Talk:Ursula Martinez

Hanky panky

The trick involves a false finger that holds the handkerchief. I couldn't find a cite, but it's obvious from the video. (Obviously the point of the sketch is what she's doing to distract viewers.) If there were a cite we could put a spoiler warning. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, it certainly looks as if she's using a fake finger for the hanky. But I'm almost positive that she takes the last one out from her . Her website calls it a "truly magical place" (??) It's probably really painful.

Also, I was looking at this article's history, and while I can agree that the guy who keeps saying it comes out of her is a real buffoon, he might have a point... It certainly doesn't look like she uses the thumbtip for the final hanky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.97.41 (talk • contribs).

Your opinion from viewing the video is original research and we are unable to include it in the article. P.S. Don't think we don't notice that all these edits come from the 75.*.*.* netblock. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody knows what exactly is name of music piece played in the background of hanky panky? It seems to be quite well known, maybe it should be mentioned in the article?

It appears to be the main theme from the titles of A Shot in the Dark. --213.91.184.25 (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No false finger or false thumb tip involved. That can be easily verified by stepping through the YouTube video of her performance one frame at a time. All one sees is five normal digits on each hand. It's probably done with the help of off-stage assistants: There are different hankies for each stage of undress, each tied to a thin nylon monofilament line, and after the hanky is stuffed into her fist, an assistant yanks it out and makes it disappear off-stage, probably with the aid of some kind of motorized reel or other mechanism, so fast that the eye can't follow. The hanky is red and she's performing against a mostly-red background, making it easier to pull off the illusion. Even stopping the video doesn't quite reveal the subterfuge, but there are some anomalies in the video where one can see a blotch of red against the performer's hand, just before she begins to wave her arms around and then opens her palms to show that the hanky is gone. Part of the problem in seeing it is that YouTube videos are highly compressed. One would need an uncompressed high definition video to see what actually happens. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that explanation is way over the top. She's also not behind a red background all the time. Sometimes she's on a platform in the middle of the crowd. Let's just stick to Occam's razor. The fact that she always needs to put both hands into her skirt, into her bra & into her panties pretty much indicates that she pulls it out of a device attached to one hand. In total there are two hankies. The second one is indeed pulled out of her vag where is already was in the beginning.2003:CC:8716:3000:F8F8:A02:62DC:8C3F (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

This edit is basically a straight C&P job from Ursula's official Web site. That ain't kosher.75.41.1.94 (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the offending text was removed. However, the article is so lacking in content, that it no longer establishes notability. -- Robocoder (t|c) 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy surely suggests the first approach here should be to try to improve the article rather than argue about notability. Having worked on quite a few biographies of magicians and knowing something of the profession I think there's no question that she is notable. The task is to find sources and write an article which fits Wiki requirements. I'll do what I can but it might take me a while.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Assessment

Per request at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment, I assessed the article. It's significantly better than when it was marked with {{refinprove}} and {{notable}} tags and in danger of being nominated for deletion, as a result of the good work done by Bdixon in April 2010. However, it's still a Stub class article based on length and amount of coverage, per the Quality Scale, although the references are considerably better than typical for this stage of development. The body needs fleshing out now to be promoted, IMO. — Becksguy (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)