Talk:T206

Recent edits

I am not sure whyb some of my edits were removed when I expressly cited almost everything; they were not "unsubstantiated opinions". Even if none of the theories can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they are coming from valid media outlets (i.e. they are verifiable), then they are valid for inclusion in the article. Also, I am not sure how any of my sources could be considered "outdated", except possibly some value estimates, when we are talking about a historic item. -Big Smooth 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but articles from 5 years ago stating that there were 200 wagners are not exactly up to date. Stating your opinion as to why these theories are or are not true is no conducive to the environment here. Go to the net54 board or do some reading. That article on the nytimes does not add value in any way. Not trying to be mean, just trying to keep to the concept of wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverinegod (talk • contribs)

Here's the thing. Looking at your edits, it is pretty likely that you know more about this subject than I do. However, I completely disagree that I violated the "concept of Wiki" with my edits. Per official policy, Wikipedia articles must consist of verifiable information and be written from a neutral point of view. My version of the article included properly cited information from reliable sources, and listed all of the theories I could find. I did not introduce my personal opinion regarding any of the theories. It seems you disagree with the Beckett price guide analyst who stated in the CNET article that as many as 200 Wagners exist. In fact, I disagree with this as well, but since the information came from a reliable source, it is valid for inclusion in the article. Unless you can find a newer article that completely refutes that fact, it is not "outdated" in this context either. The "nytimes" article you refer to (I am assuming you mean the New York Daily News article) also comes from a major media outlet and has information directly relating to the article, so I fail to see how it does not add value.

Let me put it this way: even if you felt you were the world's foremost authority on the T206 set, information published by a reliable source would supercede any unsourced information you added to this Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is not for original research. A revert war is pointless, so if you still disagree we can take further steps towards dispute resolution. -Big Smooth 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any issue with Big's edit - it is referenced and the references are from as good of a source as you can probably expect on such a topic. I would say stick with these edits, if more up-to-date references can be found regarding the number of cards (and any other concerns) then these can replace the supplied references when they become available. Thanks/wangi 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have a source does not mean it's a good source. Much of this information does not need to be sourced because it is essentially common knowledge. If you want to elaborate more on the article, then get reading and then update it. There are websites dedicated to this series and a great discussion board on net54 that is all about pre-war cards. Go pick up Lew Lipset's encyclopedia and most importantly, The Monster by Bill Heitman. It is the first great work on the set and though it is from 1980 and does have some dated information, it is the best source overall. Other works have been published since then as well. Stating how many are produced is bogus because NOBODY KNOWS... the best we can do is guess as to how many are in existance. But again, since it cannot be proven, it does not need to be referenced. It is pure conjecture.--Wolverinegod 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on other editors to "read up" so that they agree with you on the content of this article. For 99% of the population, none of this is "common knowledge", which is why the onus is on you to justify your edits. If the two books you mention back up your edits and are reliable sources, simply cite them and you could easily clear this whole thing up. In addition, you keep misconstruing my edits - I never "stated how many were produced" - I gave a wide range as estimated by multiple media sources. -Big Smooth 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Wolverinegod/Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional material in Honus_Wagner#T206_Baseball_card

I just added some interesting material about the most famous card, cited to a LA Times article on its recent sale. Head's up for whoever might want to add more here. --Bobak 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip a rarey?

"Hindu - Found in both brown ink and red ink (rare)". So which is rare, the Hindu, or the red ink variety? Trekphiler (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that a card with both inks is rare, which would mean the Hindu back is rare. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source & include that? It's not clear as is... Trekphiler (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]