Category talk:Magician

I’d like to change this definition to something more accurate, since it is really describing a stage magician, not neccessarily a magic user. I would make it something like this;

Possibly broadest title for a person that practices magic. Magicians are known to use any or all of the more specialized disciplines. A trait common to someone described as a magician is the ability to make things ‘appear out of thin air’. This is not limited to physical items, but may include producing seemingly impossible results in a given situation. Magicians are also know for accomplishing the opposite, making something ‘disappear into thin air’. Real magicians should not be confused with stage magicians, who are more properly considered to be illusionists. (Not intended to be a definitive description as many people use the various terms for magic-users interchangeably.)

@LXD: That is because this category is not meant to describe a general magic user. It is specifically about the occupation stage magician or illusionist, regardless of the individual's methods. (It is a subcategory of the category Occupation.)
For the broader, more general, practitioners of magic you are referring to check out the categories/pages called Category:Magic User and Category:Mage. --Feronius 23:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then that means that real magicians are not part of this category unless they are performers as well. I think stage magician should become it’s own category, and both category descriptions can include caveats for either. Part of my purpose here is to add some distinction between the terms for magic users. To me, magician and mage are not the same thing. --LXD (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you already tried searching for "Category:Magic User"? This category, Magician, is specifically about stage magicians. That is why it is listed under Occupation.
Separate categories already exist called "Magic User", "Mage" and more than a dozen subcategories that include Battlemage, Enchanter, Druid, Necromancer, Warlock and Witch. Just to name a few. --Feronius 8:43, 3 April 2018

I see that you seem to be insisting that it remain exclusionary to real magicians, and I am asking, why should it remain so? You haven't actually stated any reasons to not go ahead with the changes I proposed other than maintaining the status quo. Perhaps I was not clear, I realize my first example did not include the caveats for performers calling themselves "Magicians" to be acceptable. I am proposing that "Magician" can be under both categories, magic-user and occupation, but the wording would need to be changed so that it does not require being a performer necessarily.