Talk:Numismatic Guaranty Company

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

Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Controversies Section

The controversy section here (as well as the one at PCGS) is pure crap. Obviously there's going to be rivalries within the coin collecting niche, but putting together every little negative detail about a company (such as a Coin World article comparing the grading agencies from 2003) seems a bit much to me. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wiki policies

Many recent edits to the NGC article have blatantly violated Wikipedia's rules. Kindly note that Wiki is not a free advertising site WP:PROMOTION; a place to list trivial and non-notable facts, such as NGC holder improvements or info about any of thousands of major collections it has certified WP:ORG; nor a site to include other non-encyclopedic info, such as when it certified its 10 millionth coin or what any of millions of NGC coins have sold for at auction WP:NOT. Also, all entries must be properly linked to verifiable sources and not include opinions. For instance, the blanket claim that "certification does not determine value" is absurdly false and directly debunked by the linked sources. In addition, all info must be written in a short, concise, encyclopedic manner WP:WBA, such as using a formal tone WP:COLLOQUIAL.--R&BpopROCK (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]