Talk:Alex Elmsley

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Magic Stub‑class Mid‑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 Stub This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

as he is so famous for the count - there should be a description, with spoiler warning of course Tiksustoo 12:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The special count used in Elmsley's 4 Card Trick was a great invention to the magical world 'great invention' isn't impartial: there are no references to demonstrate that this invention was great. suggest delete these words Centretear (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, reference it properly. To the layman, having a suitably referenced remark like "great invention", or better yet, something like "an indispensable part of the card magician's toolkit", conveys a lot more than just deleting remarks because they aren't "impartial". The layman needs "partial" remarks by experts to understand the context. --C S (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody fixed this in almost 3 years since it was pointed out. Puffery has no place in a biographical (or other) article. --V2Blast (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]