Talk:Wizard

MoS:DP compliance

Please see MoS:DP. Entries should have only one link, and they should not be ordered chronologically, they should be ordered by frequency of usage. Etymology and reference sections belong in articles, not on disambiguation pages, which exist for the sole purpose of helping readers to navigate to the desired article when multiple articles have ambiguous titles. --Muchness 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information."

Which is why I only added notable links.

Most (but not all) of these are equally esoteric.

"For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common. Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top."

I appreciate thhe response : )

- Jc37 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points: firstly, the "unless" qualifier you quoted is referring to entries where the disambiguated term is a redlink. If an article exists at the disambiguated title there is no reason to add an additional link to the entry. You also used pipes to conceal the parenthetical disambiguation in several entries, which should not be done under the given circumstances. --Muchness 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, wow. You reverted the page in the same minute you posted this. Did you even give a thought to a reply from me? I'd like to AGF, but wow. - Jc37 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you've taken offence; none was intended. My honest and good faith assessment was that your edit was counter to the disambiguation page guidelines – and more to the point, counter to the intended function of dab pages. If you want to make edits in contradiction to Wikipedia's style and content guidelines, I respectfully request that you make the case and establish consensus here on the talk page before adding them to the article. --Muchness 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Magician

I have put the most common usage -- the actual articles about wizards -- up front. Goldfritha 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page about wizards. While "magicians" should obviously be noted, they shouldn't be noted in this way. - jc37 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are the articles that contain the information about the most common usage of "wizard". Putting them at the bottom violates Wikipedia rules about disambiguation pages. Goldfritha 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to show me (giving examples) of how this "violates Wikipedia rules about disambiguation pages". As Snowfire may tell you, we've had several rather long discussions about the introduction to this page. : ) - jc37 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While normally a disambig page should concentrate on things with that name, it also has to take into account the meaning of that name. For instance, fate and destiny are basically synonyms, so the article is at destiny- but the very first link on fate's disambig page is to Destiny, despite it not being the same name. SnowFire 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't entirely disagree with you in this Snowfire, I do think that the implementation in this case is not the way to go. If you're interested in starting another discussion about this, I'm willing, I suppose.- jc37 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not the way to go? What is the distinction between wizards and magicians that makes it unsuitable? Goldfritha 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable opening

The current opening line reads "A wizard is a person with magical powers, exceptional or extraordinary abilities, or a high standing within an organization." (emphasis mine). The last part sounds like a Ku Klux Klan reference. Are there more organizations which use this noun as a title, if not, remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.222.66 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

On many online games and talkers, the senior administrators are called 'wizards'. In any case, I'm not sure why something is 'objectionable' because it relates solely to the KKK. Certainly the KKK are offensive to many people, but as an uncensored encyclopedia we are required to cover offensive topics alongside inoffensive ones. TSP (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?

Someone has just put in the "Literature" section, the enigmatic statement "Wizards can also be animals" (with no links). Odds are it's just someone mucking about, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what they might mean otherwise.

• Misplaced piece of info about wizards of fantasy+legend?
• Some species of animal actually called a "wizard"?
• Something to do with "furries" or such?!
• Something more esoteric than that, that I'm not seeing?

It's kinda hurting my brain. --OccasionalTomble (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? Disambiguation pages are for distinguishing between Wikipedia pages which might otherwise appear at the same name ('Wizard'). As the added line doesn't refer to any page, I've removed it. TSP (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Entries that are on Wizard (comics) still need to appear here if they are ambiguous with Wizard. Entries that are not known as just "Wizard" do not need to be disambiguated, but can appear in the See also section if they aren't deleted. See WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Think I'll have to go with Jc37's version. I've been doing the same thing; replacing comics characters with a single entry, a set index article. The see also thing was his idea, but not too paltry IMO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop doing that. The presence of any list of articles on a set index article has no bearing on the presence of any entries on a disambiguation page. If an article is ambiguous (e.g. Wizard (DC Comics)), then it needs to be disambiguated, period. The (comics) so-called set-index articles appear in this case to be incomplete disambiguations, and should instead become redirects to the dab as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Now, I have no issue with your creating the set index articles if you like, but requiring the dab reader to go from the dab to the SIA to the sought article is a detriment, not a benefit, and the dab page is supposed to be a navigational aid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I barely even edit SIAs. It's User:Emperor who helped establish most of these pages. Anyway, I have asked Jc37 to join in on this thread. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You said you've been doing the same thing, so I was responding to that. Again, no direct problem with establishing set indexes on comics if there's some utility in having a set index article on a comics topic. The problem is with putting the set index article in between the dab page and the page the reader is looking for (which makes the set index article instead serve the purpose of an incomplete disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I really don't care if the list of 3 characters resides here or at the other dab page. But there should be a link between the two regardless.

Second, I wholly disagree with splitting the forms of the word "wizard" to the "see also" section. Alternate spellings (such as one or more "s" or "z"), and modifying adjectives should be just fine. - jc37 05:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the set index article only duplicates entries that should be here (since they are ambiguously title-able "Wizard", nothing would be gained by linking it here. Alternate forms of Wizards are iffy; I'll restore them to the list (Wizzard, Wizardzz, The Wizzard). What you call modifying adjectives fall under the WP:D#Lists guideline (Wizards of Waverly Place, Electric Wizard, "Pinball Wizard", Wizard of New Zealand, Wizard of Menlo Park). There is no significant risk of confusion of those with "wizard", so they should not be included, but I merely moved them to "See also" (along with "Wizardry") instead of deleting them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I knew, dab pages were for navigation.

(Note that "wizards" redirects here.)

So I fully can see someone typing "wizards" for the Wizards of Waverly Place".

Or "wizard" in the hopes of finding the page for that electric light guy they remember from when they were young. (Likely for a senior citizen.)

Just because you or I may be clear on something (due to having the information in front of us) doesn't mean that the average editor will.

That's why these things are here, and such pages exist.

Now that said, perhaps you can clarify how removing them from the topical sections (or perhaps even from the page) will help in navigation for such homonyms/homophones (and semi-homonyms/homophones) of wizard? - jc37 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:D#Lists, which you appear to be disagreeing with ("Disambiguation pages are not search indices). A change in the guidelines can be discussed at WT:D. The homophones have already been restored; the "semi-homophones" (i.e., the "links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion") are in a See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I went thought the page history (and the talk archives).

That edit was a WP:BOLD edit Jan 1 2006. (Not unlike most edits around here : )

Anyway, based on the discussion above, the "wizard(s) of..." are specifically regarding such a confusion.

Not sure about Wizards of Waverly Place, since it's really the name of a fictional work, which isn't directly disabiguating wizard from anything. - jc37 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also restored the link to the list in the "see also" section. That's where all the "wizards" are listed. (And helps point "enthusiastic editors" -> That way : ) - jc37 13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sooo, you're reverting without any note whatsoever, even though we're having the discussion here?

That aside, I really question whether you're actually reading the guidelines.

These are not "links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion". As I noted above.

If you disagree, fine, but then let's discuss that. - jc37 09:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you're position is that someone will see the phrase "Wizard of Menlo Park" in some source that does not identify the subject as Thomas Edison, then that someone might search Wikipedia to find out who the Wizard of Menlo Park is, and in order to do so that someone would enter just "Wizard" (and not "Wizard of Menlo Park") into the search box? My position is that that scenario is too far-fetched, as Wizard of Menlo Park is a link that merely contains part of the page title with not significant risk of confusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go even further and suggest that in some work from the late 1800s through the early 1900s if someone in New York said (or wrote) "the Wizard" (often in context of some invention), the implication is there. The "of Menlo Park" is merely an early "dab phrase".

Same goes for most any X of Z.

Consider: The Wizard of DC Comics or The Wizard of Oz.

Just because we choose to use parenthetical phrases here on Wikipedia doesn't mean that the rest of the world does or has in every case. - jc37 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wizard (DC Comics) and Wizard (Oz) exist because they are different in the rest of the world from Wizard of Menlo Park. If it were the same, Wizard (Menlo Park) would exist (and survive the RfD). We choose to use the parenthetical phrases here because of how they are used in the rest of the world. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The format of parentheses is used because there was a discussion in which Wikipedia editors perferred that format. Not because it was pervasive elsewhere. In fact, in English, such disambiguation is typically done due to the Genitive case, and/or with prepositional phrases. (See also. wikt:of.)

And redirects are for navigation. So a redirect can exist for any term which someone might search using. - jc37 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And what's your intent with the "nicknames" section? Are they not all people? And further, AFAIK, the sections should be alphabetical is there's no real concern about what should be "first". In the case of this page, obviously wizards of fantasy and myth should be at the top (which they are). And following that the rest are alphabetical. (Keeping the listing neutral.) - jc37 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nicknames" is a more accurate section heading. All of the entries in it have a nickname of Wizard (or some other nickname that merely contains part of the page title with no significant risk of confusion. Why AFAYK should the sections be alphabetical? There is no neutrality guidelines for disambiguation pages, but there is an "order of probability" guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality guidelines affect all of Wikipedia. (It's actuially a Foundation issue.) - jc37 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probability is also neutral, but I'll fall back to my question: your position is that a user (a person today, not in the 1800s) would be able to find a mention of the "Wizard of Menlo Park" that does not make it clear that the subject is Thomas Edison, that the user would come to Wikipedia to find out who the "Wizard of Menlo Park" is, and rather than enter "Wizard of Menlo Park" in the search box (thereby reaching the intended page) would instead enter just "Wizard" in the search box? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probability is neutral? How did you come to that conclusion? Is there some verifiable reliable source which you're quoting which notes the probability? Or is it your own personal opinion? - jc37 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the neutral guidelines on disambiguation, which gives ways of neutrally measuring it. Please read WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MS-DOS game

There was a small MS-DOS game named "Wizzard" produced in the early 1980s which was enormously popular. Information about it is hard to come by. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Archmage Redirect

Someone decided to try and redirect Archmage here. When I reverted it, he put a merge tag on. Does anyone think the merge is a good idea. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Archmage is an article. Wizard is not. They cannot be merged without first making them both either articles or non-articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary Link

The link created by the wiktionary template used on this page links to 'Wizard', a non exisiting page, on Wiktionary instead of 'wizard', although the template parameter given is 'wizard'. The reason I am stating this here is that I do not know where to find the templates and how to edit them. (I also tried to fix this by adding a redirect, but apparently they have a policy of no cross-case redirects, which I learned after I've been blocked, while writing the reason for that redirect onto the discussion page.) Fiveop (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a known issue. See Template talk:Wiktionary#initial capitalization. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 178.2.124.7 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics wizards and Category:Marvel Comics wizards are being proposed for deletion

I think these are both valid categories as the categories for witches already exist. User Ryulong is reverting all of my edits. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Wizard → Wizard (disambiguation) – Wizard should be redirected to Magician (fantasy) as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. That is the obvious primary topic now that Wizard (paranormal) was merged, and all other uses are merely based on it. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Inclined to oppose. It might have been merged, but Magic (paranormal) should still be considered when determining primary topic. Wizard (Dungeons & Dragons) and Wizard (Middle-earth) are also of equal prominence to Magician (fantasy), even if they are derived from it. Additionally Wizard (card game), Wizards (film) and The Wizard (film) get a significant amount of traffic themselves. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Fantasy? Oppose, the proper primary redirect is Magic (paranormal) where the page was merged to. A direct comparison would be if Witch were redirected to something to do with fantasy, or to a disamb page, which wouldn't happen. This one shouldn't either. Redirecting to the Magic paranormal page, or to Witchcraft, is next best to the real thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Magician (fantasy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Supernatural/paranormal at top

@Wjemather: can you please point out the discussion about Wizard (supernatural) (note, this is a different article from Wizard (fantasy)) being primary or appearing at the top? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now that one person in the move discussion above thought it should be primary. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If the link is going to appear at the top of the page as the primary, then this page should follow standard disambiguation page formatting. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also #Magician, an old but relevant discussion. Makes sense to have the principal meaning/definition at the top (per MOS:DABFIRST), since almost everything else derives its name from this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 06:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus that Magic (supernatural) is not the primary topic for "wizard". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Wizard → Wizard (disambiguation) – "Wizard" should redirect to Magic (supernatural)#Magicians as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this has WP:SURPRISE potential if you're not very familiar with the topic. There's a lot of text on Magic (supernatural), and only one mention of wizards (in a quote that isn't otherwise especially related). I think it's just as likely someone would want Magician (fantasy). Nohomersryan (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Magician (fantasy) has a much stronger claim to primariness. Readers are more likely to be seeking information about fictional wizards than real(?) ones. Colin M (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – disambiguation is better than this primarytopic takeover. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Magician (fantasy) is clearly a better primary topic. JIP | Talk 13:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence this is the primary topic and it's odd that the proposer hasn't even tried to provide any. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is just technical instructions for what to do when a primary topic has been established and it happens to be a redirect. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. There is no primary topic. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.