's called a circular link. That serves no purpose. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguated articles are the articles I linked on this disambiguation page, but you removed. If I cannot link them, then I should link the undisambigated article. Something needs linking here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two list article to the See Also section. I agree with Fyrael that they are not necessary, because they are not ambiguous with "Magician", but they don't really hurt in the See Also section. Links to recursive redirects do hurt, though. Station1 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've removed them. "They don't really hurt" does not seem like an actual reason for inclusion. Yes, a person who arrives here could be looking for episodes of one of these shows. They could also be looking for all of the characters in that show, or a list of notable illusionists, or the discography of the band The Magicians. We do not try to link to every possible aspect of a topic that someone might look for. We link to the actual topic that matches the DAB title, and the reader can navigate from there. I don't see why these two TV shows would be an exception. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support Fyrael. The connection to TV episodes is far too weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as mentioned at WT:WPDAB, the reason for the exception is that List of The Magicians episodes is incomplete disambiguation and while it redirected here, there technically should be somewhere for people to go. So I converted List of The Magicians episodes to a dab page instead. That should solve it. Station1 (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds...good...I think. This has been a strange one. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]